A school in the Pearl District
Editor's note: The following letter to the editor appeared in today's Oregonian. See the earlier discussion here at BlueOregon on Karol Collymore's post "New school for the Pearl, no school for everyone else".
By Ruth Adkins and Bobbie Regan, Portland School Board
We would like to set the record straight on Portland Public Schools' decision to lease classroom space in the Pearl.
PPS is not "building a new school." We are committing to a 5-year lease of several classrooms' worth of space in the ground floor of a proposed new, affordable apartment building. The lease would not begin until 2011-12. This decision has no impact on our budget this year or next.
This leased space would be a pilot program aimed to attract and retain families in PPS. We have been losing families who move to other districts in search of affordable housing. If this apartment building and the classrooms fill with children, we expect it will help encourage other developers to build affordable, family-friendly housing in this new neighborhood.
While 30 percent of existing Pearl District housing is affordable, many acres remain undeveloped in the adjacent River District. The city estimates 35,000 more people will move to the area. Will that new development be high-end condos or will there be family-friendly, mixed-income housing? By taking this first step toward providing a public school in this newly emerging neighborhood, PPS is trying to encourage the development of a diverse, high-density neighborhood with lots of children.
This "storefront school" is about a vision for future growth. Increasing enrollment in any area brings additional revenue that benefits the entire district. Partnerships like this give us needed flexibility in tight budget times, without a long-term commitment of capital dollars. We welcome flexible and creative partnership opportunities all over the city that will help us attract more families, address overcrowding at neighborhood schools, and keep down our facilities costs.
Meanwhile, the school board and district remain committed to improving achievement for all students, by tackling the challenges we face right now -- including the state funding cuts to this and next year's budget, the ongoing transition to K-8s, a system-wide redesign of our high schools, and beginning a long-term capital program to repair and rebuild all of our existing school buildings.
Discuss.
|
March 02, 2009
Posted in letter to the editor. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 2, '09
Thanks to whomever posted this letter. I continue to be agnostic about whether the proposed school is a good idea, but one thing I am quite sure about: the faux populism that has framed the debate here and elsewhere (left populism here, right populism on Bogdanski's blog, say) does nothing but stir up resentments. It's intended to stir up resentments.
12:21 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Not including a school as part of the original neighborhood revitalization plan was a huge error. There were also no outdoor or indoor parks created for kids--most of the parks in the Pearl are as boutique-like as the rest of the neighborhood. I hope this project signals a change in the anti-child, anti-family approach that typifies so much downtown development.
If anyone is actually looking to gloat over class struggles or sticking it to Richie Rich, as Joel suggests above, I think we stop for a minute to consider the positive implications that the wealthy in Portland apparently still see public schools as a viable option--the alternative would lead to much greater friction, social strife and even worse financing for public schools than they already have.
Mar 2, '09
First of all the claim that there are no parks for kids in the Pearl is at best misleading. Have you ever been to Jameson Square on a summers day? What was built as a place for quiet reflection instantly became a toddlers water park dream. In addition to Jameson's water play area, there are play structures at Couch Park, Wallace Park, and North Park Blocks.
I used to live in the Pearl with children. I think it is great they are putting in a public school, better that then a private one - but it doesn't address the fundamental problem. Only a certain demographic of people can afford a condo big enough for children. I had a loft - it got very small very quickly with a child. We looked at upgrading into a two bedroom, but the costs (granted this was two years ago) were insane and out of our reach even considering the insane amount of money we got for our loft.
Mar 2, '09
The question is not whether there are not any children in the Pearl, the question is whether there are enough children to justify using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to educate them in the Pearl. Tens of millions because if you count the tax breaks on the "affordable housing building" that will house the school and the cost of building it.
Why not send all children living in the Pearl District to the nearest elementary school (Chapman)?
Is this "proposed new, affordable apartment building" in the process of being built? If so, what is the address?
2:28 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Oh yeah. The water feature at Jameson Square is a serious kid and dog magnet. I walked through there once on a very warm summer evening and the place was very crowded. Lots of dog owners and parents watching dogs and kids play in the water along with plenty of casual observers like myself just taking it all in.
I don't believe that anyone here argued (on Karol's post) that putting a public school in the Pearl was a bad thing. Far from it. The issue of contention was about the priorities for PPS, given the underfunding of various other existing public schools.
