The annual report by the Portland Landmarks Commission to the City Council generally is dispiriting for preservation advocates. The reports are always well crafted, including ideas that would enhance the city’s physical environment and our understanding of its history.
The city commissioners always heartily thank the landmarks commission
members for their work and their ideas and diligence.
And then: Nothing
happens.
It felt like deja vue all over again on May 25, when the landmarks
commission reported on its work in 2021 and their thoughts for improvements
they would like the see made in 2022.
Their suggestions included:
· -- -Restarting an inventory of Portland’s historic
buildings that has not been updated since 1984, even despite a major expansion
of Portland’s eastern boundary;
· ---Undertaking a cultural resources plan to find a
preserve locations of cultural significance to Portland’s various minority
communities, even if the buildings involved are not considered architecturally
significant;
· --- Finding ways to help fund expensive seismic
bracing for some 1,600 Portland buildings constructed of unreinforced masonry
that are especially vulnerable to earthquake damage;
· --- Establishing a legacy business program that
would assist historic businesses in facing a variety of economic challenges
from issues including the pandemic and gentrification.
Alas, the report did not identify funding sources or amounts
of money needed to carry out these suggestions, noble though they may be.
As all the compliments from city commissioners rolled in
about the quality of the report, Commissioner JoAnn Hardesty -- who has sat
through three previous landmark commission annual reviews -- sounded the voice
of reality.
“I hate to be the wet blanket in the room,” she said. Given the city’s limited resources, she said, opportunities for funding are limited. “We will have to be creative and thoughtful.” Hardesty added, “We really need to have a plan if you want it to become reality. We don’t have that.”
Of course, it is the City Council that controls the municipal budget, not the landmarks commission. Even if the landmarks commission could suggest funding sources, some member of the council would have to propose council action.
What might be different this year is the stress on
appreciating the history of Portland’s minority communities, and an understanding
that those communities need to be able to take advantage of whatever incentives
and benefits preservation programs can provide.
In a letter preceding the commission’s report, Landmarks
Chair Kristin Minor wrote, “On the Landmarks Commission, we are aware that for
many, historic preservation seems like a side topic; something that is an
“extra”, not a need. Yet preservation directly strengthens community bonds and
generational stability, which help people heal and rebound from stress.
“Historic preservation and adaptive reuse are far better for
the planet than the typical redevelopment model, moving us from a “throw-away”
society to one that repairs and adds to what we already have. Finally, if used
intentionally to honor communities who have experienced loss, displacement, and
erasure, historic preservation can begin to work towards justice.”
If you are interested, you can read the full report here: https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/15076788
----Fred Leeson
Join Building on History’s mailing list by writing “add me”
to fredleeson@hotmail.com
The City of Portland had a great excuse for many years for doing nothing on the single most important piece of the Commission's historic preservation recommendations: updating the City's Historic Resource Inventory. City attorneys had given the City cover for doing nothing by interpreting State of Oregon law to say that nothing could be added to the inventory without owner consent. (Other Oregon cities had come to a different interpretation of the law, but Portland ignored that uncomfortable fact.)
ReplyDeleteThen in early 2017, the State's all-powerful Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) updated the Land Use Goal 5 rules that such that Oregon cities can now update their inventories of historic resources and no owner consent is required! This clarification of the state statute removed the "fig leaf" of an excuse from Portland's leadership. Alas, Portland has such an accumulated momentum of doing nothing, that even though their only excuse for inaction has been removed, the Council still can't get it together to take action.
Yes JoAnn Hardesty may be right in raising the cost issue, but, dang, the City's budget is in the hundreds of millions, and the cost of updating the inventory and properly funding the historic resource planning unit in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (currently just one historic resources person on staff) would be scarcely a few hundred thousand annually... a "rounding error" in the City's budget.
A few years back (after the 2017 changes) the Commission suggested during their annual report that a volunteer staffed inventory project with some professional guidance could get the ball rolling for as little as $20,000 as a one-time proof of concept expenditure. All of the Commissioners applauded that, and exclaimed that the City could easily afford that! And then, of course, the momentum of doing nothing kicked in, and that's exactly what they did -- yet again.