PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : New tax on development



Urbanpdx
Feb 7, 2007, 4:30 PM
Lobby group looks to repeal ban on inclusionary zoning
by Kennedy Smith
02/07/2007

Daily Journal of Commerce

A two-year old lobby for the affordable housing industry is pressing the Legislature to scrap an inclusionary zoning ban that's been on the Oregon books since 1999.

The Housing Alliance this year hopes to get backing from lawmakers to strike Oregon Revised Statute 197.309, which prohibits municipalities in the state from forcing developers to build affordable housing units.

Janet Byrd, convener of the Housing Alliance, said the group hopes to have Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) introduce a bill in the House that would repeal the inclusionary zoning prohibition.

"Inclusionary zoning is a tool that doesn't cost the state or federal government money, but it does produce affordable housing," she said. "The notion is that developers doing large-scale or planned developments should set aside units for affordable housing, and in turn they might get a subsidy from local governments. The idea is that we create a balance of housing affordability through a variety of family needs and sizes."

Inclusionary zoning – also known as inclusionary housing – refers to city or state ordinances that require a share of new construction be made affordable to low- to moderate-income families.

Oregon is the only state to have a law that prohibits the practice, according to David Rusk, an urban policy consultant based in Washington, D.C.

But some say The Housing Alliance's goal is misguided.

"The best way to think about inclusionary zoning is that it is a tax on development," said Gerry Mildner, a professor at Portland State University's School of Urban Planning. "You're asking somebody to build something that they wouldn't otherwise do, and so presumably you're taking better options off the table."

Home builders have historically been the most vocal opponents of inclusionary zoning ordinances, which are law in more than 100 cities across the country, including several cities in the Bay Area, and in the entire state of New Jersey.

Any lack of affordable housing is a societal problem, not a developer's problem, Mildner said.

"From my perspective, it's a narrowly focused tax that tries to serve a broad social function," he said. "The real estate industry has become a target because people view the lack of affordable housing as a real estate problem. But if you look carefully, it's either a social incomes problem or maybe a regulatory problem."


Car comparison

Mildner likened the issue to new cars versus used cars. As higher-income individuals buy new automobiles, lower-income individuals have more options to buy used cars at lower prices. It's the same with housing, he said. The supply will always be there for lower-income families, he said, as higher-income families move up.

"Every city has a requirement to provide some high-density housing," he said. "It's a different issue to force developers to come up with subsidized housing as a condition of getting a building permit. That's not an appropriate strategy to low-income families."

The answer, Mildner said, is to set up assistance programs for low-income families in the form of home-buying vouchers through which potential home buyers would be given credits to buy a home anywhere in the city "instead of giving them a particular place where they must live," Mildner said.

"I don't see how putting some affordable housing in South Waterfront helps any low-income families," he said.


In Portland, incentives as an end-around

Although Oregon's inclusionary zoning legislation prohibits forced development of affordable housing, it allows city authorities – like the Portland Development Commission – to adopt incentives, contract commitments, density bonuses or any other voluntary regulations for low-income housing.

"In a sense, we can't do inclusionary zoning, per se, but it has been done," said Steve Rudman, executive director of the Housing Authority of Portland. "There are ways to incent developers in Portland (to build affordable housing). It's been done in the River District and New Columbia, where we have a mix of incomes."

But what Rudman sees as success in Portland can't necessarily be duplicated in the outlying cities that he said could benefit from an inclusionary zoning mandate.

"We don't have that much land," he said. "New Columbia was an anomaly. This kind of law really affects Clackamas and other surrounding counties that have opportunities for larger developments."

Back in 1999 and 2000, the regional authority Metro formed an advisory committee to discuss affordable housing strategies. One recommendation was to ask the Legislature to throw out the inclusionary zoning law, but nothing came of that effort, according to Gerry Uba, a Metro project manager.

"We asked for the bill to be lifted and also asked that what we could do was negotiate with state legislators to allow cities that want to implement (inclusionary zoning) to go ahead and ask for voter action," he said. "Nothing happened."

