As someone who's 'lurked' on this forum for a while, let me say that I greatly appreciate being informed about new developments and listening to your discussions. Since I don't live in Portland at the moment I don't often have much to contribute. But I would like to weigh in on this one -- it's a topic I'm very glad someone brought up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich
I definitely feel that Portland's system for funding affordable housing isn't producing enough affordable housing. That said, inclusionary zoning can be seen as a tax on development, which is something we want more of, not less. I say this as someone who votes a solid Democratic ticket at every election, but I do realize that if you tax something, you get less of it. I really don't see why should place the burden of funding affordable housing on developers who are already providing new housing. If the net effect of inclusionary zoning winds up being the slowing down of development it would increase upwards pressure on the existing housing stock of the city, and ultimately hurt those who it is intended to help.
|
Maccoinnich, these are thoughtful points. Then again, coming from someone who 'votes a solid Democratic ticket,' isn't your economic logic a bit… well, supply-side? Granted that we all agree that affordability is a valid and important concern, is coddling developers really the best strategy to address it?
To begin with, simply increasing housing supply (by allowing developers to build freely) won't produce an evenly proportional decrease in housing prices. Land, a finite resource, will increase in value as it becomes scarcer relative to the number of residents, as increased density makes commercial properties more lucrative, as it becomes economically attractive to build higher, etc. As land values rise, so will rents; therefore focusing on supply alone isn't sufficient to ensure that enough housing remains affordable.
Second, as 2oh1 pointed out, it isn't propitious to hope that the economic benefits of new housing construction will ultimately 'trickle down' to all home-seekers, though all the new apartments and condos are entering the market at the top end. In fact, every block of Portland filled with shiny new luxury condos is one less block of housing for working-class folks. The current pattern seems to
increase demand at the bottom end of the market (because low-rent homes are getting demolished to build luxury condos which drive up rents in the neighborhood, forcing more people out) much faster than supply is able to 'trickle down'. In reality, demand for housing for all incomes is consistently outstripping supply in Portland. We've allowed developers to opportunistically concentrate on solving the problem at the top end of the spectrum, and most Portlanders are still waiting for that trickle to reach us.
Anyway, exciting as it is to see gleaming new condo towers rise, isn't it disgusting to think that only wealthy Portlanders will be able to afford them, while those with modest incomes get nothing but hand-me-down homes and 'hoods? Inclusive zoning, if nothing else, has the advantage of forcing architects and developers (and politicians) to focus a good part of their efforts on building housing for the needs and tastes of a wide spectrum of folks, and not exclusively for the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich
New construction is expensive, and there's no way around that. The subsidy for affordable housing can come from wherever we choose.... But whatever we choose, we're taxing somebody. Inclusionary zoning is nothing other than a way of taxing people who live in newly built market rate housing.
|
Can't we have an 'all of the above' strategy? Use public money (from a variety of sources) to support affordable housing, while refusing to give up scarce land in our best neighborhoods to 'exclusionary' developments that cater only to the rich?
The question that your supply/demand argument hinges on is, will rich folks be willing enough to 'pay' the 'taxes' (i.e., pay higher rent than they would otherwise) to fund the inclusion of mixed-income units in their buildings? For as long as Portland remains a bargain compared to San Francisco and Seattle, for as long as it keeps drawing tech companies and talent from those cities, I think the answer will be 'yes'. Anyway, it's a better bet than hoping developers and city bureaucrats come up with some other way to keep rents affordable.
Prev
Linear Mode
