The Affordable Housing Thread

[2oh1]

Report: San Francisco To Shut Doors Over Rising Rent
Popular Bay Area City Seeking New Location

“The city’s in such a great area, but ultimately we just couldn’t find a way to make ends meet each month,” said San Francisco resident Jaime Gonzalez, speaking on behalf of the city’s 850,000 citizens, all of whom recently gave notice that they would be vacating the premises by July 1. “We’ve been here for so long, it’s hard to imagine this city anywhere else. But the reality is that we just aren’t making enough to justify what we pay to be here.”

“Unfortunately, we just can’t afford to keep San Francisco in San Francisco Bay,” Gonzalez added.

Of course, it's The Onion... but that makes the point behind the satire no less true.

[Zihua]

In 2005 we were in the middle of a extreme housing bubble. When renters bought houses it lowered the demand for rental housing, so rents were lower than they would have been. we need to make it simpler and less uncertain to build. Requiring more parking in some areas was a step backward. I think we should require less parking and put meter on street parking below 39th. Permits for residents shouldn't be $60 a year, a more reasonable amount would be $60-$75 a month. If more newer units didn't have to have parking that would lower development costs. More units at a lower cost is the only way to keep rents lower. It looks like there will be a lot of new places coming on the market in the next 6-18 months. It will be interesting to see how that affects rents.

[2oh1]

I only used 2005 as a point of reference since it was exactly 10 years ago. Even by 2005, rents in NW were starting to jump dramatically - but apartments were so affordable that the jumps weren't concerning. I remember back in 2005, a friend was renting a 1br apartment here at NW 22nd & Everett for $525. When she moved out, the rent jumped by $140. I remember thinking that was a lot. Now, I laugh, because that apartment probably rents for $1500 today if not more. At the time, I was looking for a place. I remember sitting in the office at one of the property management companies (Round Hill Pacific) and the leasing manager was shocked at how prices were climbing. She said she'd been working there for ages and had never seen anything like it... and that was in 2005. Compared to today, 2005 was CHEAP! NW Portland used to be quirky but affordable. As I've said many times on this forum, people who live in inner SE are in for the shock of a lifetime when they see what prices are going to become as the neighborhood becomes trendy. It's already happening.

[Zihua]

In that time period 2004-5-6 some rents is outer SE were dropping. I don't think it is surprising that as more people want an urban lifestyle rents will rise.

[zilfondel]

To be fair, the 2000's saw the inversion of real estate land prices - once desirable suburbs were eschewed for more desirable urban real estate (nationwide). The current generation Y'ers now value urban living, while previous generations valued suburban living.

Throw in underbuilding due to the recession, a booming US residential population, a booming global economy and wage stagnation - and you have the perfect storm of un-affordability.

[maccoinnich]

Extra density for affordable housing? Portland considering it




Portland's supply of affordable housing could increase modestly – by 35 to 60 units a year – under an incentive concept to be reviewed Tuesday by the City Council.

The concept would allow developers to build taller buildings in the central city in exchange for a commitment of rent-restricted units – either in that project or via a cash payment the city would spend elsewhere.

City officials have been searching for options to boost the supply of affordable housing amid Portland's surging rental market and a failure to meet goals in the South Waterfront and Pearl District.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[2oh1]

35 to 60 units a year? In a city of nearly half a million residents? Uhm... math, anyone? Holy cow. That being said... I strongly support this idea so long as it doesn't lead to higher rents in the non-affordable units.

[maccoinnich]

City offers carrot to developers



Developers could build three stories higher in Portland’s central city if they add some affordable housing to their project or pay an offsetting fee, under a proposal presented to the City Council last week.

City officials figure the new “density bonus” could yield 800 to 1,300 more affordable apartment units over the next 20 years, or generate $120 million to $200 million so others can build such units.

“I am frustrated that we are not capturing an adequate share of new private development that’s affordable,” said Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who oversees the Portland Housing Bureau. “We are not getting there with our public programs.”

Providing more incentives for developers could help build the city’s affordable housing stock, now in short supply, Saltzman said.

...continues at the Portland Tribune, lovingly illustrated with photos that have no immediately obvious connection to the article.

