The Affordable Housing Thread

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I agree, on the local and state level. On the national level, I am saddened and stunned beyond any ability to express it. But on a local level... especially Steve Novick's departure. I'm pleased. I thought he'd be unbeatable due to the amount of money he had to pour into a campaign. He had a mountain of cash compared to Chloe. I voted for her, but I expected her to lose.

As for Wheeler... I wish we had a rule for city government that, if a mayoral candidate wins the job during the primaries, the new mayor would take office in August rather than January. Win the job... 2 months later, you're in office.

I'm done with Hales.

That is another positive from this election, while I didn't get to vote on it since I don't live in Portland, I was happy to see the campaign contributions limited passed. That was a big mistake when people voted to get rid of that and allow unlimited money for campaigning.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

Steve Novick was by far the most progressive member of the City Council, and I'll be sad to see him go. I wish Eudaly had challenged Fritz.

Agreed. Novick frequently got in spates with the Oregonian, which I was amused by. He was a bit brash in public and in person, he's hard to converse with. But he was a policy wonk with big picture ideas and I appreciate that.

Fritz has got to go, and I'm ready for some new energy on the rest of the council to replace Fish and in particular Saltzman.

[maccoinnich]

2016 State of Housing in Portland Report [PDF - 20MB]

[maccoinnich]

Huge +1 from me. As well as securing these units for ~$200k a unit, the site is massive and is a redevelopment opportunity for more affordable housing in the long term.

Portland ready to plunk down $51 million for affordable housing project



That didn't take long.

Although Portland city officials have yet to certify results from last month's election, they've already decided how to spend a big chunk of money from the newly approved $258.4 million bond measure for affordable housing.

Next week, the City Council will be asked to approve up to $51 million to buy a 263-unit apartment complex in Northeast Portland. Most of that money will come from the bond.

The complex, called The Ellington, has been part of the city's checkered history addressing affordable housing needs. City officials have now stepped in to lock in long-term affordability after past owners successfully avoided most requirements, despite a string of lawsuits.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[maccoinnich]

Portland could pass one of the biggest affordability mandates in the country — and that’s exciting

But with some outside experts warning that the proposal might be balanced wrong, the city should probably lay the groundwork for future changes if they’re needed.

To understand why an “inclusionary housing” policy could be great for Portland, stop by the construction site at 3423 SE Hawthorne Boulevard.

Last year, this block saw one of the most memorable moments in Portland’s recent housing history: a crowd of up to 200 people gathered on a Thursday afternoon to protest and/or gawk at the demolition of a 1909 four-plex at SE Hawthorne and 34th.

Next year, 30 new apartments are supposed to go up on the former site of the old internally divided house — adding 26 precious homes to the city’s housing supply but also replacing four lower-rent ones with high-rent ones.

Here’s the coolest thing about the policy Portland’s city council will debate on Tuesday: if it had been in place when this project was approved, and if the project had still been viable under the new rules, one in five of the units would have had to be affordable. Do the math: the 30-unit building would have included six lower-rent homes alongside 24 market-rate ones.

Instead of removing four lower-rent homes, the site would have added two.

...continues at Medium.

[mhays]

So the other 24 would be more expensive. And the job might wait until market rents rose enough to make that workable. That's good?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mhays

So the other 24 would be more expensive. And the job might wait until market rents rose enough to make that workable. That's good?

That would be my biggest concern with this. It would be apartments for the low end of the market, and then plenty of even more overpriced apartments while those that are in the middle are screwed. I am not sure there is any one good solution, but I would like to see something more creative than this.

[mhays]

We need to focus more on making market-rate cheaper. We can do tons on that front without additional sprawl. Much of that relates to upzoning, less process, the option of micros for those who want them, fewer parking requirements, easier accessory units...

The worst possible thing is for subsidizing a relative few to be accomplished by making market-rate housing more expensive. The biggest problem is that anything done to the market affects EVERY renter, not just the ones in new buildings.

[maccoinnich]

Here are the six ways Oregon lawmakers just proposed to cut housing prices
Which ones would work? We report, you decide.

One day every year, the telephones of Oregon’s political nerds start buzzing with excitement: the legislative session has begun, and a new set of proposed laws have arrived.

Monday was that day.

As we start to look at what 2017 will bring to Portland housing, we’ve looked at 16 proposed bills that respond to housing prices one way or another. They fit into six main categories:

1. Restricting no-cause evictions and/or letting cities cap rent hikes
2. Creating and preserving market-rate, low-cost housing
3. Weakening the state’s anti-sprawl rules
4. Making it easier for cities to subsidize denser development
5. Targeting housing support for a particular population
6. Helping people deal with homelessness

Here’s a short summary of all the significant proposals we’ve found so far. (Thanks to Elliot Njus of The Oregonian for pointing us to a few of these.)

...continues at Open Housing.

[MarkDaMan]

Mayor Ted Wheeler halts affordable housing bond spending
By Jessica Floum | The Oregonian/OregonLive

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...river_home_pop

In his first major act as housing commissioner, Mayor Ted Wheeler told the Portland Housing Bureau Friday to stop spending the city's $258.4 million affordable housing bond until he establishes a plan for spending and oversight.

Portland voters in November approved the bond after the City Council declared a state of emergency for affordable housing. The city has since earmarked almost 15 percent of the bond to buy an affordable housing complex in northeast Portland. That purchase will go as planned, but beyond that, the mayor wants to set his own strategy for spending and evaluating use of the bond, spokesman Michael Cox said Monday. Willamette Week first reported the halt in spending...(continues)

[maccoinnich]

DEVELOPERS SPEAK OUT ON HOUSING



While developers haven't lost the desire to continue to add residential units to Portland, some of them might have lost the ability to make it economically viable.

