Accumulation through Annexation: The Creation of Borders through Urban Development in East Portland

Travis Meng

5/1/2017

Soan 347: Borderlands

1

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Urban Development 2

Gentrification History and Theory 6

Portland as an Urban Space 8

Annexation and Assimilation of East Portland 11

Conclusion 16

References 18

2

Introduction

This paper is an examination of how urban development affects periphery communities.

East Portland was annexed by the City of Portland throughout the 1980s and 1990s, with the

boundaries we see today being finalized in 1994. Using East Portland as a situated context, I will

explore the experiences of the periphery in relation to the urban core. Another theme in relation

to this is the idea of capital accumulation as the driving force behind urbanization, where urban

development is seen as a means of accumulation by dispossession.

Urban Development

The Core-Periphery Relationship

In The Art of Not Being Governed, James C. Scott examines the progression of world

history as the inevitable consolidation of state power through the annexation of periphery

territories. Scott’s work is focused in mainland Southeast Asia, and he suggests that

consolidating control through administrative projects, economic policy, and cultural

standardization, are all integral components of the modern state. He describes the core of the

state as having a dichotomous relationship with its peripheries, where “A wealthy and peaceful

state center might attract a growing population that found its advantages rewarding. This, of

course, fits the standard civilizational narrative of rude barbarians mesmerized by the prosperity

made possible by the king’s peace and justice”. This narrative helps contribute to the enclosure

movement by the core, where people, land, and resources from the periphery are integrated and

monetized to become a productive members of the state. Scott describes this a means of creating

legibility, where incorporation of the peripheries translates to taxable, assessable, and

3

sanctionable subjects. This attempt to incorporate in the modern era has been re-created as

“development, economic progress, literacy, and social integration” . 1

Enclosure is not a voluntary act, Scott posits the act as “the colonizing of the periphery

itself and transforming it into a fully governed, fiscally fertile zone”. This process is enacted

through technologies such as roads, bridges, airplanes, weapons, communication technology, and

GPS. It is important to note that peripheries also represent a temptation of statelessness, which

gives all the more reason for the core to practice enclosure. However, Scott argues that stateless

communities exist as Zomia, which originally refers to stateless mountain communities. He

describes Zomia as: “ best understood as runaway, fugitive … communities who have, over the

course of two millennia, been fleeing the oppressions of state-making projects” . 2

Accumulation through Dispossession

In Emily Yeh’s Taming Tibet, she explores how Chinese development projects in Tibet

have been used to consolidate state power during the last 60 years. Included in this topic is the

issue of urban transformation, where urban development is described as a means of controlling

movement and space. As urban Tibet became subject to Chinese urban policy, state practices set

the conditions for market access and migration: “The state-market nexus in Han migration belies

the neoliberal ideology of a placeless, asocial invisible hand, and demonstrates the close

intertwining of development as a deliberate project of improvement on the one hand and the

expansion of capitalist social relations and value production on the other”. Yeh argues that state

policies of urbanization are less about improving the conditions for the subject, and more about

1 Scott 2010 2 Scott 2010

4

capital accumulation for the core (the Chinese Communist Party, in this case). For urban spaces

in Tibet, concentrated spatial rearrangements meant a reconfiguring of experiences and everyday

life. For example, much of the peasant population of these affected regions were relocated,

leading to a disconnect from historically created senses of home and place-based collective

memories. As a result, urban industrial workers were privileged over those who labored in rural

agriculture. This is why Yeh describes urbanization as “the laying down of a new grid of

legibility and state territorialization of space”. By mapping new meanings onto city centers,

subjects are newly produced to fit into practices of uneven state accumulation . 3

Growth Management and Urban Growth Boundaries

Growth management in response to urban sprawl in the United States began in the early

1960’s. A commonly acknowledged example of early, city-led growth management policy is the

city of Ramapo, NY, which in 1969 created an ordinance to permit development with a

points-based system. This was criticized for excluding low-income families and deflecting

problems to other states, which exemplifies many of the criticisms that are present today . 4

State-led programs have particular consequences over county or city-led programs, such as:

maintaining power, enabling better distribution of sanctioning, and providing financial and

administrative support . State programs began with Hawaii in 1961, followed by Vermont in 5

1970; then Oregon, Florida, and several other states created policies related growth management.

