Amanda, Good letter. Thanks for starting this blog. I just learned of it by way of the PDX Mercury. I will look forward to weighing in from time to time. Sincrely, Dave Lister

Thanks Dave! The blog only went live yesterday, so you are one of the first visitors. Welcome! I am very willing to post guest columns.... especially from campaign all-stars :)

Amanda Safe, decent housing at a cost that doesn't force hardworking people to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table is essential for our city. The Housing Alliance is proposing increasing fees on document registration, which would raise $60m in new funds dedicated for affordable housing. A good step forward, if adopted. JK: Your letter to the editor talked about supervised housing for the mentally ill - a true need. But you link to a site promoting large subsidies to people who are not sick, just low income. There is a better, lower cost way to help them: As you know when something gets in short supply, the price rises. Land is in short supply, acreage recently sold for around $100,000 per 5000 sq foot lot in Tualatin. When you pay $100,000 for the land, you generally do not build a $50,000 house on it - you build $150,000 and up resulting in a $250,000 house (numbers, except land price, are my guesses). If the land were, say $25,000, then you could build a starter home and end up with something around $100,000 or maybe a little more. In any case if the actual construction PLUS land in Houston builds a really nice house for $150,000, you ought to be able to do a starter house for $100,000 including land. For instance a house that costs $150,000 in Houston actually costs around $300,000 in our region. (See: http://americandreamcoalition.org/penalty.html ) The difference is degree of regulation, primarily the artificial shortage of land. End that shortage and once agin Oregon can have affordable housing. To get affordable housing by subsidies only furthers the enrichment of the rich as it guarantees a market for overpriced land. Additionally, such subsides usually have a very long waiting list, so they turn out to be more PR than problem solving. This is especially sad since the problem can be solved with the stoke of a Metro pen, at NO COST. You might want to browse the reports from Harvard U, The Federal Reserve and Brookings on affordable housing. see Housing at http://www.portlanddocs.com/ Thanks JK

About 20% of the proposed increase in funding would go to help folks with long-term disabilities, Jim, hence the inclusion of the web reference and the phrase "including for people with long-term disabilities" in my letter (emphasis added). In only 150 words for a Letter to the Editor, I had to focus on the area of housing need I know best, which is the need for more safe, supervised homes for people with mental illnesses. Much of the $100m would be for multifamily rental housing, which is best located within cities close to transit and which for-profit developers often shun because, well, it doesn't bring much profit. Some is for preservation of affordable existing housing. Only 6% is designated to help more families buy a home. And note that it will help both urban and rural areas. The proposed funding list is here

Jim Karlock's solution, to completely externalize the costs of new housing upon all taxpayers, is inefficient. Far better to make new development pay its way, whether it be through impact fees or through sound planning policies that don't destroy Portland and Oregon's way of life that brought us all here in the first place, whether it be our ancestors in 1845 or us from the dreaded state to the south last month. Subsidizing affordable housing targets those who are actually hurt by the internalization of housing costs for everyone else. It is far more economically efficient than Mr. Karlock's solution. www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com

Hi Amanda, I wandered over from Blue Oregon. Thanks for starting up and for a great article. Those of us who were clobbered by the Bushwhacked economy need more affordable housing. -Surviving Bush one day at a time Politics Plus

A "good step forward" would be to stop encouraging dependence on government. Didn't government, after largely manufacturing the "problem" of sprawl, create an enormous bureaucracy "land use planning", which created, or, at the very least, exacerbated, the problem of affordable housing? And the solution is higher taxes? How original! Oh, BTW, will coarse language commonly used at several blogs on your blogroll be allowed here - or will you set a higher tone? OMT; Lynn, don't you think you should lose the indents?

Do you support increasing the minimum wage substantially, then, RickyRagg? More than 60% of people living below the poverty level work full time. Shouldn't hardworking people have the opportunity to build better lives, without having to keep moving in search of affordable homes? And even if you don't care about the people, it's more cost-effective for government to help families live in stable housing than to try to teach kids who move from school to school, and to provide transportation infrastructure for workers who have to commute long distances. This is a family blog, please keep language civil. I rather like the indents. Reminds me of scholarly times in my youth in England, when paragraphs started with a tab.

This is a family blog, please keep language civil. That is another advantage of having to register (something I used to be against) Thanks JK

It's Amanda's call. George of Jungle live to serve.

Ah, omnipotence! Government is the problem AND the solution! Government mandated increases in minimum wage would "address" the affordable housing problem caused by government interference in the marketplace?. And government manipulation of low-income people's freedoms (stuffing them into the "projects" and herding them onto "mass transit") will make them less dependent, more able to "...build better lives..." - I think not. The unmistakable, patronizing message sent by this mini-great-society mentality is that "You CAN'T do it on your own. You NEED government help". Great motivation for self-improvement. Sort of an ironic argument for "social creationism" from a Darwinian (aren't we all?). Which social "challenges" aren't the government's concern? Where is the line beyond which you wouldn't go to "help"? What makes you think poor people act any differently than rich people when presented with a handout. "Shouldn't hardworking people have the opportunity to build better lives..." They DO have the opportunity and I'll bet they DON'T have "...to keep moving in search of affordable homes". God sound bite, but is it real? Your points about cost-effectiveness also blithely use worst-case scenarios to attempt to bolster your case for this social engineering. Perhaps if land-use planning, tax policies and local governments' infatuation with 18th century transportation technology hadn't created such a perfect storm of dysfunction in the metro area we wouldn't need to deal with such self-inflicted wounds as urban growth boundaries driving people to the Damascus area while the jobs are in Washington County. As for caring, of course I don't care, that makes me evil, and therefore wrong, is that it? Nice, if predictable, tactic. I don't accuse you of not caring, I just disagree that your "solutions" help the people you care about - there's a difference. I'm always civil (as in the great tradition of debate in the House of Commons). I believe civilty is a prerequisite for compromise - that's why I asked about the blogs in your "Favorite links". As for respect, I always start with the assumption that others deserve my respect. Honor, for those whose opinions with which I disagree, - not so much! Above all, lose the indents - that's what's really important here! (not taking yourself too seriously score: Amander = 0, LynnS = 1) ...also, I apologize for the "quotes", italics and CAPS abuse. I think that I could improve my writing skills with a government grant.

I'm a nurse. I like to find ways to help people help themselves. I believe government has an appropriate role in serving less fortunate/able/advantaged folks. You disagree. Gotcha. Glad we've got that clear.