Mar 2, '09
I would like to know when it became Portland Public Schools' mission to "...encourage the development of a diverse, high-density neighborhood..."? Silly me, I thought they were supposed to be educating our children. I guess I didn't see where they are also now in charge of urban planning for the city.
Get a clue, PPS: providing a school will not influence what type of development occurs in the north end of the Pearl. The only thing that will bring any sort of lower income housing is tax subsidies. Otherwise, the land is too expensive for any developer to make return on their investment and risk.
At a recent public meeting to discuss the budget woes, Superintendent Smith mentioned that about $1.1 million could be saved for each student added in the average student/teacher ratio. (For instance, if the district average is 25 students to one teacher, $1.1 mil can be shave off the budget by increasing that to 26:1) You can thank the Pearl School Experiment for adding another kid to your childrens' classroom in a couple of years.
Mar 2, '09
I think the PPS should be given credit for thinking outside the box, either in the pearl or else where. This is a growing city, thinking of different solutions, is always the way cities become great.
However it seems too many people want public school to fail, to prove a point. Or to blame all the problems of Portland on the Pearl. Lets use our minds to solve problems, not bitch and moan.
2:52 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Where in the hell did you pull that fiction of a number from?
Mar 2, '09
The only record that needs to be set straight here is the fact that the Portland Public School Board is giving preferential treatment to an affluent neighborhood, the elitist Pearl District, while at the same time, actively discriminating against working class neighborhoods where the board members, past or present, have closed/shuttered the neighborhood school.
Mar 2, '09
Where in the hell did you pull that fiction of a number from?
Actually, it is probably not too far off. According to the PPS budget, 15% is for "Busses, Buildings & More," while 17.3% goes to "School Staff & Support," and 52.5% is for "Teachers & Textbooks." The rest is administration, reserves, etc. The announced $1.5 million for 5 years is only for the lease of the building. That won't cover operating expenses, tenant improvements, furnishings and everything else that goes into making the space habitable. If this facility follows the ratio listed in the overall budget, it will conceivably cost "tens of millions of taxpayer dollars."
That doesn't mean that much of that money wouldn't also be spent educating those same students at Chapman, but the $1.5 mil plus TI's are definitely new.
3:51 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
"The only record that needs to be set straight here is the fact that the Portland Public School Board is giving preferential treatment to an affluent neighborhood, "
link? Preference over WHICH neighborhood without a neighborhood school and sharply increasing numbers of elementary aged children, exactly?
4:02 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
If families are looking for affordable housing, they're not likely to be looking in the Pearl. They're more likely to be pushed east, often out of PPS and into David Douglas or Centennial. That's because this is where the bulk of the true affordable housing is located in Portland. The fact remains that $900 a month for a three bedroom apartment isn't "affordable housing." It may be cheaper than other units in The Pearl, but that doesn't make it affordable. If it did, my own unit would be considered "affordable."
Yes, families are leaving Portland. But they're not leaving because The Pearl isn't affordable. They're leaving because the bulk of inner Portland isn't affordable. And not only that, but PPS is becoming more and more known for being inferior to other districts in the area. Many families I talk to here in Gresham moved here to get away from PPS.
And while I may not live in PPS, this is an important issue to me because PPS and Portland's failings are meaning more and more crowding in the classes here in Gresham.
The year before Abby started school, her elementary just barely had enough kids for 3 kindergarten classes. Last year they had four. They have four first grade classes this year, and increase over last year.
Every time one kid moves away, their seat is quickly taken in her class. They've been pretty steady at 22 kids in her class. If this trend continues and each year they have to add a fourth class of a grade, her school is going to quickly need more classrooms. And from what I am hearing from parents in other elementary schools across Gresham-Barlow, this isn't unique to Abby's school.
Mar 2, '09
I agree with the above comment about the fact that urban planning is not PPS's mission. There is room currently at Chapman elementary, if and when it becomes full with kids from the Pearl PPS should address the problem, but right now PPS is drowning and instead of focusing its resources on keeping current schools from cutting days or teachers or facilities, they decide to open a new school on the thinnest of pretexts. Infuriated doesn't begin to describe my reaction to this news.
4:14 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
"There is room currently at Chapman elementary,"
How does that give the Pearl a neighborhood elementary, or ease crowding in NW? And why is a sharply increasing number of schoolchildren in that area "the thinnest of pretexts?"
