This project looks like a slightly nicer version of a Central City Concern apartment building that went up in the Hazelwood neighborhood in East Portland. Not enough parking, no security, an open invitation to any and every tenant who could claim some kind of victim status.
At one time, the Hazelwood neighborhood might have been headed towards "gentrification." I know, an ugly word. But most people -- whatever their skin color or ethnicity -- would rather live in a nice neighborhood or one that is becoming nicer.
About a year after that apartment building went up, a Portland woman who lived nearby had her car stolen. She had just bought this car, and there was a mix-up with the transfer of title. The police refused to take her stolen car report, because she did not have proper title. Eventually, a man driving the car was pulled over by police in Salem for an unrelated crime, and the car was towed. It racked up a $1,900 lien.
The Portland woman filed a complaint against the police for refusing to take her stolen car report. The police and the DMV did not do right by this woman, who was also a veteran. But city planners also failed her. They made her neighborhood more welcoming to criminals (yes, I know, it's an old-fashioned word in Portland).
One of her neighbors, who lives in a house across the street from the apartment building, told me that after it opened, he had to put up a security fence when his car and home were repeatedly burglarized. He pointed to another house adjacent to the apartment building and told me it was bought by a first-time homebuyer, a teacher. A dangerous sign of gentrification? The teacher bought into the neighborhood before the apartment building went up. After it opened, she ended up with a homicide victim in a yard next to hers. There are worse things than gentrification, and that's one of them.
Most people are not criminals. They live where they can afford to live and try to make the best of it. Portland is hoping the law-abiding will rehabilitate the dirtbags. It isn't working because the law-abiding don't have enough support.
But in any case, the beached whale could have been worse. There, at least, income is the only criterion the city will use when determining who is eligible to apply for one of the apartments for people who have not just escaped homelessness.
Contrast this with the Hattie Redmond apartments in Kenton, which are expected to open this fall. Who exactly owns or will own the building is hard to tell, but according to the Portland Housing Bureau's website the cast includes Home Forward, as "sponsor " and the Urban League as "service partner.” What follows is my opinion about the Hattie Redmond apartments and certain organizations associated with the project. Others may consider the facts and come away with completely different opinions.
Hattie Redmond differs from the Montavilla project in at least two ways. First, all of the building's units, 60, are for "people exiting homelessness." So far, so good.
Where the people and organizations running Hattie Redmond seem to go into the weeds is with the other criterion that determines who is eligible to live there. Let’s be clear: the Portland Housing Bureau did not come right out and say Hattie Redmond will operate in violation of the Fair Housing Act with discriminatory practices that make housing unavailable to persons because of their color, race or national origin. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1
Instead, the Housing Bureau describes Hattie Redmond's criteria for selecting tenants like this:
"Hattie Redmond Apartments is Home Forward’s 60-unit new construction project in the Kenton neighborhood of North Portland. This neighborhood is also part of Albina, the historic center of Portland’s Black/African American community. All units in the building will be permanent supportive housing (PSH) targeted to individuals who have experienced homelessness and request culturally specific services for African Americans, with the goal of reconnecting displaced residents to the Albina community."
Might defense counsel get a court to buy the notion that the apartment really will make "culturally specific services [intended] for African Americans" available to tenants of any other race, color or national origin, provided that they have experienced homelessness and have been “displaced” from Albina, whatever that means? Could a creative lawyer representing the defendants in a housing discrimination lawsuit successfully argue that the scheme isn't discriminatory because "targeting" a black tenant population doesn't necessarily mean that tenants of other races are excluded? Who knows? It’s not outlandish to think, though, that running an apartment in accordance with the Portland Housing Bureau’s description might land the owners and management of Hattie Redmond in court.
The project sponsor, Home Forward, is somewhat more explicit about the practices that will prevail there:
"Design is underway for 60 new studio apartments in North Portland along the Interstate light rail line. Home Forward and Urban League of Portland are partnering to provide permanent supportive housing to people who have experienced homelessness. The vision for North Baldwin is inspired in part by Urban League’s successful Project HAVEN, founded in 2016. Urban League’s model provides focused and intensive services to address homelessness in the Black community, a population over-represented in the homeless community yet underserved."
The foregoing language might make it harder for the Hattie Redmond apartments to evade charges of racially motivated housing discrimination. It would be difficult to argue that whites would find room there given that Home Forward is as good as saying there's a shortage of housing for formerly homeless blacks. Still, perhaps the day might come when all the black homeless people in Portland have been housed and the Hattie Redmond will welcome its first white tenant.
