A massive “master development plan” engulfing the Bayside neighborhood was just approved without addressing community requests for better engagement. This result for Bayside is a stark contrast to the recent Roux agreement, which mandated a community advisory panel going forward. There were different processes triggered, and different governing bodies involved, but given the socioeconomic realities of the neighborhoods involved, it’s worth comparing the overall equity outcomes of our civic processes.

This parking lot at the corner of Elm and Lancaster streets in Portland is where Port Properties envisions 804 apartments, plus a pedestrian-friendly living street, or “woonerf,”  and a 6,000-square-foot public green. Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer

Bayside is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city, with one of the highest ratios of BIPOC residents and the worst tree-equity score. The history that got us here includes discriminatory government actions such as redlining, slum-busting, eminent domain seizure of immigrant-owned homes to ease traffic from Interstate 295 to Old Port business, gerrymandered concentration of high-impact services and demonstrable neglect of infrastructure.

So why would similarly impactful proposals receive such different treatment from the powers that be? To me, it suggests at least that Bayside continues to suffer from systemic and implicit biases, which will continue to cause harm until we actively correct them. Pretty soon planning will propose substantive changes for ReCode, the first rewriting of the city’s Land Use Code in over 50 years, and I hope the City Council takes that opportunity to think hard about how to engage our communities more equitably going forward.

Jim Hall
Portland