DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites This document is a summary of the public comments received during the November 2004 public comments on potential skatepark sites around the City. They are a compilation of handwritten and web-based comment forms, as well as comments from people who attended the series of three public workshops on the project. Members of the Skatepark Leadership Advisory Team (SPLAT) read and reviewed the comments on each site. Each wrote up a few of the site summaries below. Basic Details about the Meetings: Three Public Workshops were held on Wednesday 11/10/04 and Saturday 11/13/04. • Total attendance at these three workshops was roughly 75 people. Staffing details: • Twelve committee members, including each of the representatives for the Neighborhood Coalitions joined us for at least one of the meetings. • A total of eleven PP&R staff volunteered time (some for several meetings) to help staff the events. • The noise control office had a staff person join us for two out of the three meetings. • Neighborhood Association members, school principals, users, parents and concerned citizens were in attendance On-Line Survey Comments from the Public • The majority of folks who attended the meetings chose to fill out their comment forms on-line, as we received very few paper comment forms back from those in attendance at our meetings. • A total of 654 comments were received on 35 potential sites. • 103 people responded to the general questions about use of skateparks and demographic information. • Of those that filled out the demographic survey: • 62% were over the age of 30 • 23% were under the age of 20 • 49% skateboard • 19% ride BMX • 4% in-line • 13% were parents who participate • 27% were parents or grandparents • 9% had never been to a skatepark Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 1 of 19 About BMX Bikes and Skateparks People were asked several questions about bikes and skateparks, in order for the SPLAT committee to better understand this important issue. When asked “Do you feel that bikes should be allowed access to Portland’s skateparks?” • 56% said yes • 74% had experience of using skateparks with other user group • 47% reported that experience Neutral/Positive When asked about preferred management approach to ‘skatespots’ • 42% supported shared access at all times • 11% supported separate sessions • 30% supported separate facilties • 16% had no strong opinion When asked about preferred management approach to ‘district skateparks’ • 38% supported shared access at all times • 9% supported separate sessions • 24% supported separate areas within the park • 19% supported separate facilities • 11% had no strong opinion When asked about preferred management approach to ‘regional skateparks’ • 39% supported shared access at all times • 2% supported separate sessions • 32% supported separate areas within the park • 18% supported separate facilities • 10% had no strong opinion When asked to recommend how the money should be spent to build the first two parks: • 43% - Two parks that would be used by both groups, either shared or separate times • 22% - One park for skaters only and one park for skaters and bikers to use at different times • 13% - One park for skaters only and one park for skaters and bikers to use at the same time • 14% - One park for skaters only and one park for bikes only Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 2 of 19 Preferred Sites When asked to rank the top five sites in order of preference each site was ranked in someone’s top 5 this many times: 1. Parkrose High School – 31 2. Alberta - 25 3. ODOT Steel Bridge – 24 4. ODOT Eastbank – 20 5. Lents – 16 6. ODOT Mississippi - 15 7. Westmoreland – 15 8. Powell Park - 14 9. ODOT I-84 – 14 10. Fernhill – 13 11. University Park – 13 12. ODOT I-405 - 12 13. Gabriel - 12 14. Pier – 12 15. Willamette – 12 16. Woodstock - 12 17. Colonel Summers – 11 18. Argay – 9 19. Clinton – 9 20. Kenton – 8 21. Montavilla – 8 22. Ventura – 8 23. Beech – 6 24. Ed Benedict – 5 25. Thompson - 5 26. BES WWTP – 4 27. Gates Property 3 28. Berrydale – 2 29. Brentwood – 2 30. Glenfair - 2 31. Bloomington – 1 32. Holly Farm – 1 33. Parklane - 1 34. Glenwood - 0 Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 3 of 19 Site Summaries: Members of the Skatepark Leadership Advisory Team (SPLAT) read and reviewed the comments on each site. Each wrote up a few of the site summaries below. The sites are listed alphabetically. Alberta Park (NE 19th & Killingsworth) Alberta Park received a good amount of support for consideration as a skatepark. Of those commenting online – 40 – people supported the site more than 3:1, and at the public meetings it received 17 votes in favor, with no one opposing the site for consideration. The site has many advantages that people commented on. They see the skatepark as a positive