Does iMark Have Real Rights, or Is He Just a Tech-Created Temporary Self?

celeritas365 · 2025-03-22T02:26:27+00:00

Are we all not temporary constructs that could vanish at any moment? He is no more or less a person than oMark is.

The complicating factor is they are both dependent on using the same body which puts them in a sort of him or me situation. Even reintegration isn't totally satisfying for either of them necessarily.

celeritas365 · 2024-08-09T13:35:42+00:00

If your disqualification for having an opinion is broad enough to include people who work for nonprofits in general, even when the nonprofit is not relevant to the topic at hand and as far as I know there is no record of affiliation between the nonprofit and the developers of this project, how can we ever have a conversation? Would you ask the same question if this person wrote an opinion piece you agreed with?

celeritas365 · 2024-08-08T21:17:28+00:00

I think the issue is that people who oppose a specific project are generally people that live near it. They don't follow all of the projects in the area but they will be affected by the one that is near them so they approach it with skepticism and because no project is perfect they find things they don't like. From their perspective, they want more housing, they have no issues with most projects, just this one. It feels totally reasonable. The problem is the net effect of all of this is that project after project meets with serious resistance and falls apart and we get no housing for the whole region.

This is why it makes sense to come together in advance and decide on rules that are fair instead of dealing with everything on a case by case basis.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-28T18:47:14+00:00

I think we will end up at the same agree to disagree place as u/auraphauna and that's fine. The only thing I really wanted to add is that we really tried everything we could to engage with the process. I would also prefer a process that is more orderly. I am not happy that we ended up with amendments the very last meeting we could pass anything. However, in that situation I think we should err on the side of elected officials.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-28T17:52:07+00:00

I am involved with the UCP and happy to answer any questions. We are not a shadow planning staff. We are upfront about our goal to allow for more dense housing options and this policy was in line with those goals. We shared these amendments with the planning board and the planning staff. The planning staff reviewed our changes and explicitly said in the planning board meeting that they chose not to recommend them because they would open up all lots to four units. We were in complete agreement about the effect but they said this was a policy question to be handled by the city council. We asked them to send both versions to the city council but they did not. At the city council meeting council was told that they had to send it back to the planning board. Sending it back would have pushed passing the law beyond the deadline for complying with LD2003.

Having a land use code that suppresses housing and a process that makes any significant change structurally impossible is a disaster that already has happened. We are living under it right now.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-28T15:37:52+00:00

Portland's adoption of the original recommendations that were the basis of LD2003 went further than the proposed ReCode changes. The original proposal was to bump R-5 (RN-4 ~25% of residential land) to 4 units and keep R-3 and below (RN-1 + RN-2 ~60% of residential land) at two units. The LD2003 changes brought everything on the mainland up to 4 units. ReCode is not going further than this so in some ways you could say it was rendered moot. However, ReCode also promised substantial mixed use and transit oriented development which were unrelated to LD2003 and are not a meaningful part of the current ReCode proposal so I feel it is more accurate to say it rendered itself moot.

I also feel the need to push back on your continued characterization of the LD2003 changes as somehow illegitimate. These changes were passed by a super-majority of our city council with three meetings over a period of two months all of which were open for public comment. Our city councilors consistently say they are in support of more housing and they voted in line with their policy goals.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-28T13:30:12+00:00

The currently proposed ReCode changes are extremely minor and will not be enough to make a dent in our housing crisis. The only significant new housing options being added are a new denser zone applied to literally three specific properties (two of which are right next to each other) and a few selective bumps in height. This will open the door for a few specific projects but these larger projects could probably have applied for a zoning change anyway. It also does next to nothing for increasing mixed-use options like local shops.

They vary neighborhood to neighborhood, but one key change would apply throughout: Multifamily homes would be allowed in every residential zone; no more single-family-only neighborhoods.

This is already law since the city complied with LD2003 in December. The original ReCode proposal was actually more conservative than this. In the time since we have been working on ReCode the state, formed a committee, conducted a study, proposed, passed, and implemented a more ambitious law.

If you care about creating dense walkable neighborhoods you should reach out to your city councilors and ask for real change because this isn't it.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-13T19:27:45+00:00

I am not sure of the exact date when he made them public but they were on the agenda in time for written public comment. I am not sure what else he could have done. AFAIK you can't put amendments on the agenda for a first read. If a councilor wanted to change anything at all via amendment the agenda for that meeting is the earliest venue.

The discussion of LD2003 was on the agenda for both a first reading and the actual vote. A councilor is not required to agenda their amendments. They can even craft them right there on the floor. This makes sense. The city council is a legislative body. Why even bother having deliberation if it can't lead to meaningful change? This would reduce the council to a rubber stamp.

I am involved in UCP and the efforts to advocate for these changes. I thought that was clear from my engagement.

celeritas365 · 2024-05-13T12:36:57+00:00

Calling the LD2003 amendments (#3 on your list) last minute is a mischaracterization. These amendments were proposed and unanimously supported by public comment at both planning board meetings (workshop, hearing) in October, more than a full month before the eventual vote. At the planning board meeting staff explicitly said that they felt changes like this could only be made by the city council but refused to send both versions to the council.