[maccoinnich]

Here Are the Affordable Housing Projects You Can Expect in Coming Years



A couple weeks ago, I bemoaned in print how difficult it is to get a comprehensive sense of incoming affordable housing in Portland. While there's plenty of dissent about how this city should handle displacement and gentrification, everyone agrees we've got a dearth of affordable options (typically regarded as reasonable for people who make 60-80 percent of the median family income or below).

In a startling report [pdf] issued earlier this year, Housing Commissioner Dan Saltzman wrote of the " dire need to increase affordable housing stock throughout the city."

It was surprising, then, to see that the Portland Housing Bureau didn't have a ready roster of upcoming projects available on its website. We asked for a snapshot in mid-June, and got a spreadsheet from the bureau today.

...continues at the Portland Mercury.

[maccoinnich]

Council revisits policy on surplus property



Three years after the Portland Water Bureau sparked a controversy by selling surplus Water Bureau property to a private developer, the City Council has changed its mind about the best uses for such parcels.

On Wednesday the council approved a citywide surplus property sale policy that prioritizes using unneeded parcels to meet community needs for affordable housing, community gardens and open spaces.

When the council first authorized the sale of the so-called Freeman Tank property in Southwest Portland in 2010, the goal was to obtain as much money as possible to help hold down water rate increases. But after Renaissance Homes bought the property two years later for $140,000, neighbors complained the land should have been preserved as open space instead.

...continues at the Portland Tribune.

[maccoinnich]

Be It Resolved, Portland Might Get Some Affordable Housing

By next summer Portland should have some new rules about how developers can build bigger in the Central City, and it might bring some affordable housing.

Since Oregon still can't force developers to include affordable housing in new multi-family developments, Portland City Council is trying to incentivize them to do it.

...continues at the Portland Mercury

[2oh1]

Deleted. Oops! Some poor renter got hit with a nasty error that, thankfully, appears to have been fixed. Nothing to see here.

[58rhodes]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Deleted. Oops! Some poor renter got hit with a nasty error that, thankfully, appears to have been fixed. Nothing to see here.

My ex wife used to manage that place Ill bet people were pretty upset.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 58rhodes

My ex wife used to manage that place Ill bet people were pretty upset.

I'm sure anybody would be upset by the notice they received! Initially, I posted the story about it that was shared by the Portland downtown neighborhood association, but I deleted it after looking it up online to see if there was a follow-up, and indeed there was. Luckily, it looks like it was just a mistake that's been fixed.

I've never seen rent go up by that much, but lots of friends have seen theirs rise by a few hundred this year.

[MarkDaMan]

City will consider adopting affordable housing, anti-displacement language into comprehensive plan
Jul 29, 2015, 11:21am PDT
Jon Bell Staff Reporter
Portland Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/...T&t=1438197282

A coalition advocating for affordable housing and an end to displacement in Portland's neighborhoods scored a big win with the city this week.

Anti-Displacement PDX celebrated a July 28 vote by Portland's Planning and Sustainability Commission to include equity and anti-displacement language into the city's Comprehensive Plan. The coalition, which includes 26 different organizations ranging from the Urban League of Portland to Right 2 Dream Too, proposed 11 equity and anti-displacement measures to the PSC, all of which the commission included in its recommendations for the comprehensive plan.

According to Anti-Displacement PDX, the 11 measures proposed for the plan include:

• Using community benefits agreements to stabilize current residents and households previously displaced.
  
• Creating permanently affordable homeownership and rental housing in market-rate developments.
  
• Using land-banking as an anti-displacement tool.
  
• Making specific efforts to redress past harms experienced by displaced communities.

Following the PSC vote, the Comprehensive Plan moves to the Portland City Council for public hearings, deliberation and a final vote.

[maccoinnich]

Meet the City's New Cheap Rent Czar

Incoming Housing Bureau Director Kurt Creager Says Portland's on the Verge of Something Big



IT'S EITHER the best or worst time to take over the Portland Housing Bureau.

Portlanders are becoming more concerned over rising housing costs by the day, while the bureau continues to take fire for falling short of its goals for affordable units. There's ongoing squabbling on city council over whether affordable units should be aimed at the city's poorest residents, or at working-class folks at risk of being priced out. And a bid to give the city power to compel more cheap condos and homes just died in the Oregon Legislature.