Similar to the case of Chinese annexation of Tibet, Yeh suggests that state programs are a means

of bypassing shortfalls of neoliberal market ideology to consolidate means of accumulation.

3 Yeh 2013 4 Meck 2008; Anthony 2004 5 Anthony 2004

5

In the United States, growth management typically occurs through either zoning, urban

growth boundaries, or both. Zoning refers to guidelines that classify land for a specific use

(commercial, residential, farmland, etc.), usually designated by local governments; UGBs serve

as administrative boundary lines. The goals and outcomes of growth management, and more

specifically UGBs, are to : 6

● Preserve open space and farmland ● Minimize the use of land by reducing lot sizes and increasing residential densities ● Reduce infrastructure costs by encouraging urban revitalization, infill, and

compact development ● Clearly separate urban and rural spaces ● Ensure the orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses ● Create a sense of community ● Direct new growth into the already built up areas through densification

As administrative lines, UGBs attempt to contain sprawl and development for future

population growth, usually accounting for at least several decades of growth in various stages. A

UGB can be redrawn or amended to include more developable land within the boundary as

population growth may exceed the rate that was once predicted. UGBs may control the timing of

future zoning changes as well, specifying the boundary between non-conforming land uses and

defining the location of future urban development projects . 7

Theorizing Growth Management

Critics of UGBs frequently base their assertions on neoliberal housing market theory,

which argues that land prices are highest in the center of the city and decrease from the core. At

every place in and around the city, land goes to the highest bidder. The city will have housing

6 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006; Long et. al, 2015 7 Knaap & Nelson 1988

6

extended out until residential bids are below farming/rural use bids . UGBs may restrict those 8

residential bids from being realized in the urban periphery, distorting the market value of land.

They should be understood as an extension to Scott’s concept of enclosure, where periphery land

is annexed and reconfigured to fit the purpose of the state. Moreover, UGBs are also intended to

protect natural amenities, and this protection of access to amenities may further raise land values9

. However, the link between housing values and UGBs is more ambiguous, since developers and

consumers will respond to higher land values by economizing on land (building and living on

smaller lots/in smaller units). Some studies have found that growth control has a significant

impact on the price of housing and that growth control causes a significant exclusionary impact

that price-mitigating measures cannot overcome . 10

Gentrification History and Theory

Gentrification can be broadly defined as the upward shift in class of an area, expressed as

“a significant rise in mean status or degree of inequality in the status of residents (and

businesses) and in the value of residential and non-residential property” . This involves a 11

combination of the buying and renovation of homes and commercial spaces in deteriorated urban

neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families/individuals, and the municipal

reconstructuring of the urban core. It been a growing issue in American cities since the 1980s,

and is predicated on the creation of a rent gap through historic disinvestment in the urban core.

Issues such as redlining, white flight, and federal policies to subsidize suburbanization led to

8 O’Sullivan 2003 9 Downs 2002 10 Zorn 1986 11 Morrill 2008

7

significant disinvestment in American inner cities through the 1980s. This created a historically

anomalous situation in which suburban peripheries were often wealthier than the urban cores.

