It's a long piece on the property Salem Alliance Church owns and has recently purchased in the Grant neighborhood.
It touches on church's stated purpose of managing parking, but it also indirectly looks at the property as an investment strategy, at gentrification and potentials for displacement, at the scope of property off the tax rolls and the loss of revenue to the City and other entities, and just so many other themes. It was prompted, obviously, by the debate over the temporary Library site.
(The church is also landlord for the bike shop Northwest Hub.)
We need more of this kind of story. The swaths of property owned by institutions or large private entities and the interests of their owners together profoundly shape neighborhoods and the whole of the city. These are forces that direct policy, but which rarely do so in overt, explicit ways. They operate silently, in back rooms, unspoken. These are subterranean currents that too often are invisible, and the citizens then wonder why things are the way they are.
It's a great article, and you should read it.
a note about a life well lived.
David Scott was the son of Harry Scott, whom we know as the founder and namesake of Scott's Cycle.
|Here's a "bouncy motorcycle sidecar"|
(March 19th, 1921)
Postscript, August 19th
The piece is published online today, and it's worth reading in full.
Here's another clip that really dovetails with Susann's comment below. What is the emphasis on housing for cars relative to housing for people? Tying "servanthood" to parking seems like it might be a kind of of idolatry and is something that deserves more thought. And why is pointing out that "the streets were for public parking" a bad thing?
I know the church has the clinic and does things for and serves people in need. But the way we treat parking elevates it way too high, and our rhetoric and attitudes are distorted. We need a different moral framework around mobility.
|This is a problematic notion of "servanthood," isn't it?|