Stepping into this maelstrom is Kurt Creager, who was tapped earlier this month to take the reins of the housing bureau after the departure former Director Traci Manning.

Creager knows Portland. He spent 16 years developing affordable housing in Vancouver, forming allegiances that spanned the Columbia. And he partnered with some of the city's biggest developers during a stint with local design firm Otak, which had a hand in developing the South Waterfront.

...continues at the Portland Mercury.

[maccoinnich]

This seems great:

More tax breaks, more affordable housing in Portland?



Portland officials plan to triple to $3 million the tax breaks available annually to developers who include affordable units in apartment projects.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman, in charge of the Portland Housing Bureau, said expanding tax exemptions may prompt construction of 200 affordable units a year in trendy neighborhoods where the real estate boom is kindling new apartments.

"We want to have people living in affordable units in every part of the city, not just east Portland or North Portland," Saltzman said Tuesday. "We want people to have access to the same amenities everyone has access to."

The City Council will vote Wednesday on revisions to Portland's tax-exemption program, in place since July 2012 under its current structure. But officials say tweaks are now necessary because some developers have been reluctant to use it.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[maccoinnich]

Portland should spend tens of millions more on affordable housing, advisory group says



Portland officials could spend tens of millions more developing affordable housing in coming years if the City Council heeds a new recommendation from a city advisory commission.

The bold proposal – likely to set off debate among housing advocates and business interests – would radically alter spending priorities in Portland urban districts by moving affordable housing to the front of the line.

The Portland Housing Advisory Commission this week unanimously recommended spending at least 50 percent of money within urban renewal districts on affordable housing. The current policy requires a 30-percent minimum.

...continues at the Oregonian.

My thoughts on this, xpost from reddit:

This isn't a great idea. In an Urban Renewal Area the City takes out debt, and uses it to fund capital projects within the area. These projects increase the value of the land, and with it the chances of redevelopment. As new buildings are built, the tax revenue increases, and the City uses the difference between the starting tax revenue and the new tax revenue to pay off the debt. An example of where this has worked very well is the River District URA (roughly the Pearl). In the 1990s / 2000s the City tore down the Lovejoy viaduct and built the first streetcar line. The thousands of condos and apartments are now paying much more property tax than was ever paid by the railway yards. As such the PDC expects that the debt will be fully paid off within a couple years of the Urban Renewal Area sunsetting in 2021.

Portland has historically used a portion of the urban renewal money to pay for affordable housing, and continues to do so. In the North Macadam URA (South Waterfront) they recently chose a developer for one affordable housing project at Riverplace, and have longer term plans for another on the Zidell property. The problem is that affordable housing doesn't generate property taxes, and doesn't necessarily do anything to make market rate development on adjacent parcels any more likely. As such the City is using debt to fund development that doesn't have any way to pay back the debt. This might be ok when they're only spending 30% of the debt on affordable housing, but my gut instinct is that 50% is too much.

TL;DR - you need the market rate development to fund the affordable housing, and spending 50% of the money on affordable housing is too much.

[maccoinnich]

A Preemptive Strike

State Laws Are Stymieing Local Efforts to Fund Affordable Housing



FORGET THE STREET FEE. The next big ask from Portland voters could be the "sleep fee."

As the city's housing crisis worsens, groups looking for solutions are finding no easy answers, in part because Oregon has preemptively banned a laundry list of methods that other states use to create dedicated funds for cheap housing. That's inspiring some novel ideas—which could be headed to the ballot in the near future—for how Portland can scrounge up new cash.

For months, Jes Larson, director of the Welcome Home Coalition, has been leading a group trying to find ways to fund more affordable housing in the city. The group's looked to 700 other cities and found that many of the solutions used across the country aren't possible in Oregon, thanks to statewide preemptions on things like inclusionary zoning, rent control, and real estate transfer fees.

"Many of the cities we looked at have committed local revenue to creating affordable housing," Larson says. "But the most common mechanisms used in other cities are banned in Oregon."

...continues at the Portland Mercury.

[mhays]

Since most of those make market-rate housing more expensive, I'd say you're ahead of the game. Better to raise money from a broader base like property taxes, and not disincentivize new housing.

The trouble is that too many politicians are cowards, and voters tend to be the opposite of patriotic when their wallets are concerned.

Portland is cheap by West Coast standards. It's not coincidence.