A formal plan of action has been approved with budgets and timelines to address the overwhelming homelessness in Portland. "Unsanctioned" encampments will be prohibited and cleared, and designated sites will be created, spread throughout the city with a mindfulness around proximity to transportation, residential areas, and schools. Staff will be onsite to help with mental health, substance use and treatment, legal aid, and a host of other conjoined issues. 

According to interviews in the article, people answered that they'd be happy to have a designated site near their neighborhoods. This is surprising to hear to me, as history has shown that although many people do want to address the issue of homelessness, time and time again they do not want it addressed near *their home. We see this play out especially between the wealthy and any potential proximity to sites for the houseless, whether formal, designated informal, or development plans for a shelter nearby. Similarly with 'homeowners' associations,' which can act as a kind of self governed municipality. 

These all connect to urban planning and the cascading, domino effects of housing and development widening the wealth gap, increasing the breadth and dept of the houseless crisis.



Source: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/portland-city-council-vote-how-to-pay-homeless-plan/283-e763517a-b9d2-48aa-8ec0-ba57084208e9

The Plan: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/portland-mayor-homeless-plan/283-e2c6226f-3f03-48d5-bba9-9fa4e7b189d8

The Urban Growth Boundary has indeed spared Portland  urban sprawl characteristic of many US cities. However, what happens as more people move to a popular city housed within an UGB and the demand for housing rises? 

Here, perspectives are given of the good and bad of development and the different players therein. Votes on development once opened to the public raised even more complications and debate, then were taken away (as in Oregon City). Then there are dissenting voices of people who do not appreciate the bulldozing of their lifestyles, decisions made by unelected planners and government officials. Yet, nationally, an understanding of climate change and the uncomfortable shift towards the necessity of more dense housing leads the way in housing development in Portland.


https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/19/oregon-land-use-laws-urban-growth-management-system-portland-conservation/

The concept of "smart cities" was proposed as a competition for cities to integrate technology and data collection to make "better" city planning decisions for citizens. However, as increasing awareness around data surveillance and abuses of data (especially by multinational corporations) comes to the fore, city citizens are divided on "smart city" endeavors. 

On one hand, the example of detecting, smooth bike-traffic signals and general intuitive and safety making (or seemingly so) traffic patterns greatly influence the general impression and experience of a city. However, it's adjacent to issues around tech abuse, data used for intrusion in the name of safety, and the bizarre ways that tech and certain institutions are merging more and more to harmful effects- particularly to people of color. Amazon's Ring doorbell is an example, whereby police precincts were actually encourage to use, and even *sell Ring doorbells in order to encourage more active surveillance on neighborhoods ("How to Resist Amazon and Why" by Danny Caine)




https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2022/10/05/portland-wants-to-be-america-s-most-prominent-smart-city

The volunteer based commission board of Planning and Land Use & Sustainability are being split into two volunteer boards under the decision of Commissioner Rubio. The decision that led to this, after adding Sustainability to the Bureau of Planning and Land Use in 2009, to now again extricate the two, is causing some confusion and worry. The idea to allow both boards a chance to have clearer direction and attention to their pressing issue, and it sounds like the board was overwhelmed and unclear about their powers. Are they more of an advocacy group or an advisory board to the city?

This is the aim of splitting the boards, however, as the issues are so interconnected it's easy to see how this could prove to add more difficulty to decisions and to progress. This is an example of city government and policy making that affects planning and how bureaucracy, confusing government structure, and public engagement can all add conflicting voices and processes to hinder real sustainability and planning efforts. 



https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/12/portland-planning-and-sustainability-commission-split-in-two/