Uba said Metro currently has no plans to re-introduce the inclusionary zoning recommendation to legislators.


Lobby's effort ‘a long shot'

Even if The Housing Alliance is successful in its lobbying efforts, a House bill likely won't reach a floor vote. Getting legislators to vote on striking the state's inclusionary zoning ban is "a long shot," said Stephen Kafoury, a lawyer and land-use lobbyist. He said closing the door on the inclusionary zoning ban could open the door for inclusionary zoning requirements.

"I'm not saying it couldn't happen," he said. "Local control is a pretty big issue, always. I don't think home builders have the power they used to, but that hasn't been tested in the new Legislature yet. People may feel that eliminating (the law) would open the door to an inclusionary zoning mandate."


Bill would put M37 claims on indefinite hold


The Oregon Legislature on Monday introduced Senate Bill 505, which would place a hold on any Measure 37 claim not involving single-family homes.

The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) and Rep. Greg Macpherson (D-Lake Oswego). It would freeze Measure 37 claims except those for which the claimant obtained both a waiver and building permit before Jan. 1. It also exempts claimants who had a judicial proceeding filed before the effective date of the bill or a person who agrees to build no more than one single-family residence outside of an urban growth boundary. A claimant seeking to expedite the process to build a single-family residence must sign a waiver on any other Measure 37 rights.

MarkDaMan
Feb 7, 2007, 6:18 PM
Urbanpdx, this is a great article, thanks for posting. I'd probably change the title of the thread though to 'Legislature looks to repeal ban on inclusionary zoning'. Saying 'new tax on development' could be a lot of things, including an expansion on the current development fees charged to new home builders or a raise in the permitting fees. Since the term 'new tax' is an opinion and not a true new tax, it is misleading to title the thread as such.

not having an asinine ban on 'inclusionary' housing has worked well for Vancouver BC. In fact, they require their developers to give much more than just inclusionary housing targets to get permits.

Urbanpdx
Feb 7, 2007, 7:40 PM
What do you mean by "has worked well"? How much better would a voucher system have worked?

Remember they are also in a Socialist country.

PDX City-State
Feb 7, 2007, 9:25 PM
Vancouver kicks ass. I was in Tucson and Pheonix last weekend, which I imagine fit into the type of vision urbanpdx has for the world, and was horrified. Although often touted as economic success stories, both places are absolute shit. Ever been to downtown Phoenix? Neither has anyone else apparently--including those that live in that mess of a town.

mhays
Feb 7, 2007, 9:40 PM
I don't get it. How does taxing 90% of new housing help the affordability problem? It makes things better for the few percent who receive subsidized units, but what about the lower half of the group that's taxed? They're on the financial edge too, and you've just made their housing more expensive.

Urbanpdx's rewritten headline was a political statement. Oddly I agree with him on something.

Chicago3rd
Feb 7, 2007, 9:54 PM
^^
I guess the way we are suppose to look at it is the less pressure housing is on the poor the less pressure there will be for funding welfare things. Trying to break the cycle. We went from not helping the poor to making huge nasty public housing to just figuring out we need to help them.

Funny I thought it was the tax payers as a whole that pays for the difference...the land lord doesn't pay and the buyer doesn't pay. Maybe this is different?

But of course.....for this to work we would have to start taking away from other programs....as this program succeeded.

MarkDaMan
Feb 7, 2007, 10:14 PM
I don't get it. How does taxing 90% of new housing help the affordability problem?

I'm not sure. What I do know is Oregon is the ONLY state where this is prohibited, so if it doesn't work, than why do 49 others states allow it to whatever extent. To call it a new tax is solely to get the 50% of the country opposed to taxes, to call this proposal dead on arrival.