4:16 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Jenni thanks once again for a voice of sanity.
The references to planning and development policy trouble me, as they did in Karol's earlier post. I simply don't think it is the job of the PPS to try to influence development policies, and if they are doing so, I want to know on what basis they are making these decisions.
Everything I have read about family choices in the US is that the image of families in a highly dense urban corridor like the Pearl is pure fantasy. Most American families want space, they want a yard, they want a single family home or at worst a brownstone / townhome. Few American families choose to raise their children in 2 or 3 bdrm condos.
And as Jenni points out, such a condo or apartment in the Pearl will never be in reach of a lower income family.
I have no problem with the Pearl (other than the sham of it being described as an urban blight / urban renewal district). We need a place for high income yuppies and relocating retirees. They bring money, diversity, and culture to our city.
But a school in the Pearl is nothing more than a way station for very wealthy, small families until their children get to 3rd or 4th grade, at which time they'll move.
And I'm surprised at this time and in this budget environment, the PPS is considering this, given the very reasonable alternatives.
4:23 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Actually that is a great rate for any 3 bedroom in Portland and on par with what 3 bedroom in Gersham is listing at (check out Craigslist).
4:56 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
The same arguments about PPS forecasting, and accusations that the PPS board were trotted out when Forrest Park school was proposed. It is for rich kids, other areas are more in need, there aren't enough kids there yet to justify the school, etc. and yet the nay-sayers were 100% wrong on their call then.
BTW, the original planning for the Pearl did include schools being developed, and they were scrapped for the same false arguments put forward now. Families with kids won;t be in the Pearl, if there are kids, they are rich kids so screw 'em, mindless populist non-think.
So you would rather families leave the district or send their kids to private schools?
Either of those choices you want to make the only realistic ones if you want to prevent bringing classrooms into the Pearl, helps PPS how?
Busing kids 25 blocks to Chapman is good for the city how?
Building affordable housing in the Pearl (and yes Jenni, whether it fits in with your view of what is or isn't affordable housing, $900/month for a 3 bedroom is affordable not just in the Pearl, but in almost every area in the city) is bad how?
Ok, so you pulled your numbers out of thin air. BTW, if I recall correctly, the cost of buildings are amortized and paid for usually through Capital Facilities Bonds and are not normally a yearly budget line item paid out fo the district budget as you appear to claim.
5:07 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
Just as a counter-point, Cascade Crossing Apartments in Gateway for example, their 3 bedroom apartments go for more than what these in the Pearl are going to be at ($900/month) and they accept Section 8 vouchers and other subsidized housing programs.
So why aren't we all up in arms about the myriad apartment complexes who are Section 8 on apartments going for more than than $900/month simply because it isn't in the Pearl and easy to generate faux populist hyperbole against?
Where are the calls to tell the people of the Gateway district to go fly if they need an elementary school that isn't 25 blocks away?
And nobody seems to want to address the point about how this will result in driving people out of the district or into private schools and how that will help PPS somehow.
6:25 p.m.
Mar 2, '09
I happen to live in a three bedroom apartment that is around $900/month. As such, I have direct and current experience with this.
This price is not considered "affordable" - there are three bedroom apartments that go for less per month that are indeed considered affordable. Apartments in Gresham that are at this price are considered "apartment homes" or "luxury apartments" - not "affordable housing." The "affordable housing" apartments are more along the lines of $700 a month for a three bedroom unit.
There are many complexes in Portland and Gresham that have three bedroom for less than $900/month. Many of those are truly "affordable housing." We looked at one some time back that was a few hundred less than we pay, but found that because it was affordable housing it had income limits that we exceeded.
Portland is also known for having higher rental rates, which is why east county has seen such an influx in people moving here for the lower rental rates.
Also, it doesn't matter if $900 is "on par" with Portland and Gresham or not. We're not talking about average prices - we're talking about "affordable housing." And typically affordable housing means housing that those at the lower income levels can afford. And I can assure you a person at the lower income levels cannot afford a family and $900 for an apartment. You need $40,000 to afford the apartment with one child and no vehicle costs. I know from current experience.
Section 8 is a different topic. When people use Section 8, their rent is not $900 a month. It is less. So they are not paying $900 a month in rent, which is what we're talking about.