Central land was thus frequently undervalued in terms of the gap between realized value and

potential value, creating profitable redevelopment opportunities and laying the ground for

gentrification. Richard Morrill classifies gentrification as either core re-development: “result of

organized conscious public and private planning and coordinated investment and development,

often quite large scale and involving marked densification, replacement and enlargement of

structures”, or enabled or encouraged by planning policies of smart growth, but also the result

“of individual decisions of buyers and renters, who for job, lifestyle choices or other reasons,

desire to live in the central city” by those who are likely to be of middle-high social class . 12

Gentrification is a fundamentally economic phenomenon with social consequences. Due

to the strong association between economic status and race, gentrification brings to the fore

racial dynamics and inequities. The reallocation and reconfiguration of space to maximize value

will tend to displace economically-disadvantaged populations in favor of those able to pay higher

rents. This process continues as more and more neighborhoods become gentrified, pushing

primarily low-income households out to the peripheries of urban areas. Reinvestment and

displacement are closely related to gentrification. Reinvestment is defined as capital inflows into

the built environment of, while displacement refers to the direct outflow of previous residents.

Gentrification is a process that consolidates wealth through dispossessing the already

disadvantaged. For example, municipalities benefit from increased property values, and

developers profit from urban redevelopment, but local residents will frequently suffer from rising

12 Morrill 2008

8

rents, loss of community identity, and direct displacement. Existing homeowners, in theory,

benefit from appreciated housing values, though they have to pay increased property taxes.

Increased home values create a strong incentive for homeowners to “cash-in” on gentrification,

especially as more community members do so. The combination of these push-pull factors helps

create the displacement associated with gentrification. Renters pay a high price for gentrification,

with rising rents pushing them further and further from jobs or dislocating them from their

community.

Portland as an Urban Space

In the mid 19th century, most of inner Portland was constructed around streetcar lines.

The rise of consumer car usage and the construction of highways throughout Portland became

prevalent after World War II. This led to the deconstruction of streetcar lines, the historic

structures of the old Lloyd Center, and surface parking lots in downtown. Policy revisions in the

1970’s and 1980s encouraged the revitalization of downtown. These changes involved instituting

various plans for downtown, replacing Harbor Drive with the Tom McCall Waterfront Park

(1974) and implementing the Urban Growth Boundary (1979). A freeway revolt in the mid

1970’s aimed at blocking the planned Mt. Hoot Freeway construction through Southeast Portland

reallocated funds to construct the Eastside MAX line.

1979 Comprehensive Plan The 1979 Comprehensive Plan officially laid out the goals of the UGB and its

implementation. Its discussion of the UGB remains very broad; its most specific point about the

UGB is its goal to “identify and adopt an urban planning area boundary outside the current city

9

limits. The City will conclude agreements with abutting jurisdictions, establishing a process for

monitoring activity within this boundary” (D-1). Overall, the Comprehensive Plan seems to be

directed at an audience of Portland residents at the time, residents with concerns about the

stability of their place of belonging as the city attempted to expand. As such, the Comprehensive

Plan takes intentional strides to state the importance of measures to retain Portland’s character.

Nevertheless, its introduction states: “We must accept some changes or we run the risk of losing

all the things that make Portland ‘one of America’s most livable cities’”(B-1). Throughout the

report, this motif of inviting change while maintaining the security and character of current

neighborhoods and residents is highly present.

Perhaps because of this audience that seems sensitive to change, the Comprehensive Plan

highlights the conservation of diversity over time. When discussing neighborhood improvement,

one priority is: “Provide and coordinate programs to promote neighborhood interest, concern and

security and to minimize the social impacts of land use decisions" (D-5). Another specifies:

“Promote neighborhood diversity and security by encouraging a balance in age, income, race and

ethnic background within the cities neighborhoods” (D-5). Finally, the plan gives particular,

spelled-out steps towards the maintenance of citizen involvement in city planning (D-16).