The project architect's description of the Hattie Redmond's intended tenant demographic, on the other hand, is plaintiffs' counsel's dream come true. SERA's website says:
"The Hattie Redmond Apartments is culturally-specific, permanent supportive housing located in the Kenton neighborhood. A joint venture between Home Forward and the Urban League of Portland, the project provides housing for chronically displaced Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) — particularly those facing past trauma, addiction, disability, and in need of stable housing and support. Sited in a North Portland neighborhood with its own history of segregation, the design is focused on equity as a guiding principle."
Like kids charged with keeping a secret, some allies of the diversity-equity-and-inclusion movement just can't help letting the cat out of the bag.
By way of a caveat, all of the foregoing assumes that the Fair Housing Act and other local and state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing are still in full force and effect. If they have been amended so as to permit the owners and operators of an apartment to engage in present discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in order to remedy past discrimination, or if the published descriptions of the apartments’ operating rules are incorrect or misleading and nobody has the slightest intent of renting only to BIPOC, then . . . well, never mind. In the latter case the responsible organizations would do well to amend their websites to avoid misunderstandings.
I am familiar with the area because the Fred Meyers we go to is just down the street. I have though a more unpleasant memory from the early 1980's of attending a church service near there and I think the TV station at one time was owned by or used by the church. This was only a few years after the Peoples Temple and I went with a "friend" who was attending it. It was my first and last experience with 'End Timers' and it scared the crap out of me at the time. So in my opinion this is an improvement.
Let me guess, free questioning was not allowed, all queries were vetted, and the claim was failing to support high density housing meant you were a rich, evil racist?
In Astoria common sense finally prevailed against a similar project ($34 million) but in tiny Astoria 105 units would be like 3000 in one place in Portland. Like Cabrini-Green? You’ll love this. When the true cost of the project became know (it was a proposed mental health center and ultra-low cost housing in the small, historic city center) the three (outgoing) councilors changed their votes, and the City Council voted unanimously to deny.
Bringing high density, affordable housing into an incredibly expensive market like Portland is very difficult. I could not afford my home there, but I don’t expect the powers that be to force others to allow me there (a purely hypothetical question in this case).
This project looks like a slightly nicer version of a Central City Concern apartment building that went up in the Hazelwood neighborhood in East Portland. Not enough parking, no security, an open invitation to any and every tenant who could claim some kind of victim status.
At one time, the Hazelwood neighborhood might have been headed towards "gentrification." I know, an ugly word. But most people -- whatever their skin color or ethnicity -- would rather live in a nice neighborhood or one that is becoming nicer.
About a year after that apartment building went up, a Portland woman who lived nearby had her car stolen. She had just bought this car, and there was a mix-up with the transfer of title. The police refused to take her stolen car report, because she did not have proper title. Eventually, a man driving the car was pulled over by police in Salem for an unrelated crime, and the car was towed. It racked up a $1,900 lien.
The Portland woman filed a complaint against the police for refusing to take her stolen car report. The police and the DMV did not do right by this woman, who was also a veteran. But city planners also failed her. They made her neighborhood more welcoming to criminals (yes, I know, it's an old-fashioned word in Portland).
One of her neighbors, who lives in a house across the street from the apartment building, told me that after it opened, he had to put up a security fence when his car and home were repeatedly burglarized. He pointed to another house adjacent to the apartment building and told me it was bought by a first-time homebuyer, a teacher. A dangerous sign of gentrification? The teacher bought into the neighborhood before the apartment building went up. After it opened, she ended up with a homicide victim in a yard next to hers. There are worse things than gentrification, and that's one of them.
Most people are not criminals. They live where they can afford to live and try to make the best of it. Portland is hoping the law-abiding will rehabilitate the dirtbags. It isn't working because the law-abiding don't have enough support.
De gustibus non est disputandum . . .
But in any case, the beached whale could have been worse. There, at least, income is the only criterion the city will use when determining who is eligible to apply for one of the apartments for people who have not just escaped homelessness.
Contrast this with the Hattie Redmond apartments in Kenton, which are expected to open this fall. Who exactly owns or will own the building is hard to tell, but according to the Portland Housing Bureau's website the cast includes Home Forward, as "sponsor " and the Urban League as "service partner.” What follows is my opinion about the Hattie Redmond apartments and certain organizations associated with the project. Others may consider the facts and come away with completely different opinions.
Hattie Redmond differs from the Montavilla project in at least two ways. First, all of the building's units, 60, are for "people exiting homelessness." So far, so good.
