Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the consternation in this thread seems to be rooted in the fact of our cities becoming bigger with a more dense population base resulting in heavier traffic and higher housing prices. It isn't a Portland thing it's a national phenomenon having to do with a growing population coupled with growth management policies at municipal and state levels. Vancouver Wa. is a prime example of the "dread of spread" becoming a reality, the city and Clark county decided to "build out"with a new eastern Vancouver on 192nd, today it is the American developer dreamland of condos, shopping and fast food.
192nd is the developer driven replicated suburban vision that has given rise to the notion of returning to the old neighborhoods at whatever the cost, Americans want the old homes with "character"and the likes of Portland's Sellwood or Fremont neighborhoods will be pricey and congested, Vancouver will follow with their own version of the "downtown renaissance" and price out a ton of people in that urban area west of the city core. It doesn't have to be that way but it most likely will. Low income=no voice in politics.
The march of development will continue whether you live in Boston, Philly, Miami, or Portland Oregon. This entire debate surrounding the direction of city growth is hinged upon the larger view that asks whether we need more or less government, but the real question we should be asking ourselves is who controls our government, this is the real dilemma for the left and right in America. Everything from our architectural requirements, square footage, price, open space laws, and public infrastructure have become the domain of developer interests, leaving the public role to that of a bystander with little to no apparent skin in the game. Changing the building codes to include a lower income housing requirement seems reasonable, but not to those who see business as a type of ruling class with unrestrained power.
I still love to go to Portland, the city still has some of the best bars, restaurants, art, music, live theater, not to mention the beautiful waterfront and hill views that make the city one of the pearls of the NW. I hope the city can be rebuilt from within the present city boundary, the southern Willamette Valley should be preserved as much as possible, but that will mean the cities around the valley will have to take up the building density required to do so. No one solution will suffice, those in the rural portions of the valley don't want "the spread" that has ruined so much of our nations beauty and the city dwellers don't want the high density high priced housing, seems like we'll see a meeting halfway between these competing wants.
Embrace smaller lots, homeless camping, reduce housing regulation, target development fees to new construction with above-median rents i.e. newcomers who drive up rents should pay, purchase land in order to preserve for affordable housing, dedicate some fraction of marginal (increased) property tax revenue to affordable housing.
Syracuse created a home equity protection program for homeowners, back around 2003. My idea extends the concept to protect renters by capturing some of the property tax revenue gains and rebating to participating renters rent increases above CPI, using a neighborhood rent index:
In 1999, Robert J. Shiller and Alan N. Weiss published an overview of the idea. Two similar programs had been tried in Illinois by municipalities: a 1978 Oak Park plan, which had never had a claim as of 1999, and a broader program covering the city of Chicago passed by voter referendum in 1987 and implemented in 1990.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]1[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE]
Another program was initiated 2002 as several scholars at Yale University[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]2[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] worked in conjunction with a program in Syracuse, NY, which was developed with the intent of increasing home ownership in neighborhoods on the verge of collapse that were marred by ever declining home prices.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]3[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] The Syracuse non-profit program, called Home Headquarters, was sponsored by the Syracuse Neighborhood Initiative, and a homeowner could protect the value of their home for a one-time fee of 1.5% of the home's value. In many cases, a local organization would pay the fee for the homeowner if they agreed to live in the home for 3 years. Similar programs were developed in other municipalities to encourage home ownership in specific areas that were considered to be at risk of losing home value due to increased rental conversions and other factors.
There is nothing YOU can do about it. There is plenty government and the private sector can do.
Government can get out of the way and let the private sector resolve it. .
Ok but there's consequences to that. PDX is the polar opposite to Houston in terms of Governmental regulation over zoning and housing. While we enjoy freedoms to build pretty much whatever and whenever, and enjoy far lower property prices here... We also have unrestrained sprawl, a complete mess of unplanned growth, blocks of ghettos next to blocks of the ultra wealthy.. It's patched up and for the most part ugly.
Vis-a-vis PDX which is a beautiful city and it "makes sense" and is very well organized. Albeit this does have effects on property prices and availability. But isn't that what America is about? We enjoy the plurality of the States and move to what fits our wants and needs best.
Ok but there's consequences to that. PDX is the polar opposite to Houston in terms of Governmental regulation over zoning and housing. While we enjoy freedoms to build pretty much whatever and whenever, and enjoy far lower property prices here... We also have unrestrained sprawl, a complete mess of unplanned growth, blocks of ghettos next to blocks of the ultra wealthy.. It's patched up and for the most part ugly.
Vis-a-vis PDX which is a beautiful city and it "makes sense" and is very well organized. Albeit this does have effects on property prices and availability. But isn't that what America is about? We enjoy the plurality of the States and move to what fits our wants and needs best.
Mobility is fine, but incumbent residents should not have to move to make way for outsiders. There are ways to accommodate all, but nobody is interested.
Mobility is fine, but incumbent residents should not have to move to make way for outsiders. There are ways to accommodate all, but nobody is interested.
If you are a renter, then it is up to your landlord what they wish to charge for rent. If you own, no one is forcing you to move. I lived in an apartment on the edge of downtown for almost a decade, moved out in 2012, and only saw my rent change once by a small amount.