Racial History

Up until the year 1926, African-American individuals were banned from the state of

Oregon through actual Oregon Constitutional law. To this day, African-American individuals

still make up a small portion of the population both statewide (1.8% as of the 2010 census) and

in Portland (6.3% as of the 2010 census). Racial covenants were in place until the 1960s,

10

prohibiting black prospective homeowners from buying homes in white neighborhoods. There

has also been a history of redlining in Oregon, which is a process in which mortgage lenders and

social services refuse to lend capital to communities of color . A quote from Portland State 13

University sums up the relation between minority communities and predominantly white

neighborhoods as: “Housing was at the core of racial tensions… Neighborhood groups were up

in arms at every suggestion or rumor that blacks might be moving to their areas...black workers

found, that in segregated Portland, the close-in areas of Albina was virtually the only housing

open to them" . 14

Historically, disinvestment in North Portland was followed by a rapid rebound in

property values, this has led to increases in homeownership by white residents and the

disproportionate displacement of black residents . Between 1990 and 2000 the number of black 15

residents in NE Portland decreased substantially while numbers of white residents grew; over

5,000 housing units were added, while the percentage of black owner-occupied and

renter-occupied housing units decreased. Accordingly, the number of cost-burdened households

increased . By 2000, white households comprised over 50% of households in the area reporting 16

an income of $25,000 or more. The affordability of housing in the last few decades has worsened

to the extent of a crisis. Portland features the fastest rising rents in the U.S., rent rates have been

increasing by approximately 2-3% per year since 2010, while changes in incomes remain flat.

These increases in rent prices are more severe in neighbourhoods that are closer to the urban

13 Novak 2015 14 PSU 15 Gibson 2007 16 McGee 2010

11

core. Less availability in housing leads to shortages in the rental market. At the same time, the

amount of people moving to Portland has been increasing.

Figure 1:

Annexation and Assimilation of East Portland

East County

East Portland is comprised of 29 square miles (20% of Portland’s land area) and 13

neighborhoods, it is generally located east of East 82nd Avenue and Interstate 205. It is bordered

by Gresham to the east, the Columbia river to the north, and Happy Valley to the South . 17

Before the 1980’s, East Portland was called East County, and it developed as an

unincorporated portion of Multnomah County. Before annexation, East County represented

similar qualities to Scott’s concept of Zomia. It was located in-between Gresham and Portland,

but was not governed by either municipality. In March of 1983, Multnomah County passed The

17 Griffin-Valade et. al 2014

12

Urban Services Policy to stop providing municipal services to rural areas of the county, this

included police services, neighborhood parks, and land use planning . In 1984, an agreement 18

was reached between Multnomah County and the City of Portland to have the City provide

urban/municipal services for East Portland, and have the county focus on human resource

services. By 1986, 37,000 residents of East County were annexed into the city. By 1994, all

113,000 residents of East County were annexed by Portland due to The Urban Services Policy.

As a result, all citizens were required to pay taxes to the City or Portland, they became legible

subjects to the nearby city core. One former resident of Parkrose was firmly against the policy:

“Well I was very strongly opposed to this whole mid-county area being annexed to the city of

Portland and I worked very hard to keep that from happening. Because I thought that it was

more or less the demise of neighborliness out here and we were subject to all the Portland

problems, which I thought we didn’t need to have, and I did not like the way they went about it”

19

Unequal Entitlements

As previously rural areas began to develop, service distribution was needed. Annexation

brought changes in zoning and development, along with all the challenges of providing equitable

services. Compared to the rest of Portland, East Portland developed with less amenities even

though they were paying the same costs: with fewer parks and sidewalks, and greater distances

between housing, shopping, and other services . Among the many instances of service 20

disentitlement, the most appalling lack of amenities were sewers. Before annexation occurred,

18 Griffin-Valade et. al 2014 19 Blumberg 2002 20 Griffin-Valade et. al 2014

13

the 22,300 acres between Portland and Gresham developed without sanitary sewers, and had

utilized septic tanks instead, which were pits that waste flowed into . After time, Oregon 21

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) found that waste in the tanks began to seep into the

soil and underground water, which had dangerous effects on drinking water. Additionally, the

East County Sanitary Sewer Consortium found that the lack of sanitary sewers prevented

business and job creation in the region . The installment of a functional sewage system by the 22