What I could see happening if this was implemented is that the city could build the roads and services in a new district, like SoWa, and require the developers to locate X amount of affordable units in the new district if they wish to build there. The PDC already requires this, they just use further tax breaks to accomplish the goal. I would be curious, if the city required affordable housing goals (you buy three blocks in the development and half of one project needs to be affordable) and Homer left SoWa in protest, would nobody stand up to build in the district? If this ban was overturned and all development in Oregon stopped, we can always revise the law back.

Urbanpdx
Feb 8, 2007, 2:02 AM
So if 49 other states jumped off a cliff I suppose you would jump off a cliff too Mark?

It is just unfair to tax a certain small group (owners of developable land) instead of everyone. Again, foodstamps work better than government owning a Safeway or requiring Safeway to set aside two isles to cheap food.

zilfondel
Feb 8, 2007, 2:10 AM
Urbanpdx, this is a great article, thanks for posting. I'd probably change the title of the thread though to 'Legislature looks to repeal ban on inclusionary zoning'. Saying 'new tax on development' could be a lot of things, including an expansion on the current development fees charged to new home builders or a raise in the permitting fees. Since the term 'new tax' is an opinion and not a true new tax, it is misleading to title the thread as such.

not having an asinine ban on 'inclusionary' housing has worked well for Vancouver BC. In fact, they require their developers to give much more than just inclusionary housing targets to get permits.

As high as 25% of new development in downtown Vancouver is mandated to be affordable for families. And by god, not only do the developers slobber all over the bit they're chomping on, they build 'em like mad!

Urbanpdx
Feb 8, 2007, 2:16 AM
That is because the land is discounted to account for costs and profits. I guess the tax is less "on development" as it is on "developable land".

zilfondel
Feb 8, 2007, 2:25 AM
I think you guys are missing the point... and there are also much more complex issues to affordability of housing that come into play, particularly:

-number of existing housing units in city
-age of housing units; are they in desperate need of renovation?
-population of city
-annual growth of city's population

Now, if a city has a large stock of older units that are in disrepair that are able to absorb the influx of new people immigrating, affordability shouldn't be much of a problem... but once there aren't any more available properties, what to do? You must build more! Not everyone moving to a city is going to have a million bucks in their savings account (unless they're from NYC or SoCal, apparently). However, why in god's name would a developer build "affordable" housing, unless they have some altruistic motive?

Land being hard to come by, infill development is going to be expensive - and with a tight housing market (and a strong condo market particularly), most developers are going to aim for the high end. Thus the reasoning behind: "let Salem absorb all the demand for "affordability," as the market in the burbs is not nearly as strong as the central city anyways."



Also, a side note - I watched a documentary on 'the projects' in Chicago and NYC, and found something very interesting: when first built, most of the residents absolutely loved them, and found them a massive improvement from the hovels and crapholes that they used to be living in - ie, dirt-floored wooden shacks with 3-inch gaps in walls & no insulation (you get the idea).

However, lots of people got stuck in them and didn't move up the mobility ladder... and the buildings fell into disrepair; there was no system setup in most of the US projects to be maintained or improved by the tenants.

By comparison, the Stuyvesant Town projects in NYC, 90% of Singapore & Hong Kong's population, and millions of people in Europe live in this kind of housing with remarkable success. Stuyvesant, as you may have heard, was just sold off to a private developer and is currently being converted to luxury apartments - roughly 4,600 units.

MarkDaMan
Feb 8, 2007, 4:03 PM
It is just unfair to tax a certain small group (owners of developable land) instead of everyone.

My father had a great word of advise for me, "life is not always fair." We tax smokers, and people that drink beer, the wine industry, the wealthy, those that purchase gas, and those that have a home phone, taxes others don't have to pay. In fact, there is a myriad of taxes, and tax breaks, that only apply to people that meet or exceed a certain criteria. That's life. There might be compelling reasons not to mandate affordable housing on developers, but starting first with calling this a tax, and than an 'unfair tax' since only a small group pays, is just a non-starter of a discussion since you want to be argumentative.