If we want to talk about areas with affordable housing where lower to middle income families are more likely to be clustered, The Pearl would be one of the last areas of town you'd look at. And not surprisingly, those are the areas who have seen their schools cut and cut over the past few years and have found their kids having to go further and further to school. Now who is more likely to move - someone whose school has been closed or someone who moved into an area knowing the school wasn't down the street?
Mar 2, '09
Lestatdelc,
Your logic is absurd. According to your logic, green spaces are not worth anything because trees do not appear on balance sheets until they are made into plywood, kleenex, toilet paper, etc.
If this "proposed new, affordable housing building" is not built yet, then there will be tens of millions of dollars spent to not only build it, LEED certify it, and make it habitable, but you also have to count the gargantuan tax breaks that the city gives to developers to build in "urban renewal districts."
Funny how some individuals look at some costs as they only appear on balance sheets, but when it to things such as "green spaces," they are the first ones up in arms saying that those are worth the world twenty times.
You cannot have it both ways.
Mar 3, '09
A school was in the original plan, but it was never funded. The original intent was to build a wide range of housing. However, an overheated real estate market had developers drooling and they built ever more high-end and expensive condos. As the PDC said at one meeting, "its a free market, we can't control what developers build on their property". But it is true that 30% of the housing here is subsidized affordable housing, at least it will be 30% once this next building where the school will be located is built. Who knows what will happen in the future now that the mortgage and real estate markets are crashing. Many of us who live here hope that future developments will be more attractive to middle and lower income families.
Yes, there are people in the Pearl who want families here, more than many may want to believe. Also, there are families who want to live here, more than many may want to believe.
People on this site and elsewhere shouldn't be so quick to trash the Pearl and its residents as super rich empty-esters and hipsters. Yes, they are here, but there are also regular people who work hard and worry about the same things many of you do.
I know not many of you want to believe it, but real people live in the Pearl. Based on comments, mostly in the original story, many of you don't believe that residents of the Pearl are human.
9:34 a.m.
Mar 3, '09
What nonsense. I have argued nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that the cost of school buildings (i.e. capital bonds) are not part of the operating budget so to claim they are and then extrapolate out based on wholly made up percentages pulled out of thin air (which the post I was replying to did) is nonsense.
That you take that and try to spin it 180 degrees bassackwards, and then argue somehow that I as a progressive should be against LEED certified building, retaining families in the district (specifically within the Pearl), attracting families into the city core, invest in schools that don' require busing kids across town, and be against affordable housing the Pearl, that is absurd logic.
I still see nobody wants to touch with a ten-foot pole the point I have made several times now, do you want to drive middle to upper income families either a) out of the district or b) out of the public school system? Because not having a school in the Pearl will do one or the other (or both).
9:36 a.m.
Mar 3, '09
Jenni, I am curious about the cost of where you live over a period of time, how long have you been where you are at? Has the rent there been stable, moved up, moved down?
9:38 a.m.
Mar 3, '09
Well said.
Mar 3, '09
In contrast to school board members "vision of future growth" for the Pearl District, they must have a vision of driving existing families out of N/NE Portland and other existing neighborhoods.
According to the district's data of building capacity for the schools in the Jefferson community, 6 of them can not acomodate the existing K-8 PPS students living in those neighborhoods. Woodlawn and Vernon each have approximately 300 more PPS students in the neighborhood than could fit into the school. A high percentage of students in those neighborhoods currently transfer to charter schools or public schools in other neighborhoods.
For the K-8 schools in the Jefferson cluster alone, there are approximately 1000 students who literally do not have a neighborhood school to go to and apparently the school board is satisfied with that situation for N/NE. PPS should be doing a little more to support the existing students in N/NE and throughout the school district.
Mar 3, '09
YOMB, have you looked at the lot prices alone? They're not worth that, but they are. So, where's the hidden value? It's "white flight" and, as such, busing the children to real schools is a non-starter. Just another way real estate interests drive all the crud in any city.
The value of the Pearl isn't in the Pearl, it's in not being inner SE. If your kids spend the day there, you have been robbed.
Ditto everything I've said about DHS about Portland schools. They are run by the same people that live in the Pearl. They are actively hostile toward your values. Once you rationalize administrative salaries, you cannot be expected to comprehend a cost/benefits analysis on this issue.