City ended up costing 255 million dollars over a 12-year construction time, most of which was

paid by residents of the newly annexed area. As the ballot for sewage funding failed, households

in East Portland were required to pay average costs of $5,000 to $9,000, a price that was rarely

affordable for many lower-income families at the time . 23

Another disentitlement experienced by East Portland residents was a lack of political

representation. In 1981, community activists planned to avoid annexation by joining with the

suburb of Fairview to create Oregon’s second largest city, called Columbia Ridge. The proposed

area was approximately all of present-day East Portland. Activists wanted to pay existing

Multnomah County water and fire services to patrol Columbia Ridge, but the Portland

Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission denied the proposal, commissioner

Susan Quick justified the decision by stating: "It is our duty to prevent illogical extensions of

boundaries" . The idea of Columbia Ridge represented an economic loss to Portland, where 24

accumulation was threatened by collaborative resistance to enclosure. Today, neighborhoods east

of East 82nd Avenue have no voice in City Council. In the 50 most populous cities of the U.S,

21 East Portland Action Plan 2009 22 Griffin Valade et. al 2014 23 Haque 2016 24 Schmidt 2014

14

Portland is one of two cities that elects city council members based on majority election, every

other location has at least a few council positions created for equal district representation. A

104-year old charter is what designates the commission form of governance that holds a mayor

and four commissioners are elected city-wide . Since the inception of this charter, only one City 25

Council member has come from a neighborhood east of East 82nd Avenue, and out of the 133

square miles of Portland, more than half have come from a 7 square mile radius . 26

Figure 2: Portland City Council Members as of 2014 : 27

In describing the marginalizing effects of Portland’s political system, 80 year-old community

activist Bonnie McKnight (who was a leader during the Columbia Ridge campaign) stated: "This

has never been our government, we were forced into somebody else's government" . 28

25 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/article/5140 26 Schmidt 2014 27 Oregon Live 2014 28 Schmidt 2014

15

Communities of Color in East Portland

East Portland is unique due to the fact that it is home to 38% of Portland’s youth and the

largest racially diverse population, with one third of residents identifying as non-white . Since 29

the 1970’s, East Portland has become home to many immigrants and refugees from many

backgrounds, including: Bosnians, Burmese, Cambodians, Cantonese, Ethiopians, Hmong,

Kurds, Lao, Russians, Somalis, Ukrainians, and Vietnamese . According to data from Portland 30

Public Schools: English language learners consist of 20% to 40% of schools in the area . Due to 31

relatively lower housing costs, gentrification in inner portland, and already established

communities of color, the diversity of the area has become a major part of their identity.

Margaret Malarkey of Portland’s Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO)

describes the situation as a cause of poor immigrant benefits on behalf of the City: “Because

their stipends are so small when they come, we try and place them farther and farther out” . 32

Although, these demographics are not always apparent in politics, out of 123,000 residents today

who are old enough to vote, 1 in 6 residents are ineligible to vote due to documentation

requirements. This rate is nearly three times higher than the rest of the city . 33

Portland has undergone significant gentrification of its inner neighborhoods concomitant

with an internal racial restructuring in which lower-income residents have been displaced from

relatively central neighborhoods to the decidedly ones that are east of 82nd Avenue . In 25 of 34

29 East Portland in Motion 2012 30 East Portland Action Plan 2009 31 East Portland in Motion 2012 32 Law 2011 33 Schmidt 2014 34 Goodling, Green, McClintock 2015

16

East Portland’s 32 census tracts, the African American population has more than doubled since

2000, whereas the white population has experienced a decreasing trend. API and Latino

populations have also grown in the last decade. As of 2011, 14% of East Portland residents

identify as Latino and 11% identify as API, both of these percentages are proportionally twice

the size of the rest of Portland . 35

Figure 3: Population Growth of Racial Minorities in East Portland Neighborhoods 36

Conclusion

Many residents view East 82nd Avenue as the city limits of Portland, and it is not a

coincidence. Although it is technically incorporated into Portland’s UGB, East Portland has not

historically accrued the same benefits of development as that of the rest of the city. Instead, it is

35 Law 2011 36 East Portland in Motion 2012

17

an example of how development focused on the urban core affects the outside peripheries. In this

instance, annexation meant that newly annexed citizens paid taxes for services they were not

receiving. There is no conclusive evidence of Portland’s UGB being a contributor to increasing

gentrification, but it can be regarded as one of many urban policies, including the 1979

Comprehensive Plan, that encouraged reinvestment into the urban core.

