 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
The Gateway Urban Renewal District shall devote 30 percent of its revenues to the development of “affordable” housing. So says the Portland City Council. It is not interested in backtalk on the subject from the Portland Development Commission, let alone local neighborhoods.
With Commissioner Erik Sten leading the way, council directed PDC to pursue such reorganization earlier this year. Citizen Advisory Committees for the 11 affected districts warned that each of them was unique in terms of resources available and commitments made for those resources. PDC staffers Andy Wilch and Leah Greenwood reflected both sentiments in their recommendations.
They divided the 11 districts into three tiers: expiring districts slated to go out of existence by the year 2011, industrial districts where all or most of the land is zoned for non-residential activity, and “newer” districts. This last tier includes Gateway and four other areas.
Four of the five newer districts are to increase their allocation of funds for affordable housing to 30 percent of their total resources. (The fifth, North Macadam Urban Renewal Area, is expected to contribute 39 percent.) Gateway, which had previously planned to spend $3,250,000 in this area over the next five years, must increase this to $4,575,000. The new policy would increase PDC’s five-year citywide budget for affordable housing to $130 million, an increase of almost $27 million.
The issue is yet more complicated.
First, “affordable” housing covers a wide range of prices and types. It includes housing affordable for people earning 80 percent of median area income — about $38,000 — and both owner-occupied and rental housing. Housing advocates are solidly behind Sten’s 30 percent set-aside, but are less united about where the new resources should go.
Greenwood and Wilch proposed that the funds should be available for projects other than housing if they serve “predominantly” low-income people. The PDC last month added another wrinkle, saying housing for people earning 100 percent of median should be allowed if it is suitable for families.
Finally, Greenwood and Wilch stipulated that Gateway and the other districts need not necessarily hit their set-aside goal every year, just that the average over five years do so. The commission proposed that the five districts in this category should be charged with meeting a collective average of 30 percent for low-income housing, with some coming in slightly below or above this figure. Chair Mark Rosenbaum said, “Absent flexibility, we could put in jeopardy large projects to which City Council is committed.” He later told council, “Our intent is always to achieve 30 percent in all districts. The question is, if extraordinary, extreme circumstances occur, do we have the flexibility to spend money on other things and make it up in the other four districts?”
The answer from Sten was a resounding “No! The history of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is the reason for this policy,” he said. When money is reallocated, “Housing always loses,” Sten said. “The more desirable you make a community, the more housing cost increases and the more people are displaced. It’s not enough to make a good faith effort (to allocate more money for affordable housing), you need a mandate. Too many times it doesn’t happen for good reasons.
“Other urban renewal goals can usually be met if people know in advance what resources are available,” Sten said. However, he added, “If it means other things don’t get done, other things won’t get done.”
At one point he said the rule should be “30 percent in every district, period.” A few minutes later he said, “Maybe not the same requirement in every district, but targets that make sense.”
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home