I’m compelled to respond to the Jan. 9 op-ed “The downsides of Portland’s Midas touch in housing” by Gerard C.S. Mildner. Mildner provides evidence of the causes of higher housing prices in the Portland area. However, like so many in the political and economic realm today, he takes a short-term view and uses economic assumptions that don’t reflect the larger picture of humanity’s place in the world.
In sharp contrast to Mildner’s opinion, I applaud Metro’s control of the urban growth boundary. The alternative is accelerating loss of farmland and wildlife habitat. This isn’t sustainable, nor is it desirable. It’s true that higher housing prices, especially on a per-square-foot basis, is painful to some. But let’s consider a wider view, both in time and area. In the past 100 years or so in the U. S., the population has soared, the number of people per household has gone down, and the size of the average dwelling has increased. Consequences already experienced: larger, warmer urban areas, fewer natural areas and accelerated species extinctions.
It seems likely that the cost of population growth on a finite world is housing that costs a greater fraction of the total budget and smaller housing units. These are painful choices, but they will ease the even more painful choices we’ll face with unchecked sprawl. Maintaining a sustainable, responsible urban growth boundary is not a “gross misallocation of resources.” It’s an entirely appropriate allocation.
Patrick Easley, Portland
Ad Choices