Mar 3, '09
In their letter to the editor RAdkins and BReagan attempt to “set the record straight” by insisting that “PPS is not ‘building a new school.’ We are committing to a 5-year lease of several classrooms' worth of space in the ground floor of a proposed new, affordable apartment building.”
However, Resolution 4039 that the school board adopted last week approving the lease agreement for the Pearl Distrtict classrooms makes pretty clear that PPS IS planning to build a new school.
The resolution says, “The near term goal is to encourage residential developers to build larger family style units as they see the demand and for the [PPS] District to propose a partnership with a local developer to construct a full elementary or K-8 school in one of the new high density housing developments, thus creating a full-service urban school.”
Mar 3, '09
Minutes of the School Board’s Committee of Student Support and Community Relations meeting on January 14 shed some light on the urgency behind the lease agreement.
PPS Chief Operating Officer Cathy Mincberg explained that in order to secure financing for his project Ed McNamara needed a Memorandum of Understanding with the District that stated the school district’s interest in locating in his building.
Seems like PPS is a little too concerned about the success of Ed McNamara's housing development, and not nearly concerned enough about the educational and facilities needs that are going unment for existing PPS students throughout the school district.
Mar 3, '09
the Portland Public School Board is giving preferential treatment to an affluent neighborhood, the elitist Pearl District, while at the same time, actively discriminating against working class neighborhoods where the board members, past or present, have closed/shuttered the neighborhood school.
Again, I am agnostic about the particular business of the proposed Pearl District school, but I agree, based on personal observation, with the gist of the comment I've reproduced here. Working-class neighborhoods where parents don't have much time to get involved in lobbying the PPS bureaucracy, or involved in fundraising, definitely wind up on the short end of the stick. PPS has a huge quandary, folks: the district has managed to retain the upper-middle class, but the way they've done it has, it would appear, had the unintended consequence of privileging that same social class.
2:41 p.m.
Mar 3, '09
We've lived in our current complex for just over two years. We lived in the previous complex for 6 1/2 years.
Rent has been fairly stable. We just recently signed a new lease and the increase was less than $20 a month.
Those that I've talked to who have been here longer had similar experiences. From what I gather, it is not out of the ordinary for residents to live here a long time. The tenants in our unit before us were here almost 20 years.
Mar 3, '09
I think the recent emphasis on attracting families to the Pearl has only happened because of the depressed high-end condo market.
Pearl developers though children in Jamison Park was “a problem” according to Homer Williams in the Tribune article, OOPS! Portland’s good intentions often have unexpected results (10/30/08), quoted below.
“The way Homer Williams remembers it, Jamison Square in the Pearl District was going to be a quiet, sophisticated public space where quiet, sophisticated adults could relax and socialize.
Yeah, that Jamison Square. The one with all the kids.
Williams, primary developer of the original Pearl, says when final designs came in he saw a problem — the rocks and steps in the center of the park. They were likely to become a magnet for skateboarding teenagers, Williams and others on the design team figured.
So landscape architect Peter Walker suggested a solution, according to Williams — run water over the rocks into a little pool. That would keep the teens out.”
Article link: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=122532030220814500
Mar 3, '09
According to the PPS Long Range Facilities Plan, “Metropolitan Learning Center was built in 1914 and served many years as a K-8 program, serving as many as 900 students in the early 1970s.” MLC’s enrollment in 2007 was 444 students, so it is about half full. MLC is located at 2033 NW Glisan, and has plenty of room for the new classes of Pearl children.
PPS is spending $9.6 million on 30 new trailer classrooms, many going to serve areas with closed schools. Shouldn’t PPS reopen existing schools before buying new trailers and use existing school space before leasing new schools?
Mar 3, '09
Did you know Ed McNamara, the developer who’s Pearl project just received a commitment for a new PPS school, was on the School Properties Field Review Group for the PPS Long Range Facilities Plan from Innovation Partnership.
So, one of the eight person team who helped target other’s neighborhood schools for closure is now getting a neighborhood school in his own project.
Mar 3, '09
Where is MY neighborhood’s student population forecast?
8:13 p.m.
Mar 3, '09
If you don't mind me asking, was the rent in the previous complex comparable to what your current one is?
8:45 p.m.
Mar 3, '09
The previous complex didn't have any three bedroom units, so I can't do that comparison. We were in a two bedroom unit there before moving to a three bedroom unit here.
