OT MLB to PDX: We're talking baseball to PDX

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Phatguysrule said:
Something isn't adding up here...
Click to expand...

Well, as the famed economist Billy Preston wrote:

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
And I'm not stuffin', believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war on poverty, yeah
Yes, I am

barfo
 
Yes, we need more affordable housing. No question.

But when I hear someone say it is the #1 reason for the homelessness problem I have to roll my eyes.
Total different discussion. I would be surprised if over 20 % of the "un-housed" can afford any rent.

For those who can not hold a job, we still need to take care of them and build quality shelters, but they need to be on the cheapest land possible. Certainly nowhere downtown with riverfront views. Higher prices mean higher property taxes.....and we need that income to offset the cost of "affordable housing". Home builders need to be compensated for building cheaper homes, or they won't do it. It is hard enough to get them to finish high-end projects on time.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Yes, we need more affordable housing. No question.

But when I hear someone say it is the #1 reason for the homelessness problem I have to roll my eyes.
Total different discussion. I would be surprised if over 20 % of the "un-housed" can afford any rent.

For those who can not hold a job, we still need to take care of them and build quality shelters, but they need to be on the cheapest land possible. Certainly nowhere downtown with riverfront views. Higher prices mean higher property taxes.....and we need that income to offset the cost of "affordable housing". Home builders need to be compensated for building cheaper homes, or they won't do it. It is hard enough to get them to finish high-end projects on time.
Click to expand...
Nobody is suggesting we build skyscrapers to move homeless people into them.

If you build out housing people who can afford to live there will move in, easing upward pressure on the price of housing.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Nobody is suggesting we build skyscrapers to move homeless people into them.

If you build out housing people who can afford to live there will move in, easing upward pressure on the price of housing.
Click to expand...

So when you said "10 of those buildings (Big Pink) would free up enough housing for all of the homeless in Oregon" what were you suggesting?
 
Pinwheel1 said:
So when you said "10 of those buildings (Big Pink) would free up enough housing for all of the homeless in Oregon" what were you suggesting?
Click to expand...
That people would move into them. Leaving other housing vacant, then other people, likey with somewhat less means, would move in to that vacant housing. This would increase the supply of housing , thereby lowering barriers to entry at the lowest end and applying less financial pressure on those flirting with poverty.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That people would move into them. Leaving other housing vacant, then other people, likey with somewhat less means, would move in to that vacant housing. This would increase the supply of housing, thereby lowering barriers to entry at the lowest end and applying less financial pressure on those flirting with poverty.
Click to expand...

So the taxpayers supplement the cost of these skyscrapers so they are affordable for some to afford. Not a bad idea as long as it goes to people who have lived in the state for a certain number of years.

However, I am still skeptical that the homeless problem in Oregon would be positively affected. Maybe the homeless are different in CA than in Oregon, but the ones I encountered do not work and can't because of drugs or mental health issues. They can not afford any rent. Those people need to be transferred to a safe environment where they can be treated and off the streets.
 
Phatguysrule said:
That people would move into them. Leaving other housing vacant, then other people, likey with somewhat less means, would move in to that vacant housing. This would increase the supply of housing , thereby lowering barriers to entry at the lowest end and applying less financial pressure on those flirting with poverty.
Click to expand...
That's a nice thought but over the last 20 years several thousand high end condo units were added to the Pearl and S. Waterfront and at the same time homelessness has increased 10 fold.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
So the taxpayers supplement the cost of these skyscrapers so they are affordable for some to afford. Not a bad idea as long as it goes to people who have lived in the state for a certain number of years.

However, I am still skeptical that the homeless problem in Oregon would be positively affected. Maybe the homeless are different in CA than in Oregon, but the ones I encountered do not work and can't because of drugs or mental health issues. They can not afford any rent. Those people need to be transferred to a safe environment where they can be treated and off the streets.
Click to expand...
When people are given respectable homes and treatment they recover from the problems related to homelessness at far higher rates and with far lower recidivism rates than any other way.

This is how Finland has eliminated homelessness. This is how SLC eliminated homelessness between 2005 and 2015 (when the program was ended). Finland spends (and SLC spent) far less on homelessness by offering permanent housing and support than by allowing homelessness.

*Edit* And I'm not even sure we need to put public money into building skyscrapers. Just change the permitting process to encourage it. If anything, put public money into converting office space into low income residential.
 
Last edited:
Kano John said:
That's a nice thought but over the last 20 years several thousand high end condo units were added to the Pearl and S. Waterfront and at the same time homelessness has increased 10 fold.
Click to expand...
The housing supply in Oregon has been restricted. We lost thousands of homes in the fires, for example. And we had only added 250,000 units between 2005 and 2019. While our 18+ population grew by 650,000.

And then we had the pandemic (during which many people struggled), then the resulting inflation. Then the aforementioned fires which cost us tens of thousands of houses.

Any building that we have done has not been nearly enough.

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/housing-units/oregon/
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
When people are given respectable homes and treatment they recover from the problems related to homelessness at far higher rates and with far lowee recidivism rates than any other way.

