4 ms·

Calling Portland "dense" is hysterical. As a Portlander, I can say we are a terrible example of what NIMBYism does to efforts to lower housing costs by adding

Calling Portland "dense" is hysterical. As a Portlander, I can say we are a terrible example of what NIMBYism does to efforts to lower housing costs by adding density. Our city has a decent public transit setup and if the focus was on adding usable density with improved transit options, rather than people trying to protect neighborhoods, we'd be much better off. I am fine with Lyft wanting this regulated at the state level. It seems like a weird hill to die on for Portland.

SilasX 8y ago
“Less dense than than optimal” does not imply “density effects don’t matter for city management as claimed in the letter [eg for scarcity of road capacity or pickup points]”.
- pdx_flyer 8y ago
  Well, the city has done very little to move density forward. They continue to approve buildings that are mostly overpriced, poorly built, studio apartments. The other problem is that the commute pattern in Portland isn't into downtown only. There are people who commute from the east side of town, through downtown, through the tunnel (or one of the other limited transit options over the hills) to Beaverton or Hillsboro to work at Nike, Intel, etc. The efficient public transit options for that commute simply don't exist. It can take 1.5+ hours to do that via MAX and bus.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Which, I agree, are important issues, but don't obviate the mayor's reference to municipalities' need to manage the problems of density (rather than be overridden by voters that don't encounter such problems).
ppseafield 8y ago
Usually what happens when things get regulated at the state level is that change is a lot slower to happen, and the state might have either indifference toward or opposing interest with the city. There's already kind of a Portland-vs-rest-of-Oregon dynamic, plus a Portland-vs-Clark-Washington-Clackamas-Counties dynamic. I think the process that we've done in Portland is pretty decent: have a prototype/trial period, see how traffic patterns change, evaluate trade-offs and safety, then pass laws based on the experience. Lyft even previously worked directly with the city to develop and implement these local rules. It's not clear to me that preventing Portland from regulating services like Lyft without state intervention is a win. Certainly Bend, Medford, Seaside, etc. would probably benefit from their own rules. Perhaps legislation that facilitates some basic ground rules would be helpful, but also allowing for additional local regulation would be the best fit. When the state complicates or bans local regulation/development, seems like the trend is to just stop it and then do nothing else. For example North Carolina's HB1 bathroom bill, Chattanooga's municipal fiber vs. AT&T's lobbying for bans, Atlanta's MARTA being at the mercy of the state legislative branch for its funding.
orblivion 8y ago
> Calling Portland "dense" is hysterical. I remember taking a Lyft (merely coincidental to this story) on a visit during Halloween. There were like two bars on the street we were on, each with maybe 10 or 15 people outside. "Crazy night tonight!" ...

SilasX 8y ago

“Less dense than than optimal” does not imply “density effects don’t matter for city management as claimed in the letter [eg for scarcity of road capacity or pickup points]”.

pdx_flyer 8y ago
Well, the city has done very little to move density forward. They continue to approve buildings that are mostly overpriced, poorly built, studio apartments. The other problem is that the commute pattern in Portland isn't into downtown only. There are people who commute from the east side of town, through downtown, through the tunnel (or one of the other limited transit options over the hills) to Beaverton or Hillsboro to work at Nike, Intel, etc. The efficient public transit options for that commute simply don't exist. It can take 1.5+ hours to do that via MAX and bus.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Which, I agree, are important issues, but don't obviate the mayor's reference to municipalities' need to manage the problems of density (rather than be overridden by voters that don't encounter such problems).

ppseafield 8y ago

Usually what happens when things get regulated at the state level is that change is a lot slower to happen, and the state might have either indifference toward or opposing interest with the city. There's already kind of a Portland-vs-rest-of-Oregon dynamic, plus a Portland-vs-Clark-Washington-Clackamas-Counties dynamic. I think the process that we've done in Portland is pretty decent: have a prototype/trial period, see how traffic patterns change, evaluate trade-offs and safety, then pass laws based on the experience. Lyft even previously worked directly with the city to develop and implement these local rules. It's not clear to me that preventing Portland from regulating services like Lyft without state intervention is a win. Certainly Bend, Medford, Seaside, etc. would probably benefit from their own rules. Perhaps legislation that facilitates some basic ground rules would be helpful, but also allowing for additional local regulation would be the best fit. When the state complicates or bans local regulation/development, seems like the trend is to just stop it and then do nothing else. For example North Carolina's HB1 bathroom bill, Chattanooga's municipal fiber vs. AT&T's lobbying for bans, Atlanta's MARTA being at the mercy of the state legislative branch for its funding.

orblivion 8y ago

> Calling Portland "dense" is hysterical. I remember taking a Lyft (merely coincidental to this story) on a visit during Halloween. There were like two bars on the street we were on, each with maybe 10 or 15 people outside. "Crazy night tonight!" ...