attractor and this fitting a need in the Park. This is seen as a service being provided in a needy part of the City for kids who are looking for recreational outlets. There is a strong neighborhood in the area, including a Friends group that takes part in stewardship of the Park, and supports the idea. They took a poll of neighbors and found that there was support for a skatepark. People commented on the proximity to bathrooms and the Fire Station as plusses, as well as good access to transit. Some disadvantages discussed include a loss of greenspace, traffic on Killingsworth, proximity to the basketball pavilion and pre-existing uses for that space in the park. There are occasional outdoor concerts and off-leash dogs using this area (though the park has a designated off-leash area elsewhere.) Argay Park (NE 141st & Failing St.) Nine comments from the public were submitted, along with input from the public workshop held at Parkrose High School. Input was varied, although it tended to be negative. Comments focused on the isolated nature of the site, gang activity in the area, and an existing concern over safety. Stated advantages include many skateboarders live nearby, and ease of transportation to the park. Those who provided written comments were evenly split, with 5 favoring the site and 4 opposed. Beech Park Property (NE Fremont & 131st Place) Very few (5) people commented on this property, and most did not like the idea. It is an undeveloped park property, which therefore would not be developed into a skatepark for some time, if at all. It would need to be considered as a possibility during the Master Plan process, expected in 2008. Consequently, one of the concerns expressed about this site, is that it would take a longer time for construction (if at all). Also of concern is its proximity to Parkrose High School, which is a nearby promising site. There is limited access, at this point and also limited visibility. On the plus side, there are many children at nearby schools who would benefit from a skatepark if one were placed here. The fact that it is City property, without much traffic and with good transportation options all were considered good aspects of this site. Summary of Public Comments on Skatepark Sites Feedback from the November 2004 Workshops and Web Input February 2005 – Page 4 of 19 Berrydale Park (SE 92nd & Taylor) Overall this park seemed to be a strong candidate for a Skate Spot. Public Meeting Input – very positive. This Neighborhood Skate Spot site was discussed at the Parkrose High School public meeting. This site was listed third in a ranking of the four most popular Skate Spots considered at this meeting. Three of the four break-out groups did not provide written comments. One group provided three positive comments about access, visibility and location. There were general comments of concerns about security and lighting, but none specific to Berrydale Park. It drew eight votes of support and no opposition at this meeting. SPLAT Site Study Input – very positive. SPLAT site study lists ten advantages and two disadvantages. Advantages include immediate construction potential, good visibility, limited off-site impact/distance to neighbors, good bus access and on-street parking. Disadvantages include no off-street parking and no restrooms. On-Line Input – positive (3/5 comments in favor). On-line positive comments echoed the Site Study. Negative comments did not seem to be specific to site, they were more general concerns such as noise and non-specific fear of skating activities. Other uses that may conflict: outdoor volleyball pick-up games and possible off-leash site. BES Sewage Treatment Facility (N. Columbia Blvd.) At each of the three public workshops, this site was discussed, as it is being considered for a regional skatepark. During these meetings, there was much discussion about the pros and cons for this site, but when people completed their discussion and selected one site that they did not like, this site was universally disliked (it received 25 votes cumulatively against it during the three workshops.) Only 12 people filled out comment cards (either on the web or on paper) to specifically comment on this site. Of those, four favored this site, the rest did not. Comments from these forms, and during the public workshops indicated that this site did pose a positive opportunity in that it was a very large area, with a high-density housing development soon to be built nearby. The visibility is good, with passive observation potential.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Portland Parks and Recreation