Talk about burdeon costs to developers, cuts in profit, the morality of the requirement, than we can have a discussion, but if you keep referring to mandates as a tax, you're obviously already blinded by your anti-tax stance to the discussion and there is no reason to continue.

Chicago3rd
Feb 8, 2007, 4:32 PM
So if 49 other states jumped off a cliff I suppose you would jump off a cliff too Mark?

It is just unfair to tax a certain small group (owners of developable land) instead of everyone. Again, foodstamps work better than government owning a Safeway or requiring Safeway to set aside two isles to cheap food.

But the developlements aren't owned by the government...lol. So the Safeway analogy is wrong.

And if Safeway did set aside the two isles then in the correct analogy Safeway would not lose money...because the government pays the difference.

And in the full analogy if this set up worked the government would quit giving out Food Stamps.

Urbanpdx
Feb 8, 2007, 4:36 PM
Mark, it is the externalities of those taxes that make them unworkable. If the tax reduces the value of developable land the owners will be less likely to sell it and competing uses like surface parking, underutilized buildings, christmas tree farms, etc. will make more economic sense than selling. If they don't sell then there will be less supply of housing. Less supply of housing means that housing overall will be less affordable. What you end up with is a hidden tax on those at the margin that are not lucky enought to score the small number of "affordable" housing units that get built will pay more for their places.

The voucher idea makes more sense. If we as a society want to help the less fortunate get housing, let the market provide the goods and let the tax payers help pay the costs. We'll end up with a larger quanity of housing so the cost will be lower and the customer (the poor family) can choose to live whereever they want to (close to job, family, church, school, Food-For-Less,etc.). They might also want to choose to live in an old apartment or house that is less valuable than that new mandated unit would have been and use the extra money on health care, food, school supplies, etc.

Urbanpdx
Feb 8, 2007, 4:39 PM
But the developlements aren't owned by the government...lol. So the Safeway analogy is wrong.

And if Safeway did set aside the two isles then in the correct analogy Safeway would not lose money...because the government pays the difference.

And in the full analogy if this set up worked the government would quit giving out Food Stamps.

In the proposed law you are right on the first point but the government does own housing and I am saying they should not.

On the second point are you you are saying that the Government will pay the developers for the extra units they build that are affordable (the two extra isles)?

On the third, exactly. And I am saying this would be a terrible situation.

Chicago3rd
Feb 8, 2007, 4:56 PM
In the proposed law you are right on the first point but the government does own housing and I am saying they should not.

On the second point are you you are saying that the Government will pay the developers for the extra units they build that are affordable (the two extra isles)?

On the third, exactly. And I am saying this would be a terrible situation.

I agree...the government should NOT own housing.
Yes...called incentives. So the developers will NOT loose any money.
No..it isn't. We need to get rid of food stamps. We as a country will always need to provide assistance...but in a market place environment it is best to help those under a more capitalistic model...rather than a socialistic model. It is the perfect marriage of public/business.

mhays
Feb 8, 2007, 5:17 PM
Subsidized housing should be supported by ALL taxpayers. That way, the system isn't a disincentive to the creation of new housing. Which, after all, is the main way we get affordable housing (because it allows others to move out of the old stuff).

Seattle has an excellent system. Voters keep renewing our housing levy, which currently provides $16,000,000/year for housing programs. Much of this goes to a series of outstanding non-profits like HRG, LIHI, PHG, and CHH who have built and generally still own thousands of units of housing. My neighborhood has several of these projects; they've integrated well, and they're designed at least as well as our for-profit housing.

Chicago3rd
Feb 8, 2007, 5:54 PM
^^
In Chicago we are working on the incentives and only if the developer opts out will they get an additional 100,000 on top of their house. All tax payers are already paying into this system. Where do people think the incentives come from?

Urbanpdx
Feb 8, 2007, 6:45 PM
Chicago, I'm not understanding you. We are not talking about an incentive here. They are proposing a requirement that a certain percentage of any new development be sold/rented at below market rates.