There is nothing YOU can do about it. There is plenty government and the private sector can do.
Government can get out of the way and let the private sector resolve it. .
If enough citizens are unable to see "government" as the face of private enterprise (developers) there isn't much hope for the housing industry to become responsive to the "public need" to build in the public interest. The problems surrounding the small home initiatives has a lot to do with profit motives and the private sectors willingness to invest in the public's interest.
Your assertion that the private sector is the solution is nonsense given the fact of a powerful construction/developer lobby being the driving force behind so much of what passes for "public policy" regarding the constraints found in the building codes. Restraint of trade (for others) is the tool utilized in fierce competition in the building industry.
The truth is that our government is the developer of last resort when it comes to building low income housing, a thing scorned by the big building lobbyists who find little return on their investment in any thing having to do with low income or the poor in general.
If you are a renter, then it is up to your landlord what they wish to charge for rent. If you own, no one is forcing you to move. I lived in an apartment on the edge of downtown for almost a decade, moved out in 2012, and only saw my rent change once by a small amount.
Those days are gone. I currently work with a lot of seniors and there is a common theme of recent rent increases of $300-500 for people who have seen relatively small increases over the years. Things are getting really bad for people on fixed incomes, including even in east county at this point. Younger populations are more mobile/flexible and can absorb these increases easier. These increases do end up affecting all as more people on fixed incomes are qualifying for SNAP, using safety net services (that taxes pay for), etc. Not sure what the solution is but many seniors, particularly women, who didn't historically work in the past or didn't get paid much, are living off of small social security payments and are finding themselves with no where to go due to large rent increases. Seniors with $900-1200 in social security is not uncommon (and some get even less).
I guess my point is that rents are increasing and demand is increasing and that's the way the market works. But when it happens quickly, many cannot keep up, especially people on fixed incomes.
It absolutely sucks to have no resources for an 80 year old who has lived in the same neighborhood for 25 years and has gotten a $500 rental increase and will have to move far from the public transport and social supports they've developed. It's quite different than a 25 year old who can get a second job. Even in east county these days we're seeing rents of $800-900 for a 1 bedroom. Even a year or so ago it was common to find a $600 1 bedroom easily in east county that was decent. Many developers are buying apartments in east county and fixing them up and jacking the rent up. There are still some $600 one bedrooms to be found but increasingly they not realistic for many people (like the seniors I mention) as they have stairs, are blocks and blocks from public transport, there is a shortage of places to shop in east county, or they're simply really run down and scary for an older person who is alone.
It's getting bleak out there. Another thing we're seeing is that many seniors have NEVER gotten public benefits but because their rent has gone up $500 they can't afford to eat or pay their electricity so they're qualifying for snap or utility assistance. For this population they are absolutely horrified and resistant to participating in these programs--it's a very difficult thing for many to process--that they've worked their whole lives and always paid their way and now suddenly they're applying for food stamps.
Those days are gone. I currently work with a lot of seniors and there is a common theme of recent rent increases of $300-500 for people who have seen relatively small increases over the years. Things are getting really bad for people on fixed incomes, including even in east county at this point. Younger populations are more mobile/flexible and can absorb these increases easier. These increases do end up affecting all as more people on fixed incomes are qualifying for SNAP, using safety net services (that taxes pay for), etc. Not sure what the solution is but many seniors, particularly women, who didn't historically work in the past or didn't get paid much, are living off of small social security payments and are finding themselves with no where to go due to large rent increases. Seniors with $900-1200 in social security is not uncommon (and some get even less).
I guess my point is that rents are increasing and demand is increasing and that's the way the market works. But when it happens quickly, many cannot keep up, especially people on fixed incomes.
It absolutely sucks to have no resources for an 80 year old who has lived in the same neighborhood for 25 years and has gotten a $500 rental increase and will have to move far from the public transport and social supports they've developed. It's quite different than a 25 year old who can get a second job. Even in east county these days we're seeing rents of $800-900 for a 1 bedroom. Even a year or so ago it was common to find a $600 1 bedroom easily in east county that was decent. Many developers are buying apartments in east county and fixing them up and jacking the rent up. There are still some $600 one bedrooms to be found but increasingly they not realistic for many people (like the seniors I mention) as they have stairs, are blocks and blocks from public transport, there is a shortage of places to shop in east county, or they're simply really run down and scary for an older person who is alone.
It's getting bleak out there. Another thing we're seeing is that many seniors have NEVER gotten public benefits but because their rent has gone up $500 they can't afford to eat or pay their electricity so they're qualifying for snap or utility assistance. For this population they are absolutely horrified and resistant to participating in these programs--it's a very difficult thing for many to process--that they've worked their whole lives and always paid their way and now suddenly they're applying for food stamps.
That is why I support low income elderly housing to be built within inner neighborhoods. That is something the city would have to get involved with in some fashion.
That is why I support low income elderly housing to be built within inner neighborhoods. That is something the city would have to get involved with in some fashion.
And everyone else should just go away if they can't keep up with necessarily skyrocketing rents?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