    Portland Parks and Recreation CBO has posted the online, interactive version of the bureau’s performance dashboard here: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/523266 The following questions were asked during the bureau’s budget work session. Responses are included in the attached packet. 1. Please provide a breakdown of scholarships by community center. 2. What facilities and parks would be closed if there were no increase in major maintenance funding? 3. Did the increase in the value of scholarships granted correspond to the number or participants in the program? Was there an increase in workload or did the cost of the programs go up? 4. List/plans of the following: Five-year major maintenance queue Five-year SDC funded projects Prior five-year SDC fund projects 5. Please provide descriptions and budget amounts for the two new requests: (1) parks rangers expansion and (2) tree code implementation PP&R Council Budget Questions – Follow up from March 17th Budget presentation: 1) Breakdown of scholarships by community center See Attached Scholarship PDF File 2) What facilities and parks would be closed if there were no increase in major maintenance funding? Rather than close whole facilities or parks when there is inadequate major maintenance funding we reduce levels of service (thin the soup) across the system and we also delay repairs and replacements, thus allowing the risk of failure to increase. Examples are the sewer back up at Sellwood, the sewer failure at Buckman Field House, the emergency culvert failures, etc. The one counter example that resulted a full closure and demolition was the wood play structure at Couch Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura Park Bike Skills Area Access Trail to Columbia Slough Parklane
    Expanded Service Areas Of NE ALDER WOO Colwood National D RD Proposed E205 Improvement Golf E Course V A Sites D N 2 205 Access Trail To 8 E N Johnson Lake Other Improvement Sites Thomas Cully Property Columbia Slough Property Existing Park Service Areas NE KILLINGSWORTH ST Portland Parks E NE V W A H I Sacajawea Park H T NE A T MAR 8 IN Columbia Pioneer NE K E DR S 3 ANDY E BLV 1 Cemetery D R E W E A V N Y N E A AI RPO H R 0 T W 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Powell Grove T AY 8 E NE PRES Cemetery 4 COT V T ST 1 A E Senns Dairy Miles N D E N V 2 Park 0 A 1 H E T N NE 5 RO 0 1 NE MASON ST CK Y E PARKROSE B N U T Argay Park T E SCHOOL DISTRICT E R Kimmel Property V Columbia Slough D A NE FRE Natural MONT ST Beech Property T Wilkes Park S NE FREMONT ST 1 Area 4 Rocky Butte 1 E E V Natural N A E Area V D A N R 2 D 9 REYNOLDS D N Wilkes Headwaters E 2 H 2 N T Property Glenhaven Park 1 1 E SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 1 N E Madison Community N 84 Garden Rose City Golf Course Knott Park John Luby Park E Thompson Park V East Holladay Park A NE TILLAMOOK S RA T SAN FAE D NE L NE SAN S T N RAFAEL ST 2 6 1 Playground E N NE HALSEY ST NE HALSEY ST E V A D N 2 East Holladay 8 E Park Glendoveer N Golf Montavilla Ventura Park Course Park Bike Skills Area Kwan Yin Temple E NE GLISAN ST V Cemetery A T S 1 8 1 E Glenfair Park N East Portland E BURNSIDE ST E V A T Ventura Park S Community Center Stark Street 1 8 1 Island SE STARK ST E E S V E E A V Playground V A H A T H 7 Midland Park H T 1 T Floyd Light 0 1 8 3 4 1 Berrydale Park E Park 1 S Parklane Park E E S North Powellhurst
    [Show full text]
  • District Background
    DRAFT SOUTHEAST LIAISON DISTRICT PROFILE DRAFT Introduction In 2004 the Bureau of Planning launched the District Liaison Program which assigns a City Planner to each of Portland’s designated liaison districts. Each planner acts as the Bureau’s primary contact between community residents, nonprofit groups and other government agencies on planning and development matters within their assigned district. As part of this program, District Profiles were compiled to provide a survey of the existing conditions, issues and neighborhood/community plans within each of the liaison districts. The Profiles will form a base of information for communities to make informed decisions about future development. This report is also intended to serve as a tool for planners and decision-makers to monitor the implementation of existing plans and facilitate future planning. The Profiles will also contribute to the ongoing dialogue and exchange of information between the Bureau of Planning, the community, and other City Bureaus regarding district planning issues and priorities. PLEASE NOTE: The content of this document remains a work-in-progress of the Bureau of Planning’s District Liaison Program. Feedback is appreciated. Area Description Boundaries The Southeast District lies just east of downtown covering roughly 17,600 acres. The District is bordered by the Willamette River to the west, the Banfield Freeway (I-84) to the north, SE 82nd and I- 205 to the east, and Clackamas County to the south. Bureau of Planning - 08/03/05 Southeast District Page 1 Profile Demographic Data Population Southeast Portland experienced modest population growth (3.1%) compared to the City as a whole (8.7%).