Chicago3rd
Feb 8, 2007, 11:17 PM
Same thing..different methods of getting it though.

Does the proposal expect the developers to take it out of their own pocket? If so I am against it. And I am against it if it is charging the new home owners more.

We have plenty of housing money that is out there and should be diverted to 10-20% set asides.

Urbanpdx
Feb 9, 2007, 12:28 AM
Yes they would have to take it out of their own pockets or they would have to scrimp somewhere else (salaries, materials, quality, land prices, design fees, etc.)

westsider
Feb 9, 2007, 9:07 AM
Yes they would have to take it out of their own pockets or they would have to scrimp somewhere else (salaries, materials, quality, land prices, design fees, etc.)

Or charge the people without the good fortune of being poor more for their units so their neighbor can live in the same place for half price. Pathetic.

Urbanpdx
Feb 9, 2007, 4:42 PM
Or charge the people without the good fortune of being poor more for their units so their neighbor can live in the same place for half price. Pathetic.

If they were able to charge those people more don't you think they would already be doing it?

Chicago3rd
Feb 9, 2007, 8:45 PM
Well no one has shown that the developers will be paying for this out of their pockets. Because the of couse is a lie.

Here is some information form the Portland Housing Alliance webpage. Note nothing about developers funding such an agenda.....
http://www.oregonhousingalliance.org/agenda.html

Across Oregon, housing prices in the private market are out of reach of ordinary
people. The Housing Alliance believes that to succeed in life, everyone needs a
safe and stable place to call home. We are calling on the Legislature to:
• Dedicate new sources of funds to housing; and
• Allow local communities to use proven policy tools to meet their housing
needs.
ITEM 1 · Homes for hardworking families and our neighbors on fixed
incomes. The Housing Alliance requests $100 million in a combination of
one-time and ongoing revenues. All Oregonians should be able to afford
housing and still have enough money for groceries and other basic necessities.
SB 38.
ITEM 2 · Give local communities the freedom to create affordable housing.
Since 1999, local communities have been prevented from using an effective tool
to ensure that the market offers affordable housing options. The Legislature
should lift the prohibition on inclusionary zoning.
ITEM 3 · Assist residents displaced by the conversion of apartments to
condominiums. Apartment residents across the state are being displaced by
conversion of apartments to condominiums. We need to strengthen existing
state law to protect the rights of these tenants and provide them with real
alternatives. Our proposal will fix problems with existing notice requirements to
protect renters’ rights and require owners to pay the equivalent of three months
rent as relocation assistance.
ITEM 4 · Preserve the affordable homes that already exist across Oregon.
The Housing Alliance asks that the legislature task Oregon Housing and
Community Services with convening a broad based work group on preservation
issues. (This agenda item may move forward outside the legislative process.)
ITEM 5 · Assist residents whose homes may be lost by closure of
manufactured home parks. Skyrocketing land values are prompting park owners
to sell land for development, leaving residents homeless and often in debt on
mobile homes they cannot re-locate. We need strategies to assist residents and
to replace or save these units. HB 2096.
ITEM 6 · Allow flexibility needed to use Urban Renewal funds for affordable
housing. Local governments should have the flexibility to spend URA funds
outside the URA borders for affordable housing when doing so meets a
demonstrated community need.
ITEM 7 · Authorize deed restrictions and affordability covenants in statute.
These are important tools for ensuring that the dollars we invest in affordable
housing have the intended impact. We need to ensure that they are explicitly
authorized.
We need affordable homes for hardworking
families and our neighbors on fixed incomes
PROPOSED SOURCE OF FUNDS
REQUESTED
AMOUNT 2007
LEGISLATURE
Increase the Document Recording Fee
Modest increase to existing state fee
At least
60 million
Devote Lottery proceeds to fund housing
programs that support a vital economy 25 million
Allocate General Fund 10 million
Maintain dedication of utility ‘public
purpose’ funds
5 million
TOTAL for BIENNIUM $100 million
IN
GOVERNOR’S
BUDGET
15.8 million
15.6 Million
(Plus 2 million to
restore housing
finance account)
6.3 million
$39.7 million
How would these resources be used?
Oregon law spells out how these resources will be used: to meet housing needs of low
and very low-income Oregonians in both rural and urban areas. Oregon Housing and
Community Services has effective programs in place that maximize the impact of state
dollars and support community efforts to meet priority housing needs.
Shortages of affordable housing and homelessness affect all areas of Oregon. These
resources will fund locally-based strategies to meet the needs of hard-working families
and our neighbors on fixed incomes.
Our Priority Uses:
⇒ Develop new housing for low-income populations that the market cannot
serve, rehabilitate existing rental housing and keep it affordable, support
vulnerable populations with permanent housing plus supportive services,
and finance resident purchase of manufactured home parks.
⇒ End and prevent homelessness by providing housing and emergency
intervention.
⇒ Maintain a vital network of community-based housing providers and
support priority initiatives.
⇒ Put homeownership in reach for more Oregonians.
$80M
$10+M
$3.6M
$6.4M