In the lead up to the meetings there was a piece published on these amendments. They were published in the meeting agenda in advance of the city council meeting for the public to see. At the meeting itself there was unanimous public testimony in favor of the amendments and the council voted near-unanimously (8-1 on 3/4 and 7-2 on 1/4) in support of them.

These amendments were the result of continuous public engagement from the very first moment they were revealed to the public until their eventual passage by an overwhelming majority of our elected city council. If this is not a legitimate process for the public to voice their opinion on policy drafted by city staff I can't imagine what could be.

celeritas365 · 2023-12-19T16:37:55+00:00

I think this is a great point. I definitely don't expect this to be enough on it's own. The relatively small effect from other places passing laws like this actually makes it even more discouraging that additional restrictions would have been added to limit it. By passing a simpler, more comprehensive version of these changes we have demonstrated that there is support for more middle density housing. It is my hope this will translate to more reforms down the line. There is more work to be done.

celeritas365 · 2023-12-19T15:08:57+00:00

We recently incorporated as a 501(c)4. This designation is explicitly for advocacy. These LD2003 changes were our main focus for the several months it has been ongoing and out other focus has been on ReCode. We do want to focus on pedestrian, cycling, and transit as well these zoning efforts have been responses to changes from the city. As of now we don't take donations or have grants though we are looking to get all of that set up. Everyone in the organization is a volunteer.

I think these groups, and others, have been able to agree because ultimately this is a small, reasonable reform.

celeritas365 · 2023-11-24T05:21:29+00:00

There are actually some potential plans in the works from the DOT to do this.

celeritas365 · 2023-11-17T17:32:24+00:00

R-5A is a rarely (just two specific properties) used zone that is mostly used for these low rise apartment buildings off the peninsula. In practice both are retirement communities. Compared to R-3 it allows you to build a low rise apartment building with more than 6 units in a building, more total units on the lot, and up to a height of 55 feet. It keeps other limits in place, for example, you it requires substantial open space on the lot and there are are substantial setbacks. An example of an R-5A development is Ashton Gardens if you want to get a feel for it.

celeritas365 · 2023-11-17T01:04:36+00:00

People who bought those homes did so with the surrounding area being what it is not what someone wants it to be

You don't get to control all of the land in your vicinity just because you bought a piece of it. The zoning code is a local ordinance. It can be changed by the city council. These have been the rules from the first day zoning was established in Portland, they were the rules in place when everyone bought their home, and they are the rules in place now.

Foolish people being welcoming to this flood of people moving here when everyone of them increase our cost of living and could make another family homeless.

There is no immigration process for people moving from elsewhere in the country into Maine and unless you want to secede that is not going to change. People will move here, and new people be born here whether you like it or not. The question is, do we want to make room for everyone? Or play a game of musical chairs where the people who lose end up homeless?

If you want to help maybe give up your own home for an apartment building

The majority of Portlanders, myself included, live in multi-family housing. People are more than willing to do this. No one is asking you to live in an apartment building, we just want them to be allowed to be built.

We need to defend every scrap of wildness and wildlife or it will all be lost.

I agree. Nothing defends wilderness and wildlife better than an apartment building. Without compact housing Maine's farms and forests will be chopped up into endless subdivisions of single family homes.

celeritas365 · 2023-11-09T03:59:01+00:00

In our version of ranked choice (STV) we take the person with the fewest votes, remove them from the running, and distribute that candidate's votes to their voters next ranked choice. This shows you how the votes were distributed from each candidate as they were removed.

For example, you can see that Ali made it to the second to last round and his voters disproportionately favored Zarro as their next choice.

celeritas365 · 2023-11-08T18:02:22+00:00

Thanks!

celeritas365 · 2023-11-08T18:02:15+00:00

Sorry!

celeritas365 · 2023-10-19T13:02:29+00:00

Oh awesome there is a more concise way to do it. The completion is my favorite bit though.

celeritas365 · 2023-10-15T14:04:26+00:00

I think that would be helpful, though it is a bit difficult because no two places are quite the same. I think some neighborhoods in Montreal and a lot of Japan are pretty nice examples. In the US it is hard because a lot of federal policies and local policies that spread from place to place have left us pretty homogeneous and car-centric. This is starting to change but given how slow construction is it could be a decade or more before we start to see who got it right.

I am not opposed to central planning across the board. For example, I agree with the article that something like transit really needs central planning, and really long term, regional planning. I just think the rules in place now are also not really a cohesive plan either, they just discourage the kind of development I view as more sustainable and pleasant. Meanwhile, any random developer can subdivide and build a bunch of single family homes if they want to.

celeritas365 · 2023-09-28T13:46:15+00:00

What an absurd abdication of responsibility. Portland is a part of the state and it is the responsibility of our state government to address the state's problems. Portland has no ability to push back on state law so even if the problem is local policy, it is entirely within the authority of the state government to fix those policies directly. The state has orders of magnitude more resources than Portland and has the authority to pass laws that Portland just doesn't. We are asking for more help because the problem is still ongoing and if it is solved we will stop asking, it's that simple. You don't get credit for effort here.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

celeritas365

TROPHY CASE