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens Advisory Committee Announces Recommendations for Locations of Future Skateparks
    NEWS RELEASE CONTACT May 19, 2005 Bryan Aptekar Community Relations Portland Parks & Recreation (503) 823-5594 Citizens Advisory Committee Announces Recommendations for Locations of Future Skateparks Citizens Advisory Committee Recommends 19 Sites Throughout Portland Glenhaven Park Recommended as Site for Next City Skatepark After 18 months, more than two dozen public meetings, and a series of site visits, the SkatePark Leadership Advisory Team (SPLAT) has made its recommendations to Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) for a system of 19 skatepark sites to be developed in the City of Portland. Two of the skateparks will be developed within the next three years, and the rest to follow, as funding permits. SPLAT is a citizens advisory group that was convened in 2003. At their final meeting on May 10th they completed 18 months of work to meet the need for safe, legal recreational opportunities for the city’s estimated 30,000+ skateboarders, freestyle BMX bike riders and other action sport enthusiasts. Advisory Committee Creates Vision for “System of Skateparks” The recommended sites reflect the SPLAT’s vision for a system of skateparks consisting of one regional, several district, and many small neighborhood skatespots. The regional park will be more than 25,000 square feet (sf) in size and would be sited in a non- residential area. The district parks will be at least 10,000 sf (smaller than two tennis courts) and would potentially be covered and lit for extended hours use. The smaller neighborhood skatespots will be typically less than 8,000 sf (the size of one tennis court) and would serve a more limited number of users.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads.Gigl.Org.Uk/Website/Parks People and Nature1.Pdf 8 Flores, T
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Michelle Lee Talal for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science presented on May 7, 2019 Title: Exploring Urban Parks: Plant Communities, Visitor Experiences, and Manager Perspectives in Portland, Oregon Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Mary V. Santelmann Urban parks are biodiversity hotspots within cities and have the potential to provide a range of socio-cultural benefits for people, but may not always meet the needs and desires of park visitors. A variety of land use practices and environmental factors affect urban park biodiversity and vegetation structure, composition, and ecological function, but more studies are needed to compare plant taxonomic composition, biodiversity patterns, and species traits across different types of urban green spaces. Additionally, there is a lack of research that explores park user experiences, vegetation perceptions, and accessibility issues in a range of urban park types interspersed throughout Portland using qualitative methods to observe and interview visitors on-site. More research is also needed that focuses on interviewing park managers about their perspectives on park benefits and management. The findings of my interdisciplinary dissertation may assist managers in their aims to achieve various ecological goals, as well as meet the needs and desires of park visitors within increasingly developed urban areas. The purpose of this research is three-fold, and includes examining: 1) The relationships between plant community composition, biodiversity patterns, environmental variables, and species traits in a range of urban parks in Portland, Oregon; 2) how the vegetation in these urban parks currently meets the needs and desires of visitors; and 3) how park managers currently manage vegetation in the parks to meet the needs and desires of visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • PP Annual Report Exec Summary V4.Indd
    2015–16 Dear Portlanders: Thank you for your recent commitment to repairing and improving Portland’s parks. In November 2014, you and an impressive 74 percent of Portlanders voted “Yes” for the Parks Replacement Bond Projects26 underway — the highest percentage ever for a Parks ballot measure. You became part of a long tradition of Portlanders who’ve built and maintained our city’s enviable collection of park facilities. In this fi rst full year of the Bond, from July 2015 to July 2016, we’ve laid the foundation for the work to be done. In this upcoming year, you’ll start to see tangible results in the parks. Replacement of the 70 to 90 year old mechanical systems at Grant Pool was the fi rst completed project, and next year, results will be visible across the city. Project1 completed About every nine years over the last century, Portlanders have invested in increasing, preserving and maintaining our park system by voting “yes” on parks bonds or levies. Before the 2014 bond, the last major bond was in 1994, meaning 20 years passed without signifi cant park improvements or address- ing dire repair needs. Portland Parks & Recreation anticipates a $248 million funding gap for major maintenance needs over the next 10 years. The $68 million in funds from the 2014 Parks Replacement Bond will not address all of these maintenance issues, but it is vital to fi xing, upgrading and replacing the most crucial of these needs. Projects18 ahead of As your Parks Commissioner and Parks Director, we are making sure the funds will be used wisely and schedule maximize benefi ts to the greatest number of park users.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the 2003 Parks Levy Investment Objective 1: Restore