Two developers in Portland are focusing on their current project as they readjust to the inclusionary zoning policy, taking effect Feb. 1, before thinking about building more.

Made possible by the 2016 Legislature when it repealed the statewide ban on inclusionary zoning, in late December the Portland City Council went to work to pass the policy that requires developers to include affordable housing in any residential development with more than 20 units (with options and incentives).

Vanessa Sturgeon, CEO and president of TMT Development — developer of Park Avenue West — told the Business Tribune she does not have further plans to develop residential in the city.

"No. We have put all of our plans to build housing on hold," Sturgeon said. "We're not going to build anything in the next five years."

Right now, Sturgeon has one project under review along Hawthorne Boulevard that made it to permit before inclusionary zoning went into effect.

...continues at the Business Tribune.

[BrG]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the Business Tribune.

Every developer client I have talked to, has said they will push through what is in the pipeline... and then attempt to do other work. Alternatively some will be pursuing housing outside the city limits.

The numbers to get lending will likely not work. Wood Partners are already having trouble meeting proforma with lease up at Block 17. (This is well documented).

Affordable project developers like Bridge, Home Forward and the like... should do OK.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens. I hope it doesn't halt development because then housing prices will just rocket up and if we all think its expensive now... yikes.

[mhays]

This sort of thing generally means development slows down, then scarcity causes rents to rise. When they rise enough to compensate for the added costs, development starts up again. But every non-subsidized renter in the city pays the premium, or they bite the bullet and commute from outside city limits.

Also, I really, really hope they don't loosen the development boundary.

[AdamUrbanist]

Some thoughts from a day spent snowed in...

Affordable housing is an important part of the social safety net that can advance a lot of our common goals: alleviating poverty, reducing income and racial segregation, promoting diverse neighborhoods, providing better social services to the very needy, improved mental health care, reduced homelessness and the list goes on. There are lots of good reasons to support more affordable housing, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I work for an architecture firm that designs a lot of it. ...But one thing that affordable housing can't do is reduce the cost of housing for the people who don't live in it.

Continues at:

http://wallsofthecity.blogspot.com/2...t-housing.html

[maccoinnich]

Trumped Towers
One More Thing the New President’s Throwing into Chaos: Portland’s Affordable Housing Market



IN A PORTLAND that’s rapidly pricing out its poorest residents, the orange and gray high-rise being planned at NW Raleigh and 14th promises a booster shot of affordability.

Set in the bustling Pearl District, the 93-unit, 12-story project touts a price structure strikingly different from the upscale condos that often define the area. Nearly half of the building’s units will be affordable to households making just 30 percent of the city’s median family income ($19,800 per year for a family of three), with 40 of them set aside to house homeless families. The remaining units will be priced for people who make 50 or 60 percent of Portland’s median income.

In other words: One of the city’s hottest neighborhoods is slated to get a sizeable influx of cheap housing—and until November 8, everything was going great.

But with the election of Donald Trump, the Raleigh tower is staring down nearly two million uncertainties. The project’s suddenly facing a big funding shortfall and isn’t sure where it will come up with the money.

“After the election, everyone freaked out,” says Sarah Stevenson, executive director of Innovative Housing, Inc., the nonprofit selected by the City of Portland to develop the building. “The whole market has chilled, and investors aren’t even looking at new deals.”

...continues at the Portland Mercury.

[maccoinnich]

Portland multifamily design work waning



Portland architecture firms are facing a sharp downturn in multifamily housing work as the city phases in new inclusionary housing rules.

The lack of design work for new apartment projects is just one unintended consequence of the city’s inclusionary housing program that is already being felt.

The drought stems from developers and architects rushing to beat the Feb. 1 effective date for inclusionary housing rules.

Sizable projects submitted beginning Feb. 1 must include affordable apartment units, or a hefty fee must be paid in lieu.

The deadline resulted in a rush of permit application submissions for multifamily projects. City officials say at least 14,000 units are in the pipeline – enough to keep developers busy for at least a couple of years.

...continues at the DJC (temporarily unlocked).

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

...continues at the DJC (temporarily unlocked).

This is something I am not to concerned with, we have developers showing short sightedness and would rather flood the market with overpriced rentals than build affordable housing right now. So they run the risk of being left with units they can't fill because the rents are too high and there are too many units for that same range, and when the need for more units in the future come up, they will still have to include affordable housing as long as they didn't go bust in the immediate future.

[maccoinnich]

It's pretty rare to see the economics of parking vs affordability play out so directly:

Portland’s first ‘inclusionary housing’ buildings were just proposed in Sellwood

Two buildings could make room for below-market-price homes by omitting parking spaces.



Which is more important to the future of Portland:

1. homes that are affordable to lower-income people, or
2. storage for upper-income people’s cars?

The question doesn’t get much starker than with two projects proposed last week in Sellwood and nearby Moreland, close to the Willamette River in southeast Portland.

If they move forward as proposed, the two apartment buildings — one with 89 homes, the other with 54 — seem to be the first fruits of the inclusionary housing ordinance approved by the city council in December.

Depending on how the design works, the buildings could add as many as 29 new apartments that would rent for as little as older apartments east of 136th Avenue do today.

...continues at Medium.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

It's pretty rare to see the economics of parking vs affordability play out so directly:



...continues at Medium.

That is capital A awesome. hoping this approach is seen as viable by other developers in the region.

also - many thanks for getting me to find the "Portland for everyone" site. going to dig deeper into that for sure.

[mhays]

So it's a wash for market rate units?

How about making market rate units substantially CHEAPER by not requiring parking AND not making them subsidize the inclusionary units?

Let the latter be subsidized by the public at large so new supply doesn't face this huge headwind.

We're making similar mistakes up north...