Comments on: Neighbors leery of second development attempt

By: Displaced Tenant

Displaced Tenant — Tue, 11 May 2010 21:03:17 +0000

As a tenant being evicted from the Irvington guest house, I am disgusted with the way that things are being handled. In February we were notified of an ownership change. The first red flag came with the lack of any sort of landlord-tenant agreement identifying the new ownership. Instead we all received an informal “notice” on our doors giving the new property manager’s name as well as the new address that we were to send our monthly rent. Then two months later we received another fairly informal notice of 60-day eviction as they were planning on demolishing the building. Now as people are vacating the building, they are being given an “authorization form” so that they can get back their security deposit. This form works double-duty as an agreement that acts as a tenant’s statement of voluntary vacation of the building.

Developers have been trying to demolish this building for years, but thanks to a vigilant neighborhood community, it has been preserved. People live here; People with disabilities that lack the means and funds to find other housing options. And here we are, being evicted from a property on the grounds of “demolition as the best course of action due to the state of the building.” This is really a feeble attempt at a personal gain by a rather unprofessional and dishonest company.

The plans will likely not pass the neighborhood’s approval, and these new owners will be stuck with a building from which they have evicted all of the tenants. I really hope that these people realize what they are doing, and I hope it eats them up inside.

To you D&W properties, I hope you enjoy the building that you want razed, because I have a feeling it is here to stay. Good luck on the maintenance.

By: Bad Man

Bad Man — Wed, 05 May 2010 05:30:42 +0000

Once again City hall is allowing developer weasels to build high density garbage with no ammenties of any kind. Other than the developers, please explain who benefits from nonsense like this? The neighborhood will be even more flooded with cars and it will become a nighmare if you look for parking after 9:00 P.M. most evenings.

By: Old Town

Old Town — Tue, 04 May 2010 18:50:27 +0000

“This won’t be like the Pearl District with $1,200 rents,” Hosmar said. “We want this to be a workforce housing opportunity for people that work downtown and don’t have cars.”

The myth of Pearl continues to be perpetuated. The Pearl has an excellent mix of housing. If one wants to pay $1,200 and more – you can. But you can find apartments in the $600 range easily. It also has a great mix of restaurants. Again if one wants the high end restaurant – it is there, but so too the low end. Living in Pearl is less expensive than Old Town.

Building high density housing without the provision of parking is irrational. While a neighborhood might well be nearly self-contained – there is always a need to drive. E. g., not all jobs permit a TriMet or bicycle ride.

It will be interesting to see what “affordable” is in fact. It is a term tossed around with as many meanings as the number of people using it. Will the rent be that established by Multnomah County as fair market rent? E. .g., one bedroom at $700. Or even that established by the feds as that percentage of income that should go towards rent and utilities?