The two bedroom units were less than what a two bedroom unit goes for here. If I remember correctly, the difference would be in the $150-300 range, depending on the unit. Covered parking, water, sewer, and trash were also included.
Where we live now you have to pay for water, sewer, and trash and pay for a covered spot (garage).
The old complex was in the middle range for prices here in town. There your annual salary needed to be around $24,000+ for them to approve your application. Here it's considerably higher.
Mar 4, '09
Here's some good news. The Village Home Education Resource Center is opening a new location in NE Portland a few blocks from Meek Elementary School (closed) and Whitaker Middle School (closed). For the 1000 plus students in north and northeast who don't have a neighborhood school, this will be another option besides entering the transfer lottery or moving to the Pearl District to have a neighborhood school. http://www.villagehome.org/
1:44 a.m.
Mar 4, '09
Andrea asked, Where is MY neighborhood’s student population forecast?
As always, Google to the rescue. (Took me 30 seconds.)
The Portland State Population Research Center produces student population forecasts for the PPS. (Read the intro, then click on the PDF link for Portland at the bottom.)
Mar 4, '09
It took me about 5 minute to figure out your link “student population forecast” is a forecast for the entire district and is not broken out by neighborhood.
Have you seen the “PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY STUDY OF RIVER DISTRICT FAMILIES” that the school board used to justify the new school?
“In February, 2008, Zimmerman Community Center (ZCC) commissioned a study by Portland State University’s Population Research Center to find out more about demographic trends in the River District. The study was led by Risa S. Proehl (503-725-5103).”
So I ask again, where is my neighborhood’s student population forecast?
Mar 4, '09
So, Portland is planning a new soccer field for a millionaire, but new schools like the Pearl School and Rosa Parks School have no field to play soccer.
Are we planning to raise a generation of spectators?
Mar 4, '09
I don’t know why the PSU data is so poor for predicting student populations for a specific neighborhoods, but their record is pretty bad.
Look at Forest Park School, and how quickly PPS had to add portable trailer classrooms.
Look at Rosa Parks School, and how quickly PPS had to change the grade configuration to mitigate overcrowding.
Then there are the school closures and the resulting need for 30 additional portable trailer classrooms.
Mar 4, '09
Andrea, I think the answer to your question is that you have to pay for it.
The PSU study of River District polulation was commissioned by the Zimmerman Community Center, which apparently has close connections to Ed McNamara who will benefit from the PPS lease in the Pearl District. The board members of the Zimmerman Community Center include Joan McNamara (Vice President), Joan Pendergast, David Leonard, Fred Stoffer, Jean Spraker, Tom Benjamin, Otto Papasadero, and Bonnie Parr Philpson.
Nancy Davis, who has been organizing the parent effort to get a neighborhood school for the Pearl District is also paid through the Zimmerman Community Center. All the newspaper articles give the impression she is just a concerned parent, not a paid organizer.
I wish our neighborhood had a paid community organizer and specially commissioned population study are our disposal. The are many neighborhoods around the city that have a greater need for a neighborhood school than the Pearl District, they just don't have the resources and connections to get the school board to pay any attention.
Mar 4, '09
Are Ed McNamara and Joan McNamara related?
Mar 4, '09
I don't know but, I bet the chances are good that Joan McNamara and Ed McNamara are related. I also bet that Joan Pendergast is connected to Pendergast Architects where Ed McNamara used to work when he served on the PPS facilities plan.
Mar 4, '09
I'd like to jump in and second Jenni's comments, as I live in the same complex she does. I've been here 10 years, started out in a two bedroom and downsized to a one-bedroom apartment. Our apartment complex is NOT affordable housing in Gresham---the last time I did a check on it last summer, it was the 4th most expensive complex in East County (Gresham, East Portland, Troutdale, Wood Village, Fairview). There ARE many apartments that qualify as affordable housing out here but they run much less. I am an apartment dweller by choice but want the amenities that come from paying for the top end in apartments.
As for rent increases, the last 3 years have been small increases, but I've had some in the past 10 years that caused my rent to jump between $40-$60 a month.
Oh, and Jenni, now that you've been here a couple of years, next time you are up for renewal, if you talk to Misty you can probably talk her down on your increase. I got her to freeze mine one year. They love quiet, long-term tenants.