    A Report on the 2003 Parks Levy Investment In November 2002, Portland voters approved a five-year Parks Levy to begin in July 2003. Levy dollars restored budget cuts made in FY 2002-03 as well as major services and improvements outlined in the Parks 2020 Vision plan adopted by City Council in July 2001. In order to fulfill our obligation to the voters, we identified four key objectives. This report highlights what we have accomplished to date. Objective 1: Restore $2.2 million in cuts made in 2002/03 budget The 2003 Parks Levy restored cuts that were made to balance the FY 2002-03 General Fund budget. These cuts included the closure of some recreational facilities, the discontinuation and reduction of some community partnerships that provide recreational opportunities for youth, and reductions in maintenance of parks and facilities. Below is a detailed list of services restored through levy dollars. A. Restore programming at six community schools. SUN Community Schools support healthy social and cross-cultural development of all participants, teach and model values of respect and inclusion of all people, and help reduce social disparities and inequities. Currently, over 50% of students enrolled in the program are children of color. 2003/04 projects/services 2004/05 projects/services Proposed projects/services 2005/06 Hired and trained full-time Site Coordinators Total attendance at new sites (Summer Continue to develop programming to serve for 6 new PP&R SUN Community Schools: 2004-Spring 2005): 85,159 the needs of each school’s community and Arleta, Beaumont, Centennial, Clarendon, increase participation in these programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry Learning Landscapes Plantings
    View this email in your browser Share this URBAN FORESTRY January 2016 Get Involved! | Resources | Tree Permits | Tree Problems | Home In This Issue Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry Learning Landscapes Plantings, Urban Forestry in the Schoolyard Hiring Youth Conservation Crew (YCC) Summer Crew Leader, Apply by Thursday, March 3, 2016 Upcoming Urban Forestry Workshops, Free and Open to the Public Budget Reductions & Urban Forestry You may have recently heard about the upcoming 5% budget cuts proposed for Parks programs. Among the difficult reductions proposed, Urban Forestry could be effected by elimination of the $185,000 Dutch Elm Disease (DED) Treatment program. The City of Portland has minimized the spread of DED and avoided the decimation of the American elm (Ulmus americana) with a successful elm monitoring and treatment program. Without advanced warning, rapid detection and removal, the American elm could ultimately vanish from our landscape. Eastmoreland, Ladd’s Addition, the South Park blocks, Lents Park, Laurelhurst Park, and Overlook Park are areas where elms play a significant role in neighborhood identity. "Many communities have been able to maintain a healthy population of mature elms through a vigilant program of identification and removal of diseased elms and systematic pruning of weakened, dying or dead branches" -Linda Haugen, Plant Pathologist, USDA Forest Service Eliminating this program will also require adjacent property owners to cover the cost of removing DED- infected street trees themselves. The cut will also reduce citywide 24/7 emergency response to clear roads of trees which have fallen during storms, and reduce regular maintenance of publicly-owned trees- additional activities performed by some of the same staff .
    [Show full text]
  • PP&R's FY 2021-22 Requested Budget
    Requested Budget FY 2021-22 Portland Parks & Recreation PP&R Staff FY 2021-22 Requested Budget Maximo Behrens, Recreation Services Manager Tonya Booker, Land Stewardship Manager Carmen Rubio, Commissioner-in-charge Jenn Cairo, Urban Forestry Manager Tim Collier, Public Information Manager Adena Long, Director Margaret Evans, Workforce Development Manager Todd Lofgren, Deputy Director Vicente Harrison, Security and Emergency Manager Lauren McGuire, Assets and Development Manager Claudio Campuzano, Manager Kenya Williams, Equity and Inclusion Manager Finance, Property, & Technology Department Kerry Anderson Andre Ashley Don Athey Darryl Brooks Budget Advisory Committee Tamara Burkovskaia Krystin Castro Board Members Riley Clark-Long Paul Agrimis Mara Cogswell Mike Elliott Dale Cook Jenny Glass Terri Davis Juan Piantino Leah Espinoza Paddy Tillett Rachel Felice Bonnie Gee Yosick Joan Hallquist Erin Zollenkopf Erik Harrison Britta Herwig Labor Partners Brett Horner Sadie Atwell, Laborers Local 483 Don Joughin Luis Flores, PCL Brian Landoe Yoko Silk, PTE-17 Robin Laughlin Sara Mayhew-Jenkins Community Representatives Todd Melton Pauline Miranda Jeremy Robbins, Portland Accessibility Advisory Council Soo Pak Andre Middleton, Friends of Noise Dylan Paul Chris Rempel, Native American Community Advisory Council Nancy Roth JR Lilly, East Portland Action Plan Victor Sanders Joe McFerrin, Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center Jamie Sandness Brian Flores Garcia, Youth Durelle Singleton Sabrina Wilson, Rosewood Initiative Chris Silkie Jenny
    [Show full text]