Where the people and organizations running Hattie Redmond seem to go into the weeds is with the other criterion that determines who is eligible to live there. Let’s be clear: the Portland Housing Bureau did not come right out and say Hattie Redmond will operate in violation of the Fair Housing Act with discriminatory practices that make housing unavailable to persons because of their color, race or national origin. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-1
Instead, the Housing Bureau describes Hattie Redmond's criteria for selecting tenants like this:
"Hattie Redmond Apartments is Home Forward’s 60-unit new construction project in the Kenton neighborhood of North Portland. This neighborhood is also part of Albina, the historic center of Portland’s Black/African American community. All units in the building will be permanent supportive housing (PSH) targeted to individuals who have experienced homelessness and request culturally specific services for African Americans, with the goal of reconnecting displaced residents to the Albina community."
https://www.portland.gov/phb/construction/baldwin
Might defense counsel get a court to buy the notion that the apartment really will make "culturally specific services [intended] for African Americans" available to tenants of any other race, color or national origin, provided that they have experienced homelessness and have been “displaced” from Albina, whatever that means? Could a creative lawyer representing the defendants in a housing discrimination lawsuit successfully argue that the scheme isn't discriminatory because "targeting" a black tenant population doesn't necessarily mean that tenants of other races are excluded? Who knows? It’s not outlandish to think, though, that running an apartment in accordance with the Portland Housing Bureau’s description might land the owners and management of Hattie Redmond in court.
The project sponsor, Home Forward, is somewhat more explicit about the practices that will prevail there:
"Design is underway for 60 new studio apartments in North Portland along the Interstate light rail line. Home Forward and Urban League of Portland are partnering to provide permanent supportive housing to people who have experienced homelessness. The vision for North Baldwin is inspired in part by Urban League’s successful Project HAVEN, founded in 2016. Urban League’s model provides focused and intensive services to address homelessness in the Black community, a population over-represented in the homeless community yet underserved."
http://homeforward.org/development/property-developments/baldwin-redevelopment
The foregoing language might make it harder for the Hattie Redmond apartments to evade charges of racially motivated housing discrimination. It would be difficult to argue that whites would find room there given that Home Forward is as good as saying there's a shortage of housing for formerly homeless blacks. Still, perhaps the day might come when all the black homeless people in Portland have been housed and the Hattie Redmond will welcome its first white tenant.
The project architect's description of the Hattie Redmond's intended tenant demographic, on the other hand, is plaintiffs' counsel's dream come true. SERA's website says:
"The Hattie Redmond Apartments is culturally-specific, permanent supportive housing located in the Kenton neighborhood. A joint venture between Home Forward and the Urban League of Portland, the project provides housing for chronically displaced Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) — particularly those facing past trauma, addiction, disability, and in need of stable housing and support. Sited in a North Portland neighborhood with its own history of segregation, the design is focused on equity as a guiding principle."
https://www.seradesign.com/projects/hattie-redmond-apartments/
Like kids charged with keeping a secret, some allies of the diversity-equity-and-inclusion movement just can't help letting the cat out of the bag.
By way of a caveat, all of the foregoing assumes that the Fair Housing Act and other local and state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing are still in full force and effect. If they have been amended so as to permit the owners and operators of an apartment to engage in present discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in order to remedy past discrimination, or if the published descriptions of the apartments’ operating rules are incorrect or misleading and nobody has the slightest intent of renting only to BIPOC, then . . . well, never mind. In the latter case the responsible organizations would do well to amend their websites to avoid misunderstandings.
I am familiar with the area because the Fred Meyers we go to is just down the street. I have though a more unpleasant memory from the early 1980's of attending a church service near there and I think the TV station at one time was owned by or used by the church. This was only a few years after the Peoples Temple and I went with a "friend" who was attending it. It was my first and last experience with 'End Timers' and it scared the crap out of me at the time. So in my opinion this is an improvement.
Let me guess, free questioning was not allowed, all queries were vetted, and the claim was failing to support high density housing meant you were a rich, evil racist?
In Astoria common sense finally prevailed against a similar project ($34 million) but in tiny Astoria 105 units would be like 3000 in one place in Portland. Like Cabrini-Green? You’ll love this. When the true cost of the project became know (it was a proposed mental health center and ultra-low cost housing in the small, historic city center) the three (outgoing) councilors changed their votes, and the City Council voted unanimously to deny.
Bringing high density, affordable housing into an incredibly expensive market like Portland is very difficult. I could not afford my home there, but I don’t expect the powers that be to force others to allow me there (a purely hypothetical question in this case).