read an interesting article in business journal while I was at title company waiting to sell a prop.
rush for permits in PDX last half of 2016 to beat the Inclusionary zoning rules.. IE 20 % or so of any new apartments built have to be for low income.
7000 permits were issued. that's 7000 doors.
since that time q 1 170 doors.. LOL
the upshot is we may see and or are going to see a drastic slow down in new construction because of this.. so again PDX has caused the exact problem they were trying to cure.. there will be NO low income housing coming on line by private developers.
I suspect this will be a boon for those that already own and are not subject to the rules and yet again with no new units coming on line in a few years and growth still steady rents will rise yet again or stay very strong and this will NOT solve the high rent crisis that those in city hall are trying to fix.
it really seems to me to becoming full circle.
those of you who may have lived and worked in SF in the 60s and 70s probably are familiar with all the housing projects that were built in those years... Hunters Point the one over by the cow palace, the one were OJ simpson grew up.. probably about 20 of them most in prime locations.. and all turned into mini ghettos.
they now for the most part have all been torn down and repositioned.
maybe if Portland wants to create housing for low income they simply need to do the same. the CITY needs to build it and provide it and run it.. why force it on private enterprise.. private enterprise just leaves the market..
I mean your building a brand new building at 400 a foot construction costs and so an apartment at 1000 foot cost 400k just to build.. ( that is todays costs) and your forced to rent it for 1200 bucks to a low income family.. and what about the market renters many will not want to be forced into living side by side with low income...Just saying its reality.
It is a huge issue, that likely will not get better. I heard a blurp about this on the radio this morning. They were referencing developers from CA who moved north to avoid dealing with increasingly tightened regulation for rent restrictions and the like to only have purchased property and been issued permits who are now holding off and considering dumping the project(s) to move onto a different area where there have been no new regulations imposed. Seems as though Portland is set on imploding itself rather than benefiting from the booming RE industry.
I am sure staying my next purchase away from Multniomah County with the rent control looming on the horizon.
I sold a commercial property on N Vancouver, and the city wanted to buy it and develop it for low income housing, which I thought was great. Although their offer was above asking and came in quickly, it was going to take 6 mos plus. and lots of contingencies to close, so was not worth it for me to wait. So even with intention/mission there, the city cannot move at the speed of bureaucracy and expect to secure land for low income developments in the current market.
Not sure the rent control will do what they want it to either. There really is nothing that prohibits a landlord from increasing the rent by 9% to avoid the requirement to pay the tenants moving expenses should the tenant not be able to afford the increase.
Totally agree @Jay Hinrichs . It's nothing short of tragic, really.
I used to live in Berkeley/Oakland CA in the late '90s during the dot com boom, and in NYC in the early 2000's (pre- and post 9/11). A couple years ago, Portland surpassed the housing costs of places like Rockridge in Oakland and Albany (formerly regarded as "affordable" places where you could get a 2/1 bungalow for $250k near Berkeley) circa 1998. With the current very misguided decisions by the Portland City Council (which were NOT, by the way, informed by evidence-based research from experts in housing policy and economics), we're headed down the exact same road as SF and NYC. I've been saying it in the [pretty active] YIMBY group on facebook that I'm a part of, and I've emailed it multiple times to city council.
History is the best teacher.
After 9/11, the NYC economy tanked. A lot of people left NY. For the first time in a long time, they were advertising decent-sized [brand new!] rentals in the financial district for $900/mo. In early 2002, I actually re-negotiated my month to month lease in Astoria Queens down from $1600 to $1200, because there were so many cheap rentals available.
This is the paragon of supply and demand at work.
The only way to bring down housing costs is to increase supply or decrease demand, whether that's by building more, by emigration, or by something else.
My mantra to city council these past few months has been, "if you try to force landlords/The Market to solve the affordable housing problem, you'll get Market solutions, which will ultimately hurt those people you're trying to help. If you want substantive solutions that help rather than hurt the intended recipients, then--just like food stamps and Medicaid--they must come from government or non-profits or public/private partnerships."
I used to believe in the political process, and that if you have facts and research on your side and just let your voice be heard, you can make a difference. But we're dealing with politicians. This isn't about helping people. It's about looking like they're helping people, even if it actually hurts those same people, as long as it keeps them in office. And it's not just Eudaly, but all the commissioners including the mayor. It's like that movie, Idiocracy.
Hi all... My thought is that the intent was from the heart. The economics... Account Closed I have been reading your comments for a couple years now and so appreciate your thoughts and advice. smiles. Nate
I agree with you @Jay Hinrichs .
I believe in a free market solution, but we are far from that but move ever closer day-by-day to more centralized control of government in every aspect of our lives, including housing. Where in the Constitution is it written to provide housing for the public? I don't see it anywhere, because it isn't there, however this is an over reach of power seized by the federal government.
On June 25, 2015, thanks to - TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ET AL v . INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT, INC., ET AL
The ruling by the activist supreme court justice Kennedy opened the door that mandates the Federal Government to provide low income housing in nice high income neighborhoods, segregated by income. Income is the NEW protected class? Just BS.
for more <click on>
Yes, read that again - now low income neighborhoods must be placed in high income neighborhoods as a mandate, by force of the Federal Government. Fair? No. Destructive? Yes.
If you have accumulated wealth, you are free to choose where you want to live, a desirable neighborhoods - clean, free of crime, good schools, etc. Now the Federal government, through this ruling 'through force', not free market will, that low income people MUST be able to live in the same high-income neighborhoods you do even if they can't afford to live there. In other words, bringing the ghetto to the suburbs to destroy the suburbs. Make sense? No.