  • BEECN Guidelines and Code of Conduct
    Basic Earthquake Emergency Communications Node (BEECN) Guidelines (first edition) Published: April 2019 Photo credits: Ernest Jones and Jeremy Van Keuren Graphics and layout: Jeremy Van Keuren Contents SECTION 000 - PROGRAM ORGANIZATION. .4 100.35 BEECN Cohort Coordinators ..................10 000.05 Section Numbers .............................4 100.40 BEECN Cohort Responsibilities ...............10 000.15 City Employees and BEECNs ...................5 100.45 Fire Station Cohorts. .11 000.20 Elements of a BEECN ..........................5 100.50 BEECN Volunteers and NETs ..................11 000.30 Location of BEECN Sites .......................6 100.55 Indemnification ..............................11 SECTION 100 - BEECN VOLUNTEERS ..............7 SECTION 200 - EQUIPMENT CACHES. .12 100.05 Role of BEECN Volunteers .....................7 200.05 Equipment Caches - General .................12 100.10 Persons with Disabilities ......................7 200.10 Equipment Caches - Placement ...............12 100.15 Volunteer Qualifications. 7 200.15 Supplementary Equipment in BEECN Caches .13 100.20 Relevant Volunteer Experience ................8 200.20 BEECN Cache Inventory ......................13 100.25 BEECN Training ...............................8 Troubleshooting the cache lid. 15 100.30 BEECN Volunteer Cohorts .....................9 BEECN radio frequencies ............................21 Page last updated: December 14, 2019 1:35 PM Page 1 of 58 SECTION 300 - OPERATIONS: BEECN SITES .......30 SECTION 400 - OPERATIONS: FIRE STATIONS. .38 300.05
    [Show full text]
  • Download the PDX Celebrate It’S Two Year Anniversary on June 7 at 6:30 Pm
    Our Where’s Growing Early 28th Ave. Q Revolution Newspaper Year Page 14 Page 8 Page 3 JUNE SOUTHEAST EXAMINER 2017 southeastexaminer.com “Your Neighborhood News Source” Vol 28 No 6 Portland, OR Infill on Steroids Gains State Traction: Riles Residents BY MIDGE PIERCE and old. But opponents say the Oregon A bill known as a “Build Baby Build” Home Builders Association (OHBA) legislative bill under the idea of addressing and others twisted it into a bill that over- emergency housing statewide is fueling rides local zoning and undermines city what critics call a widespread assault controls. The bill would allow building to on Oregon cities’ self-determination maximum density and heights potentially and livability. Adding insult, the bill is disregarding critical local planning tools barreling through the state legislature like discretionary design reviews. without adequate public hearing. As outrage mounted last month at House Bill 2007 would essentially an informational meeting in Salem, House Overview of the proposed cascading soaking pools between reservoirs 5 and 6. eliminate single family residential Speaker Tina Kotek slammed opponents as Designed by Jennifer Moran neighborhoods by making multi-plex infill racist NIMBYS. Arriving late to advocate housing mandatory across the state. The for the “high-yield” housing bill she Mt. Tabor Park Thermal Baths bill would permit duplexes and ADUs sponsored, she condemned “race-based everywhere in cities and towns of at least housing policies” and said opposition is An Idea for Preserving the Reservoirs, Creating 2500 residents. “grounded in Nimbyism” by well-heeled Energy, and Raising Revenue Critics call it a stealth bill that is residents using discriminatory practices Infill inflation modeled after Portland’s that restrict others from building wealth BY AMY PETERSON PSU SCHOOL OF ARCHI- in 2006, the city cannot use the open controversial Residential Infill Project and power.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 DRAFT Park SDC Capital Plan 150412.Xlsx
    2015 PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE 20‐YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (SUMMARY) April 2015 As required by ORS 223.309 Portland Parks and Recreation maintains a list of capacity increasing projects intended to TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT INCREASE CAPACITY: address the need created by growth. These projects are eligible to be funding with Park SDC revenue . The total value of Land acquisition projects summarized below exceeds the potential revenue of $552 million estimated by the 2015 Park SDC Methodology and Develop new parks on new land the funding from non-SDC revenue targeted for growth projects. Expand existing recreation facilities, trails, play areas, picnic areas, etc The project list and capital plan is a "living" document that, per ORS 223.309 (2), maybe modified at anytime. It should be Increase playability, durability and life of facilities noted that potential modifications to the project list will not impact the fee since the fee is not based on the project list, but Develop and improve parks to withstand more intense and extended use rather the level of service established by the adopted Park SDC Methodology. Construct new or expand existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities Increase capacity of existing community centers, aquatic facilities, and maintenance facilities ELIGIBLE PROJECTS POTENTIAL REVENUE TOTAL PARK SDC ELIGIBLE CAPACITY INCREASING PROJECTS 20‐year Total SDC REVENUE CATEGORY SDC Funds Other Revenue Total 2015‐35 TOTAL Park SDC Eligible City‐Wide Capacity Increasing Projects 566,640,621 City‐Wide
    [Show full text]