Member Organizations
1000 Friends
Association of Oregon Community Development
Organizations
Association of Oregon Housing Authorities
CASA of Oregon
Central City Concern
City Club of Portland
City of Ashland
City of Beaverton
City of Eugene
City of Medford Housing & Community
Development Commission
City of Portland
City of Talent
Clackamas Community Land Trust
Clackamas Housing Action Network
Coalition for a Livable Future
Community Action Directors of Oregon
Community Alliance of Tenants
Community Development Network
Community Housing Fund
Community Partners for Affordable Housing
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity of Oregon
Homeless Families Coalition
Housing Advocacy Group of Washington Co.
Housing Development Center
Interfaith Committee on Homelessness
Jackson County Housing Coalition
Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center
League of Oregon Cities
League of Women Voters of Oregon
Lincoln County
Metro
Multnomah County
Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation
Neighborhood Partnership Fund
Network for Oregon Affordable Housing
Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition
Northwest Housing Alternatives
Oregon Action
Oregon Coalition on Housing & Homelessness
Oregon Food Bank
Portland Community Land Trust
Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives, Inc.
Portland Impact
REACH CDC
Rogue Valley CDC
Rose CDC
St. Vincent DePaul of Lane County
Shelter Care
Sisters of the Road
2007 Housing Opportunity Agenda
Contact us:
Public Affairs Counsel
Mark Nelson, Erica Hagedorn
PO Box 12945 • Salem, OR 97309
(503) 363-7084
www.oregonhousingalliance.org Housing Alliance c/o Neighborhood Partnership Fund • 1020 SW Taylor St, Ste 680 • Portland, OR 97205 • 503-226-3001 x102

Chicago3rd
Feb 9, 2007, 8:46 PM
If they were able to charge those people more don't you think they would already be doing it?

Sorry society already agrees we are to help those in need. It is our Judeo/Christian background (on a good day). So we aren't really hear to discuss this of how the people are poor or stay poor, but we are discussing how to help them out and how to have cultural and economical diverse cities.

Urbanpdx
Feb 9, 2007, 9:50 PM
Again Chicago, I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

I was responding to Westsider who suggests that the people buying the expensive condos would pay more to cover the loss incured due to the inclusive zoning. I was saying that, if a $1 million condo buyer would still be willing to buy if the price was $1.1 million the developer would be charging that now. They are not just giving away a good portion of their profit now because this type of zoning is not allowed. If it happens they will still have to sell the units they build at market prices (ie. the $1 million) but will get the money some where else like salaries, materials, quality, land prices, design fees, etc.

Chicago3rd
Feb 10, 2007, 6:21 AM
Again Chicago, I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

I was responding to Westsider who suggests that the people buying the expensive condos would pay more to cover the loss incured due to the inclusive zoning. I was saying that, if a $1 million condo buyer would still be willing to buy if the price was $1.1 million the developer would be charging that now. They are not just giving away a good portion of their profit now because this type of zoning is not allowed. If it happens they will still have to sell the units they build at market prices (ie. the $1 million) but will get the money some where else like salaries, materials, quality, land prices, design fees, etc.

