A PORTLAND VISION ... An ideal society would be one where people did not have to worry about basic human needs. They wouldn't have to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. A loss of a job or a sudden illness wouldn't devastate their family or cause them to lose their home. —June Tanoue, Tri-County Food Bank Housing We are experiencing a housing crisis. So is the rest of the country. To understand our housing problems locally we need to take a brief look at the national situation—an insufficient supply of good quality, suitably located housing that people can afford and remain in with reasonable security. The housing problem is particularly severe for lower income and minority households, and in urban areas where changing economic and fiscal conditions have resulted in significant disinvestment or gentrifica- tion. “The single-family, free standing house is a peculiar development based on a unique combination of cheap capital, energy, land and materials," writes Bruce Stokes of the Worldwatch Institute in a September 1981 report. The median price of a new home has tripled in the U.S. in the last decade. The average size of a new home, a traditional measure of housing quality, fell in the U.S. from 1,527 square feet in 1978 to 1,464 square feet in 1980—the first time this measure has reversed direction in an industrial country. Never before has the entire intricate financing system, both the public and the private portions, been so threatened. Money market funds and bank deregulation have drawn money away from mortgage financing. The changes in tax law have eliminated the advantages that residential investment has historically held. In fact, the new investment tax credits for the rehabilitation of buildings, which cannot be used for residential structures, make the allure of commercial redevelopment so strong that even the most committed professional housing rehabber will be drawn to office projects instead. The hidden subsidies of federal mortgage loan guarantees are threatened as well, and the veteran loan programs are pricing themselves out of the market. The situation is so severe that even if interest rates do come down, we may still find that the whole structure of the housing industry has been damaged and may take years to recover. For at least the last thirty years, all housing in this country has been subsidized. The great suburban housing boom of the '50s was fueled by veteran's loans and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The middle class urban redevelopments of the '60s were built on tax abatements and interest subsidies. Even the upper class condo rush of the '70s was supported by loan guarantees and tax deductions. The housing problem is largely a function of the way housing is produced, financed and owned, i.e., for private profit rather than social use. Government housing policy has operated primarily to reinforce the commodity nature of housing (e.g., through promotion of mortgaged homeowner- ship, tax expenditures, urban renewal, and even subsidized housing production) and has not solved the housing problem. The median price for a new, single-family home in the tri-county area was $73,600 in 1979. This means that only 19 percent of the population could afford to enter the home-buyer's market. Who is left out of the home buyers' market? Store clerks, nurses, barbers, day care teachers, retired folks, and so on. Due to interest rates and current lending practices for home buyers (income requirements, etc.) each saving of $1,000 on the sale price of a house, according to “1000 Friends of Oregon," effectively allows another 20,000 Oregon households to participate in the home-buying market. Despite the crunch, new families are arriving all the time, needing more housing. In addition, the children of the “baby boom" are old enough now to be looking for homes to raise their own children. Where will they live? Putting subdivisions out in the country may seem at first like a practical and pleasant solution. But in the long run, it costs everyone more money. It costs the state's economy, as well as the taxpayers, when the surrounding land is no longer available for agriculture or timber, diminishing our state's income potential. Urban sprawl also costs taxpayers extra. Patches of new developments— houses, condominiums, etc.—scattered across the countryside cost us all more money to provide services than for closer-in development. In 1976 the Oregon legislature made the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) a legal entity. LCDC's Land Use Goals and Guidelines, notably Housing Goal 10, require each local jurisdiction to do its part towards solving the housing needs of Oregon residents of all income levels, as far as is reasonably possible. This means that cities and counties must provide adequate land for a variety of housing types, including single family homes, apartments and mobile homes, to meet the demands for such housing in the region. Portland's housing programs have been recognized nationally for their innovation and efficiency. Our single family rehab program has served as an example to the nation. Our insistence on the matching of public and private loan funds has allowed us to do many more housing units than other cities have. Our recognition of single room occupancy hotels as viable living situations has now been accepted by Congress. Our add-a-rental experiment has been hailed in the Christian Science Monitor as an example that others should follow. I am convinced that our sense of innovation has not died, that we will find ways to solve our problems, that we will succeed. It will take an unusual level of commitment and coopera52
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz