Yesterday's Tribune prints an article by Nick Budnick regarding City Council's new rule requiring the Portland Development Commission (PDC) to spend at least 30% of urban renewal district funds on affordable housing.
Article summary: some stakeholders, particularly in Lents and the Central Eastside Industrial Area, believe they already have enough affordable housing, and what they need is more market-rate homes for sale or rent. Commissioners Sten and Leonard "predicted that once the critics become more familiar with the details of the policy, fears will subside."
The end of the article covers the real crux of the issue. "Wednesday, the PDC approved the details of the spending plan [for how to divide the 30% set-aside in each district] by a split vote of 3-2. Board members Sal Kadri and Bertha Ferrán dissented, saying not enough money was slated for homeownership."
One advantage this blog has over newspaper articles is that I can use as much space as necessary or desired, to cover more details. In this issue, the details are crucial. The "Preliminary Staff Recommendation" by PDC project staff proposed different ways to spend the 30% set-aside in the nine areas of the city covered by urban renewal districts. The hearing and decision by PDC on Wednesday was on those allocations.
In Lents - and the same in Gateway and remaining spending in the Interstate and Convention Center Urban Renwal Areas (URAs) - staff proposed a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 75% of the funds be spent to allow people living below the median income to purchase a home in the district, plus allocating at least 35% for very low income rentals, and not more than 10% for community facilities such as drug/alcohol treatment centers. The intent is not to increase the proportion of people living in poverty in Lents, rather to allow people living there now to purchase/stay in their home rather than be forced out when the improvements of the Urban Renewal district increase property values. So what the hearing and the topic of discussion in the Tribune's article was really about, was whether the allocations for low-income rental housing, home ownership assistance, and low income community facilities were set at the right percentages in each URA. One reason for the angst expressed, is that the policy didn't expressely state that one of the main goals of the 30% set-aside and its allocation is to preserve the ability of existing residents to remain and share in the increasing prosperity of the Urban Renewal Area. Another is that in contrast to the effort expended to track people displaced from Columbia Villa and invite them back to New Columbia, there doesn't appear to be much structure in place to ensure that the beneficiaries of the Lents URA low-income housing assistance are the same people currently in the neighborhood.
The choices are even more stark in the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area. There are currently only about 400 homes within the boundaries of this district - it's an Industrial Sanctuary, identified as important for jobs, and one of the concerns is that allowing more homes will gentrify the area and reduce the ability of manufacturing and industrial companies to provide good jobs within the city. Of the 400 homes in the Central Eastside URA, 97% is currently low-income housing. So you can see why stakeholders wouldn't want a policy of adding more, either for the effect of homes on the industrial area or for concentrating poverty in one neighborhood. And likewise, once it's clear that the reason the budget proposed allocating up to 25% of the set-aside for "Low Income Community Facilities" is to allow for expansion of the Hooper Detox facility, greatly needed to help the growing numbers of Portlanders with drug and alcohol addiction problems, one can understand the needs as well as the concerns.
In the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area, the proposed percentages were different from those in Lents - up to 65% for home ownership, minimum 35% for low-income rentals, maximum 25% for the Hooper expansion and other community facilties for people living in poverty.
The core question is, where is the evidence that the spending guidelines line up with the needs in various areas? Given the experience with people on lower incomes having to move out of rental homes in the Interstate Urban Renewal Area, coupled with the success of providing over 1,000 low-income homes in the River District, how should future spending be structured in the URAs still working on improvements? PDC made their best guess, on a 3-2 vote, on Wednesday.
One reason for optimism with this issue is that PDC can and should monitor and revise the plan as project staff sees how it plays out. The underlying reason for the City Council adopting the 30% set-aside for affordable housing in URA spending was that past districts have sometimes put the need at the bottom of the list. We know that some residents have been forced out of the neighborhoods where they grew up, due to increasing rents and inability to purchase their home. With diligence, and revision of the subsidies as needed, Portland can and should do a better job in the future.
