Terry Parker (running for Commissioner position 2)

Should policies be adopted to ensure every neighborhood in Portland welcomes more neighbors, through smaller, denser, lower-cost housing options like smallplexes, cottage clusters, and small-to-moderate-sized apartment complexes, via both the nonprofit and private markets?

No, only in certain locations. One of the attributes that makes Portland a beautiful city is it's existing single-family home neighborhoods. Increasing density in single-dwelling zoned neighborhoods will target demolishing the most affordable homes, eliminate green yards and remove mature trees that act as carbon offsets thereby destroying the neighborhood environment and ambiance. New construction almost always costs more. The greenest buildings are the ones already built. Higher densities including triplexes and quadplexes etc. should be restricted to areas that are near services along major corridors, in town centers and around the fringes of transit centers. Pilot projects to identify affordability and impacts need to take place in neighborhoods that want more density. New structures should match the scale of surrounding structures within residential neighborhoods. Adequate off-street parking with charging connectivity for electric cars needs to be required with all new residential developments so neighborhood streets don't become full time car storage lots.

Should Portland expand transit-oriented development (allowing apartment complexes by-right within a short walk of all major transit lines) as a way to discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles and reduce our city’s carbon emissions?

No. The government should not be attempting to dictate travel mode choice. History clearly demonstrates higher rates of personal mobility (such as driving) significantly contributes to greater economic productivity which in turn generates family wage jobs. Nearly 10% of the jobs in the U.S. are tied to the auto industry. In Portland, 59% of low income people drive to their place of employment. The city is making things worse by removing and narrowing full service travel lanes on major streets increasing congestion, fuel consumption and emissions. One of the factors that triggered the last major recession was the negative impact on personal mobility and small businesses created by high fuel costs. Auto usage provides the largest subsidies to transit and therefore should be appreciated and valued by transit users. While one two-axle TriMet bus does as much damage to the streets as 1200 cars, fares barely cover 25% of the just operating costs. Overall, transit is subsidized at approximately 65 cents per passenger mile. In other words, transit is miles away from being self-sustainable. To help pay for the transit usage TOD tenants are expected to use, maybe the City should implement a yearly rental unit tax on multi-family dwellings that do not have adequate off-street parking. 

Should neighborhood associations have less, as much, or more power than other community organizations when it comes to questions of housing, such as whether new apartments or homeless shelters are permitted in a given neighborhood?

More power. Portland's world renowned framework of Neighborhood Associations needs to be strengthened and expanded as per the 2016 Auditor's Report. This includes more inclusiveness from all groups and communities within their geographical boundaries. Property owners and homeowners generally are the people that have made long term investments in neighborhoods. Without a geographically elected City Council by quadrant or district, the geographical neighborhood associations, coalitions and long term neighborhood residents should have a much larger decision making role about where they live, work and play.  

Should Portland dedicate less, as much, or more money to regulated affordable housing? (If you answered "more money," what funding mechanism(s) would you pursue to build this additional housing?)

As much money. What I don't agree with is an affordable housing bond measure paid for by increasing property taxes that in turn will increase housing costs for both homeowners and non-subsidized renters. Such a move would have negative financial impacts on self-sufficient working class families with modest incomes and senior citizens on fixed incomes, likely even creating gentrification.   

My philosophy is to provide a hand up towards self-sufficiency instead of everlasting handouts. 

Would you support a citywide moratorium on evictions during the three coldest months of the year, as Seattle recently adopted?

No. It is likely such a repetitive policy could easily be abused with tenants planning on moving out and escape paying the rent before the three month period ends thereby leaving even good landlords in the lurch. I can however support temporary moratoriums during the duration of snow storms and/or other especially bad weather conditions.

As Portland implements an anti-displacement plan, which policies from the Anti-Displacement PDX Coalition would you support? What additional anti-displacement policies do you support?

None of the above

I can support a 60 day notification. To raise revenue to help out displaced families and individuals, I support policies that would increase taxes on tobacco products, alcohol and non-medical/recreational marijuana and cannabis products.  

I specifically oppose adding a tax or fee to build a by right single-dwelling unit in single dwelling zones. This sounds like jealousy and spitefulness from the "me" generation towards the people who have worked hard and in many cases even sacrificed to succeed in acquiring the American Dream of single-family home ownership.

What else should Portland pro-housing, pro-tenant community know about you & your candidacy?

The Residential Infill Project (RIP) is a repeat city-wide of what happened to Albina in the 1960s. There is already a short supply of inner neighborhood single family homes and starter homes in Portland. The destruction of in-city/established single family home neighborhoods will resort in the gentrification of middle and working class families fleeing to the suburbs. Investing in home ownership is a form of creating wealth. RIP puts out the ""for sale"" sign offering up single family home neighborhoods to for-profit developers for the highest bid. It opens the door to the kind of neighborhood destruction that is taking place in Vancouver, B.C. where one in every four single family homes being sold is demolished. Sizeable fees need to be applied to discourage viable homes being demolished or deconstructed, and when big mature trees are cut down to make room for housing structures with larger footprints. Mechanical demolition in residential neighborhoods must be totally outlawed. The process for the conversion of large homes into multi-unit living units needs to be made easier. Any replacement structures need to match the scale of the surrounding properties. 

The ambiance of Portland's beautiful single-family home neighborhoods needs to be protected from destruction for both the people living there now and for future generations of families that want social distancing and yards/green space around their homes. A 25 square foot lawn will supply enough oxygen to support one person for a day. A turf area 50' x 50' will produce enough oxygen to meet  the daily needs of a family of four. An average golf course will produce enough oxygen to support 4,000 to 7,000 people. More housing can be built in Portland by following the principals in the comp plan that designate town centers, major corridors and close-in to transit centers as the places to locate multi-family housing. Most Portland neighborhoods have one or more of these designated locations.

Parker received an F overall from our scoring committee. See all scores and read about our process here.