Gentrification in Portland is symbolic of Scott’s core-periphery social organization,

where the urban core is the hub for capital, and the periphery is the diverse and disentitled

exterior. The inherent contradiction in the nature of the UGB is that it serves a select few

(planners, developers, and residents who are already higher up in power relations in their

respective communities) by directing all the negative externalities disproportionately to the

peripheries and the bottom of the power structure. Following Yeh, these policies were not

created to increase the living qualities for all of Portland’s residents, they were used to increase

capital accumulation for the urban core. As a result, the periphery area of East Portland, among

other communities, has experienced a lack of entitlements and political representation.

18

References

Anthony, Jerry. 2004. “Do State Growth Management Regulations Reduce Sprawl?” Urban Affairs Review 39 (3):

376–97. doi:10.1177/1078087403257798.

Blumberg, Rachel. 2002. “The Wheel Keeps Turning: An Oral History of Parkrose. Portland” FamilyWorks

Downs, Anthony. 2002. “Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere?” Housing Policy Debate 13 (1):

7–31. doi:10.1080/10511482.2002.9521432.

East Portland in Motion. 2012. “A Five Year Implementation Strategy for Active Transportation”. City of Portland

Bureau of Transportation. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/391907

Gibson, Karen J. 2007. “Bleeding Albina: A History of Community Disinvestment, 1940-2000.” Transforming Anthropology 15 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1525/tran.2007.15.1.03.

Griffin-Valdade, LaVonne. April 2014. “East Portland: History of Services Examined”.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditservices/article/488003

Haque, Sabina. 2016. “Annexation: How East Portland was Born”. Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/182800895

Henry W McGee, Jr. 2010. “Portland’s Exiles: Pricing Out African Americans.”

http://works.bepress.com/henry_mcgee/1/.

“Is Smart Growth Fair Growth: Do Urban Growth Boundaries Keep Out Racial Minorities? - Viewcontent.cgi.” 2016.

Accessed March 16. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jpps.

Jun, Myung-Jin. 2004. “The Effects of Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary on Urban Development Patterns and

Commuting.” Urban Studies 41 (7): 1333–48. doi:http://usj.sagepub.com/content/by/year.

Knaap, Gerrit J. 1985. “The Price Effects of Urban Growth Boundaries in Metropolitan Portland, Oregon.” Land Economics 61 (1): 26–35. doi:10.2307/3146137.

Law, Steve. 2011. “Portland’s Population of Color Moving to the East”. Portland Tribune

http://portlandtribune.com/component/content/article?id=12638

Morrill, Richard. 2008. “Gentrification, Class, and Growth Management in Seattle, 1990-2000.” In Global Perspectives on Urbanization, by George Pomeroy. University Press of America.

Novak, Matt 2015. “Oregon Was Founded as a Racist Utopia.” Gizmodo.

http://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

19

O'Sullivan, A. 2003. Urban economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Schmidt, Brad. 2014. “Portland Power: The Future of East Portland”. The Oregonian

Scott, James. C. 2010. “The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia”. Yale

University Press

“Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Diversity: Progressive Planning Movements in America and Their Impact on Poor

and Minority Ethnic Populations.” n.d. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy.

Yeh, Emily. 2013. “Taming Tibet: Landscape Transformation and the Gift of Chinese Development”. Cornell University

Press.

Zorn, Peter M., David E. Hansen, and Seymour I. Schwartz. 1986. “Mitigating the Price Effects of Growth Control: A

Case Study of Davis, California.” Land Economics 62 (1): 46–57. doi:http://le.uwpress.org/content/by/year.