You specifically said: "It is just unfair to tax a certain small group (owners of developable land) instead of everyone."

You have no examples that have been realistically used. The funding will come from a broad array of sources.

westsider
Feb 10, 2007, 8:09 AM
You can be pretty sure that when faced with extra requirements like "affordable housing" that threaten to cut into profits, the developer will use every possible means to squeeze a little more out of the buyers. Either that or scrimp on the less notable features they hope won't turn off buyers.

Chicago3rd
Feb 10, 2007, 4:27 PM
You can be pretty sure that when faced with extra requirements like "affordable housing" that threaten to cut into profits, the developer will use every possible means to squeeze a little more out of the buyers. Either that or scrimp on the less notable features they hope won't turn off buyers.

It isn't happening in other places so you cannot be assured. At least I am honest. I want this type of program to exist but I believe it is a burden that should be shared by all. Those against it...they just don't like government...and that is the only thing that can be assured....and they tend to believe capitalism has no dark side. We need both to work together AND to keep each in line. Most of the success of downtown is due to this joint venture over the last 3 or 4 decades.

Urbanpdx
Feb 10, 2007, 4:50 PM
You specifically said: "It is just unfair to tax a certain small group (owners of developable land) instead of everyone."

You have no examples that have been realistically used. The funding will come from a broad array of sources.

Maybe you could name a few so I can understand your point...:shrug:

Chicago3rd
Feb 12, 2007, 7:19 PM
Maybe you could name a few so I can understand your point...:shrug:

Honey I provided a source. Please read...or is that not taught in homeschool anymore?

Urbanpdx
Feb 13, 2007, 12:10 AM
I guess that public school education left me lacking. Which post?

Chicago3rd
Feb 13, 2007, 8:56 PM
I guess that public school education left me lacking. Which post?

#24

Urbanpdx
Feb 14, 2007, 3:57 PM
Well no one has shown that the developers will be paying for this out of their pockets. Because the of couse is a lie.

Here is some information form the Portland Housing Alliance webpage. Note nothing about developers funding such an agenda.....
http://www.oregonhousingalliance.org/agenda.html

