Portland 2035 (low income, rental, neighborhood)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by drum bro

I just hope the areas around portland don't become the slums

I doubt they will.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Presumably the poor will get pushed farther and farther away from the city center, with the exception of the people who manage to get into subsidized housing.

Desirable locations are obviously going to be more expensive than less desirable locations.

What do you think should happen? What realistic plan do you have (no, getting rid of building codes and letting you put up a shack in someone's back yard is not a realistic plan)? Maybe you could get taxpayers to subsidize even more housing? The reality is that for the most part, people who want to live close in are going to need to work more than the equivalent of a part time minimum wage job.

The bigger concern is making sure there's plenty of medium - high density housing available that working people with regular jobs can afford. Right now the close in areas are open pretty much only to the very poor (if they can get into a place that other people are forced to pay for) or the fairly well off. There's not much that someone earning say 50k/year can realistically afford while still being fiscally responsible.

My plan is to allow densities sufficient to provide an adequate supply of affordable market-rate housing. Poor people have fewer cars than "medium income" people, and thus have lower impact on transportation infrastructure.

Are you suggesting there should be no plan to accommodate lower-income workers?

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by freemkt

My plan is to allow densities sufficient to provide an adequate supply of affordable market-rate housing. Poor people have fewer cars than "medium income" people, and thus have lower impact on transportation infrastructure.

Are you suggesting there should be no plan to accommodate lower-income workers?

So, who decides what densities are sufficient? Take a look at India, and you'll see where that will lead.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by freemkt

My plan is to allow densities sufficient to provide an adequate supply of affordable market-rate housing. Poor people have fewer cars than "medium income" people, and thus have lower impact on transportation infrastructure.

Are you suggesting there should be no plan to accommodate lower-income workers?

The question is really how you succeed in that plan. Housing near services or work is desirable. Access to good schools is desirable to most families. Access to transit is attractive to many people of "low and medium" income. To an extent those populations have significant overlap in housing needs.

The only way you can keep housing low (aside from gutting the middle class financially), is either by creating housing that's intentionally less desirable because of reduced access/quality/safety/etc.; by subsidy (Section 8, e.g.); or by income capping access. I'm probably missing another way, but all of those approaches have issues.

As long as demand exceeds supply, one of those groups more or less 'has to' lose, no? Either you let market competition dominate, in which case middle income will squeeze out low income, or you assist low income but squeeze the middle farther out.

That's part of what makes the focus on reducing density in other upper middle-class areas strike some as problematic, particularly Eastmoreland given its access to transit, and the fact that the move seems financially favorable to the mayor. Might be coincidence, sure.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by bler144

The question is really how you succeed in that plan. Housing near services or work is desirable. Access to good schools is desirable to most families. Access to transit is attractive to many people of "low and medium" income. To an extent those populations have significant overlap in housing needs.

The only way you can keep housing low (aside from gutting the middle class financially), is either by creating housing that's intentionally less desirable because of reduced access/quality/safety/etc.; by subsidy (Section 8, e.g.); or by income capping access. I'm probably missing another way, but all of those approaches have issues.

As long as demand exceeds supply, one of those groups more or less 'has to' lose, no? Either you let market competition dominate, in which case middle income will squeeze out low income, or you assist low income but squeeze the middle farther out.

That's part of what makes the focus on reducing density in other upper middle-class areas strike some as problematic, particularly Eastmoreland given its access to transit, and the fact that the move seems financially favorable to the mayor. Might be coincidence, sure.

I would like to see the city give developers incentives and building bonuses for including a number of low income units within their building, as well as restricted income units for families.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by ringwise

So, who decides what densities are sufficient? Take a look at India, and you'll see where that will lead.

There is a widely-accepted standard for affordability, so whatever density is necessary to achieve that standard of affordability. If there are only a small number of people for whom housing is unaffordable, it would probably be simpler and cheaper to directly subsidize their rents without increasing density.

You ask "who decides what densities are sufficient"...until now the middle and upper income classes have made that call, to the detriment of the poor. Maybe it's time to stop dictating to the poor and to let the market decide. What a concept, eh?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I would like to see the city give developers incentives and building bonuses for including a number of low income units within their building, as well as restricted income units for families.

BZZT! So-called inclusionary zoning is prohibited under Oregon law. For all the so-called progressivism, Oregon is crippled in some aspects.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by bler144

The question is really how you succeed in that plan. Housing near services or work is desirable. Access to good schools is desirable to most families. Access to transit is attractive to many people of "low and medium" income. To an extent those populations have significant overlap in housing needs.

The only way you can keep housing low (aside from gutting the middle class financially), is either by creating housing that's intentionally less desirable because of reduced access/quality/safety/etc.; by subsidy (Section 8, e.g.); or by income capping access. I'm probably missing another way, but all of those approaches have issues.

As long as demand exceeds supply, one of those groups more or less 'has to' lose, no? Either you let market competition dominate, in which case middle income will squeeze out low income, or you assist low income but squeeze the middle farther out.

That's part of what makes the focus on reducing density in other upper middle-class areas strike some as problematic, particularly Eastmoreland given its access to transit, and the fact that the move seems financially favorable to the mayor. Might be coincidence, sure.

Cap income, not people!

Originally Posted by freemkt

There is a widely-accepted standard for affordability, so whatever density is necessary to achieve that standard of affordability. If there are only a small number of people for whom housing is unaffordable, it would probably be simpler and cheaper to directly subsidize their rents without increasing density.

You ask "who decides what densities are sufficient"...until now the middle and upper income classes have made that call, to the detriment of the poor. Maybe it's time to stop dictating to the poor and to let the market decide. What a concept, eh?

Yes, by all means, let the free market decide. Let's see how much cheap housing is in the pearl and along the waterfront then. Hint - it'll be none.

You think your situation is bad now, just wait until there's zero incentive to build for low income people. The only reason that housing exists now is because the government (i.e. people who work and pay taxes) funnel money to the owners. Take that money stream away and they'll get their money directly from the people instead.

The free market is not going to solve your problem of only having a part time minimum wage level income.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

BZZT! So-called inclusionary zoning is prohibited under Oregon law. For all the so-called progressivism, Oregon is crippled in some aspects.

And laws can be changed, nothing is written in stone.

Actually which law are you talking about specifically because I think you might be incorrect. Currently FAR can be shifted from one site to another.