The Dialogue: What Readers Said About the Fight to Create a Historic Distric in Laurelhurst

A makeshift homeless camp has taken up a block of Southeast Oak Street. (Nino Ortiz)

WW's cover story on the fight to create a historic district in Laurelhurst ("Barbarians at the Laurelhurst Gates," WW, June 21, 2017) was the latest chapter in a longstanding Portland debate: Should neighborhood residents be able to block dense development next door? And is distaste for new construction really just class snobbery? Our readers kept that argument going.

Heather Smit, via Facebook: "It is not about 'rich people' keeping 'poor people' out of their neighborhood. This about Portlanders who want to protect the integrity of an old neighborhood that draws you to Portland in the first place."

Rebecca Yocom Roehm, in response: "I have lived in a national registry historic district. It was a nightmare to make any renovations to our home. This is not 'pro-developer' fight. It is a right for a homeowner to control what happens to their property without being limited by extreme restrictions."

Heather Smit, in response: "I would much rather not be able to build a deck in my backyard than have a concrete and metal three-story monstrosity across the street."

Allison Huang, via Facebook: "Laurelhurst shouldn't get to say it's fancy and special and get to opt out of urban infill. Neither should Eastmoreland. People need places to live and the burden of infill shouldn't belong exclusively to 'less pretty' or 'less special areas.'"

Robert Greene, letter to the editor: "I've been to many neighborhood association meetings where the developer either doesn't show, nor does the developer have to appear, or says it doesn't matter what the neighborhood wants, the developer will do what the developer wants. …[Reporter Rachel] Monahan doesn't want neighbors, doesn't want people to have a say in their lives, she just wants renters. The Barbarians at the gate work for newspapers."

Lori Delman, via Facebook: "Did this journalist mention the density of the Laurelhurst neighborhood? We are currently one of the most dense neighborhoods in Portland…We are already doing our part by living in a densely populated neighborhood."

Tom Gillpatrick, via Facebook: "It was built as a planned community, people moved there to part of it, what's wrong with allowing to keep its distinctive character?"

Gus Frederick, via Facebook: "I want to see a battle between Laurelhurst forces and the minions of the Ladd Addition…"

John dull, via wweek.com: "Laurelhurst is a beautiful neighborhood, it really is but should they be treated any differently than any other neighborhood ? Uh, hell no!!"

Russell Edwards, in response: "It's a single family home neighborhood that people have paid top dollar for. If you want more apartments, go live closer in."

CORRECTIONS

Last week's rankings of state lawmakers ("The Good, the Bad and the Awful," WW, June 28, 2017) incorrectly said that Sen. Lew Frederick (D-Portland) is the only black man in the Legislature. In fact, Sen. James Manning (D-Eugene), who is black, was appointed to the Senate in December. The story also misidentified a co-sponsor of a bill creating a foster children's bill of rights. The co-sponsor was Rep. Susan McClain (D-Hillsboro), not Rep. Mike McLane (R-Powell Butte). WW regrets the errors.

Letters to the editor must include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words.
Submit to: 2220 NW Quimby St., Portland, OR 97210. Email: mzusman@wweek.com.

Willamette Week’s reporting has concrete impacts that change laws, force action from civic leaders, and drive compromised politicians from public office. Support WW's journalism today.