Nick Christensen
Special to The Oregonian/OregonLive
Christensen, a communications professional, was chair of the Lents Neighborhood Association from 2010-2013. He has lived in Lents since 2009.
About 25 years ago, Portland leaders came to East Portland community leaders with a proposition: You saw what happened to the Pearl District – why not let it happen to Lents?
At the time, the Pearl District was in the beginning stages of its transformation from a sad, warehouse-filled wasteland to a bustling home for thousands of Oregonians, an example of what “urban renewal” investments could accomplish. Meanwhile, in Lents, decades of efforts to spur revitalization had failed. The community, which in 2000 was 81% white and had suffered through decades of poverty since the closure of the Dwyer Lumber Mill, was desperate for something new.
Leaders promised Lents the moon in the form of an urban renewal district, in which the city finances improvements by borrowing against the district’s future property tax growth. But progress was glacial. By 2014, the city’s economic development agency, now called Prosper Portland, had spent $96 million in Lents (including $17 million in overhead) and it was hard to see that much had changed the neighborhood for the better.
Urban renewal in Lents did, in the late 2010s, create opportunity for hundreds of Oregonians, in the form of new homes, businesses and safer streets. But getting there took much longer, and much more work, than it needed to.
So how can community members in Cully, the latest neighborhood to sign up for a slice of optimism from Prosper Portland, learn from Lents’ mistakes and successes?
First, community members should be clear from the get-go about their goals. Community leaders have said they hope to see more housing and climate resiliency incorporated. Stick to those goals. Room for ambiguity gives the indecisive wheels of bureaucracy opportunity to avoid decisions.
They must also press the city to keep to a timeline. Prosper Portland might pitch delays as “opportunities for more engagement” or “further assessments of market conditions.” But delays also tend to be consensus killers, taking nearly-established agreements and rendering them moot. If you delay a decision long enough, that delay becomes a choice – to do nothing.
Second, keep in mind that delay only adds expense. It took 20 years for City Hall to do what everyone knew was right in the first place – hand out all the copper pennies it took to clear out Old Lents and build apartments with locked-in affordable rents.
Doing so was an expensive choice, but it was the right one. New housing needed to be built in our historic downtown, along transit lines, in an area that just happened to be occupied by a notorious nightclub. Doing so has prompted construction of more housing, including more apartments locked in at affordable rents through subsidies and inclusionary zoning.
That could have been done in the 1990s, instead of feeding into an endless cycle of needless debate.
In Cully, community members should strike while the iron is hot. There’s no sense waiting 10 years to get a solution 98% perfect if you can do something 90% perfect today and house people that much sooner.
Third, don’t be afraid of neighborhood improvements. Displacement can, and should, be fought – and Prosper Portland has the tools for that. The people who have lived through Cully without amenities shouldn’t be forced to move when it gets them.
But that doesn’t mean that the people of Cully should live without sidewalks, street lights, trees and thriving businesses. These can’t be associated with just “the nice neighborhoods” – they must be a part of every community in Portland.
Finally, beware of opportunists. In the case of Lents, Portland City Council was looking to tap another $25 million of urban renewal dollars to go towards building a minor league baseball stadium in Lents Park. (A later bargain spent less than $200,000 renovating the existing stadium for our beloved Portland Pickles). This wasn’t necessarily an urban renewal project – it was simply a project looking for a funding stream. If those funding streams don’t align with your long-term needs, just say no.
A quarter-century after Lents first became an urban renewal area, there are signs of hope. The community’s increasing diversity – a fifth of residents are immigrants and half are people of color – is an asset. Lents Town Center is home to hundreds of new affordable apartments. For five years, we’ve been home to one of the city’s best bakeries. Our brewery and food hall is expanding. We have health clinics and restaurants. I can’t think of a single business lost to gentrification – our taquerias, our greasy spoon, our mechanic, our bike shop, – they’re all still here.
But Lents could have done so much more – to support small business, to prevent displacement, to prepare for increasing diversity – if leaders had just marched in one direction starting in the 1990s. Hopefully, our city’s leaders have learned how to make communities truly prosper.
Share your opinion
Submit your essay of 500-600 words on a highly topical issue or a theme of particular relevance to the Pacific Northwest, Oregon and the Portland area to commentary@oregonian.com. Please include your email and phone number for verification.