This is how Finland has eliminated homelessness. This is how SLC eliminated homelessness between 2005 and 2015 (when the program was ended). Finland spends (and SLC spent) far less on homelessness by offering permanent housing and support than by allowing homelessness.
Click to expand...
Yep. The cost of allowing them to stay homeless and continue to destroy the city as we know it has been far greater than just giving them a respectable place to live.
 
Clackamas Town Center owner defaults on $191M debt as anchor-tenant leases loom

The owners of Clackamas Town Center have defaulted on $191 million in mortgage debt.

The default comes just months ahead of a slate of scheduled lease expirations affecting nearly half of the rentable space at the 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall, according to loan servicer reports.

The loan balance, which is split in two tranches, was originated for $216 million by Bank of America in September 2012. The mortgage debt was sold that same year to a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) trust now managed by KeyBank National Association, according to the report.

A spokesperson with KeyBank declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, which owns Clackamas Town Center, said it is working with its lender and there will be no impact to shopping center operations.

The mall is at 12000 S.E. 82nd Ave. in Happy Valley. Anchor tenants for the mall include Dick’s Sporting Goods, Macy’s and JCPenney. The report shows that leases for the Macy’s, Macy’s Home Store, JCPenney and a now-shuttered Nordstrom space are set to expire in October. Together those leases account for around 630,000 square feet at the mall, according to servicer reports.

This comes as a time when department stores are reducing their portfolios as customer buying habits and inflation change the retail landscape. Macy's is the most recent retailer to announce plans to shutter locations. The retailer on Thursday announced plans to close stores nationwide, including locations in Hillsboro and Salem.

https://www.kgw.com/article/money/b...debt/283-2ed210ec-77af-43a8-8897-05805e0f9d31
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Clackamas Town Center owner defaults on $191M debt as anchor-tenant leases loom

The owners of Clackamas Town Center have defaulted on $191 million in mortgage debt.

The default comes just months ahead of a slate of scheduled lease expirations affecting nearly half of the rentable space at the 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall, according to loan servicer reports.

The loan balance, which is split in two tranches, was originated for $216 million by Bank of America in September 2012. The mortgage debt was sold that same year to a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) trust now managed by KeyBank National Association, according to the report.

A spokesperson with KeyBank declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, which owns Clackamas Town Center, said it is working with its lender and there will be no impact to shopping center operations.

The mall is at 12000 S.E. 82nd Ave. in Happy Valley. Anchor tenants for the mall include Dick’s Sporting Goods, Macy’s and JCPenney. The report shows that leases for the Macy’s, Macy’s Home Store, JCPenney and a now-shuttered Nordstrom space are set to expire in October. Together those leases account for around 630,000 square feet at the mall, according to servicer reports.

This comes as a time when department stores are reducing their portfolios as customer buying habits and inflation change the retail landscape. Macy's is the most recent retailer to announce plans to shutter locations. The retailer on Thursday announced plans to close stores nationwide, including locations in Hillsboro and Salem.

https://www.kgw.com/article/money/b...debt/283-2ed210ec-77af-43a8-8897-05805e0f9d31
Click to expand...

Tear it down and put the baseball stadium there. Has freeway and light rail already.
 
Convert it to a homeless shelter.

barfo
 
The footprint for CTC is huge. It dwarfs that of the Ross Island location, and as others have said, it'd be right on the Green line.

And if they could somehow continue the Green south on I-205 (put it in the median maybe), it could help too.

I am not holding my breath in the least tho, but the hats would look cool.

They just built a Residence Inn there, where a baseball stadium would be a boom for that. It almost makes too much sense.
 
There would go any semblance of a sexy skyline ballpark. Can’t think of a more boring place.
 
You guys know CTC is a busy ass mall that does extremely well right?

Everytime I go there I have a hard time finding parking. Washington square mall even more popular.

The owners just suck is all that is going on. They’ll lose the mall, it’ll go on auction and the next owners will buy it pennys off the dollar and make a killing. Thats it.
 
AldoTrapani said:
You guys know CTC is a busy ass mall that does extremely well right?

Everytime I go there I have a hard time finding parking. Washington square mall even more popular.

The owners just suck is all that is going on. They’ll lose the mall, it’ll go on auction and the next owners will buy it pennys off the dollar and make a killing. Thats it.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true, unless you only go there during Christmas. I know this because I go there once or twice a week (for work) and there are always parking spots available. They have an entire section of the parking lot they've closed off because they have far more parking than necessary.

Hell, they have a structure that barely gets used either.
 
AldoTrapani said:
You guys know CTC is a busy ass mall that does extremely well right?

Everytime I go there I have a hard time finding parking. Washington square mall even more popular.

The owners just suck is all that is going on. They’ll lose the mall, it’ll go on auction and the next owners will buy it pennys off the dollar and make a killing. Thats it.
Click to expand...

Brookfield is a huge outfit. They might suck in many ways, but they definitely aren't novices (or short on money).

The only way they lose the mall is if they intend to.

I'd guess what's going on here is that they are either (a) playing some variety of hardball with the lenders, or (b) waiting to see if all the anchor tenants withdraw, in which case it might make sense to bail. Or both.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top