This is not about helping people, this legislation destroys suburbia. It is about creating protected classes of people, based on INCOME to divide and conquer those that wish to live away from the ghetto.
Let's put low-income HUD in the backyards of the politicians like Justice Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotamayor, Kegan, and the like who live in gated communities away from high-crime, low-income housing. Won't happen. These social engineers think are smarter than the rest of us and that they can construct utopia, nirvana. Well, that doesn't exist. Live in a 'nice neighborhood? HUD is Coming soon to a neighborhood near you - ...Beverly Hills, Malibu, Pasadena, Laguna Beach, La Jolla, Del Mar... and you can thank activist Supreme Court Justice Kennedy for that.
I think he retires this summer. Good ridden's.
Account Closed the other issue here is Portlandia has all this high density no parking zoning along public transportation routes.. now a lot of it has been built since the crash.. but little will be built now and there ya go grand design to cram everyone into living with no cars is not going to work since developers are not going to build out these areas.
its funny Porltandia lead the nation in getting things going when they gave the 10 year tax breaks in the Pearl and other areas of the city to stimulate growth and it did big time.
now they are going backwards
Maybe Carls container homes will be the answer :) container villages.
I heard that multnomah is starting a program for home owners to get a free ADU to keep if they allow a homeless family to move in for the first five years with wrap around services. As a social worker who worked with homeless for several years, this could be a win win if families get the support needed and addiction is not a factor. We need more incentives like this.
@Melissa D. Free as in the city is going to pay to put it on your property.
@Jay Hinrichs According to Oregon Live, yes.
"The homeowners would pay nothing for the construction. They would become landlords and maintain the units for homeless families for five years.
Then the tiny houses would become theirs to do with what they want. If the homeowners break the contract before then, they pay the cost of construction.
The project would put the 8-month-old joint homeless office - a shared effort between the county and Portland -- in the housing business while offering an innovative, if so far small-scale, way to chip away at Portland's affordable housing shortage". - Oregon Live article
@Melissa D. I can see this working in certain parts of the city.. majority no..
to be totally realistic with the value of PDX real estate these days and with folks paying on average over 380 and in nicer areas 600 to 900k for a home I just don't see them providing shelter for homeless or indigent folks..
Like you I have worked extensively in the SF BAy ARea in ( not that you were there) but extensively with the homeless.. now to be fair this was the 60 70s and early 80s and of course my dad called them wino';s
most were single male drifters ... end up in flop houses looking for daily work.
the men went to the ymca the women to the wmca .. in sf there was the Oznan center and a few big church's as well.
I don't have the answers by any means .
but in my working with them in person and daily at least in those years.. Majority just were there by choice.... or they had some real mental issues.. and would rather live on the street than in a facility.
I was just in France ( Paris) and you talk about homeless camps.. it makes our issues miniscule compared.. also Honolulu is over the top.
in the old days if you could not afford to raise your kids they went to an orphanage or off to another relative.. My wifes family took in 2 boys they raised.
so maybe charity starts at home and works out.
@Melissa I looked into the website for that program. There are a lot of unanswered questions (what happens to your property taxes after 5 years, who pays for damage/maintenance, what happens if you move/sell before 5 years, etc.)
I wouldn't want to manage and maintain a property, on my own dime, without any compensation for my time, energy, and expenses, no matter who the tenant was. Add to that the type of tenant you have to manage and the type of maintenance that would be required (with a tenant who has no skin in the game and who has historically been unable to keep their housing, for whatever reason)--AND they'd be living literally in my back yard?
You'd have no physical and emotional distance from your tenant, whom you did not screen and did not choose, and if the relationship went sour, things could get really uncomfortable. At your own home. It would be tragic Sartrian theater.
5 years of high maintenance property management and the headaches/heartaches that will undoubtedly cause isn't worth the $75k or whatever their costs to build a tiny ADU. Plus opportunity cost from no longer being able to build for highest and best use. And if it turns out to be an untenable situation (after 4 years of blood, sweat, and tears), I'm on the hook for all the construction costs?? No thank you.
Account Closed great post .. much more coherent than I can do.. but your exactly right I see this as pretty much a non starter.
and total a NIMBY situation.. and in this case its homeless in my back yard.. I think NIMBY rears its head big time.
Not to mention your neighbors holy cow I can just see the hugs and kiss's you will get when you implement this in your ADU and based on my working with these folks through the years its not a pretty picture no matter how much you do for them
and right now in Portland frankly anyone who wants to work can get a job in 24 hours.
I welcome more density in my back yard with open arms. I just don't want to be enslaved by it.
It's like being required to stay in an arranged marriage for 5 years, when you never met the person before in your life. And if you leave the relationship before then, you owe the government $100k.
Account Closed I love the ADU play in portalnd and even more so because federal law allows you to pick and choose who you can rent to.
I am building 3 new homes over on 8622 Dana st.. ( just knocked the house down this week) all will have Nice adu's above garage.. we can rear load these as there is a cool ally way..
when I was talking to the planner she was gushing that we would include ADU's so city loves them as well gives them their cramed in density they want.
gives the buyers of our houses a potential income of 1000 or more a month for those cool spaces..
and we can pick up some profit on the delta buiding them since they are going to be above the garage.
Great insight @Account Closed . And we'll put. I hope the politicians implementing these programs consult with homeless programs to help prevent these sorts of liabilities. Perhaps they could implement a screening process and grace period when the tenant and owner is not match and prorate the costs of backing out and build in plenty of other safeguards. In this tenant leaning market though, I'm not hopeful they have thought this through.
@Melissa D. for sure they have not.. doubt there will be much interest.. unless some folks will claim shirt tale relatives as homeless LOL