I don't know how you define "luxury buildings," but Honolulu has mandatory IZ so every new multifamily building has a certain % of income-restricted units

Plus the secondary vacancies were significantly cheaper. If we can get income-restricted units via funded IZ for less money than 100% affordable projects (which the data suggests is the case), that still seems really valuable? Not to mention the de-segregation effects of IZ

The paper is an important vindication for market rate housing, but I didn't have such a negative takeaway for affordable units. Income-restricted units produced fewer secondary vacancies, but isn't this likely because it's reducing overcrowding for the lowest income residents? Which is a huge issue

I served on a jury where he was the defense attorney. He's legitimately a great lawyer!

After Portland made improvements in 2024 (FUNDED, finally www.sightline.org/2024/10/28/t...), the program is starting to work as intended. New data shows projects are no longer underbuilding to avoid the mandate:

But it's tragic that our zoning is forcing almost all of them to be within 2 blocks of I-5

These rule

Are these new 3-story buildings? Would love to see examples

Need a policy that requires something physically in the roadway, such as a bike rack or even just a flex post (though Williams hates those)

Another problem with this engineering directive (and could be improved via council policy), is that it doesn't define what daylighting should look like. In almost every case new daylighting are just signs, which are very frequently ignored and unenforced near where I live on NE/SE 28th

Could not agree more. I think it's time for council testimony highlighting both waste/inefficiency and lack of commitment to safe streets -- seems like a winning combo

I was more optimistic that this was the problem a year ago during my early discussions with BES. But at this point, BES (and Public Works Deputy City Admin Priya Dhanapal who has been cc'ed on a dozen emails) is 100% aware of the discrepancy but has no desire to correct it

Also, like @wilsonxcassie.bsky.social was saying, I think it could be powerful codifying it (or something stronger) as council policy. As of now, LW004 is just an engineering directive, that I think (?) can be more easily bypassed at the discretion of planners

BES appears to have dug their feet in, so the best way forward may be to get council to require all bureaus within Public Works (including both BES and PBOT) to follow the same policies, including LW004

It's absurd that different bureaus have different policies for the same street. Even more absurdly, BES is saying their repaving plan (that doesn't include sufficient daylighting) was CREATED BY PBOT. So PBOT is creating plans for other bureaus that don't follow their own policies.