Across Oregon, housing prices in the private market are out of reach of ordinary
people. The Housing Alliance believes that to succeed in life, everyone needs a
safe and stable place to call home. We are calling on the Legislature to:
• Dedicate new sources of funds to housing; and
• Allow local communities to use proven policy tools to meet their housing
needs.
ITEM 1 · Homes for hardworking families and our neighbors on fixed
incomes. The Housing Alliance requests $100 million in a combination of
one-time and ongoing revenues. All Oregonians should be able to afford
housing and still have enough money for groceries and other basic necessities.
SB 38.
ITEM 2 · Give local communities the freedom to create affordable housing.
Since 1999, local communities have been prevented from using an effective tool
to ensure that the market offers affordable housing options. The Legislature
should lift the prohibition on inclusionary zoning.
ITEM 3 · Assist residents displaced by the conversion of apartments to
condominiums. Apartment residents across the state are being displaced by
conversion of apartments to condominiums. We need to strengthen existing
state law to protect the rights of these tenants and provide them with real
alternatives. Our proposal will fix problems with existing notice requirements to
protect renters’ rights and require owners to pay the equivalent of three months
rent as relocation assistance.
ITEM 4 · Preserve the affordable homes that already exist across Oregon.
The Housing Alliance asks that the legislature task Oregon Housing and
Community Services with convening a broad based work group on preservation
issues. (This agenda item may move forward outside the legislative process.)
ITEM 5 · Assist residents whose homes may be lost by closure of
manufactured home parks. Skyrocketing land values are prompting park owners
to sell land for development, leaving residents homeless and often in debt on
mobile homes they cannot re-locate. We need strategies to assist residents and
to replace or save these units. HB 2096.
ITEM 6 · Allow flexibility needed to use Urban Renewal funds for affordable
housing. Local governments should have the flexibility to spend URA funds
outside the URA borders for affordable housing when doing so meets a
demonstrated community need.
ITEM 7 · Authorize deed restrictions and affordability covenants in statute.
These are important tools for ensuring that the dollars we invest in affordable
housing have the intended impact. We need to ensure that they are explicitly
authorized.
We need affordable homes for hardworking
families and our neighbors on fixed incomes
PROPOSED SOURCE OF FUNDS
REQUESTED
AMOUNT 2007
LEGISLATURE
Increase the Document Recording Fee
Modest increase to existing state fee
At least
60 million
Devote Lottery proceeds to fund housing
programs that support a vital economy 25 million
Allocate General Fund 10 million
Maintain dedication of utility ‘public
purpose’ funds
5 million
TOTAL for BIENNIUM $100 million
IN
GOVERNOR’S
BUDGET
15.8 million
15.6 Million
(Plus 2 million to
restore housing
finance account)
6.3 million
$39.7 million
How would these resources be used?
Oregon law spells out how these resources will be used: to meet housing needs of low
and very low-income Oregonians in both rural and urban areas. Oregon Housing and
Community Services has effective programs in place that maximize the impact of state
dollars and support community efforts to meet priority housing needs.
Shortages of affordable housing and homelessness affect all areas of Oregon. These
resources will fund locally-based strategies to meet the needs of hard-working families
and our neighbors on fixed incomes.
Our Priority Uses:
⇒ Develop new housing for low-income populations that the market cannot
serve, rehabilitate existing rental housing and keep it affordable, support
vulnerable populations with permanent housing plus supportive services,
and finance resident purchase of manufactured home parks.
⇒ End and prevent homelessness by providing housing and emergency
intervention.
⇒ Maintain a vital network of community-based housing providers and
support priority initiatives.
⇒ Put homeownership in reach for more Oregonians.
$80M
$10+M
$3.6M
$6.4M

Member Organizations
1000 Friends
Association of Oregon Community Development
Organizations
Association of Oregon Housing Authorities
CASA of Oregon
Central City Concern
City Club of Portland
City of Ashland
City of Beaverton
City of Eugene
City of Medford Housing & Community
Development Commission
City of Portland
City of Talent
Clackamas Community Land Trust
Clackamas Housing Action Network
Coalition for a Livable Future
Community Action Directors of Oregon
Community Alliance of Tenants
Community Development Network
Community Housing Fund
Community Partners for Affordable Housing
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Habitat for Humanity of Oregon
Homeless Families Coalition
Housing Advocacy Group of Washington Co.
Housing Development Center
Interfaith Committee on Homelessness
Jackson County Housing Coalition
Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center
League of Oregon Cities
League of Women Voters of Oregon
Lincoln County
Metro
Multnomah County
Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation
Neighborhood Partnership Fund
Network for Oregon Affordable Housing
Northwest Community Land Trust Coalition
Northwest Housing Alternatives
Oregon Action
Oregon Coalition on Housing & Homelessness
Oregon Food Bank
Portland Community Land Trust
Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives, Inc.
Portland Impact
REACH CDC
Rogue Valley CDC
Rose CDC
St. Vincent DePaul of Lane County
Shelter Care
Sisters of the Road
2007 Housing Opportunity Agenda
Contact us:
Public Affairs Counsel
Mark Nelson, Erica Hagedorn
PO Box 12945 • Salem, OR 97309
(503) 363-7084
www.oregonhousingalliance.org Housing Alliance c/o Neighborhood Partnership Fund • 1020 SW Taylor St, Ste 680 • Portland, OR 97205 • 503-226-3001 x102

So, here is your post #24. How does this have anything to do with the proposal to allow inclusionary mandates on new development?