Street Roots • Feb. 5-11,2016
Page 3
E d it o r ia l
Lawmakers poised to make real progress in housing
Write in
If you would like
A | Aalk of addressing the region’s housing
crisis has taken the form of several bills
heading through the Oregon State
Legislature this short session. Among them are
several that raise the issue of inclusionary
zoning, each promising various intentions and
outcomes.
Other efforts center on giving renters more
time when hit by no-cause evictions or rent
increases.
All are facing an uphill
battle - against well-
entrenched and well-
healed forces in Salem.
Inclusionary zoning is
that tool local
governments across the
country use to ensure residents have a
spectrum of affordable housing in their
communities. In Oregon, in 1999, the state
legislature banned it, joining Texas as the only
other state in the nation to do so.
Senate Bill 1533 - developed after
lawmakers’ sessions with housing and
development advocates throughout Oregon -
repeals that ban, and would let local
governments require new developments to
include up to 30 percent affordable housing. It
lines up with HB 4001, which mirrors the 30
percent maximum, along with renters rights
against short-term, no-cause evictions. The
House Bill also includes incentives to
developers, siich as density adjustments, fee
waivers or reductions, and property tax
abatements or exemptions.
In the other corner, is Senate Bill 1575,
which drops to 10 percent the maximum
amount a city could require a developer allocate
to affordable housing. It would also permit
Metro to designate up to five subregions for
consideration for urban growth boundary
expansion.
A third bill also categorized among housing
relief options simply opens up the urban
growth boundary - not necessarily for anything
affordable, just development at will. That’s not
the problem. We need smart development, not
reckless sprawl.
Given the grave need for apartments and
homes for low- to middle-income families, the
elderly, the disabled and the working class, SB
1575 - with an anemic 10 percent requirement
- can only be considered a collection of
bargaining chips from the Oregon Home
Builders Association, which has been staunchly
against lifting the inclusionary zoning ban.
(This is the same group that has opposed
raising the minimum wage, and employer
provided retirement plans. Who exactly are they
building for?)
Sure - bargaining chips are part of the game
in Salem, but if lawmakers want to claim they
understand the housing crisis, they won’t water
down one of the few tools that can actually help
correct it.
In a region where we’re already short an
estimated 40,000 affordable units, a 30 percent
requirement would only just begin to move
toward a balance. Bring on the incentives for
developers, bring on the variances to promote
density and in-fill. If lawmakers drop back to 10
percent it will be inclusionary zoning in name
only, and a land grab to boot.
And remember, this isn’t just a Portland
problem. Smaller communities, with fewer
resources and incentives to offer, are feeling
the housing crunch as well.
JL
In hearings last week, lawmakers heard from
city representatives of Corvallis, Hood River,
Bend, Eugene and the League of Oregon Cities
- all in support of inclusionary zoning.
For that reason, we don’t need a list of
specifics. We need a tool that provides
flexibility for local governments to craft their
own form of affordable housing to suit their
markets.
Intentional zoning for essential, affordable
housing has widespread support from housing
organizations, residents and developers. This is
what we should be building upon.
At the same time, we need to hit this
housing crisis at both ends. While inclusionary
zoning will be a long-term, structural correction
to the housing imbalance, a proposal around
renters rights will provide more immediate
relief.
We’ve always supported modifications to the
no-cause eviction process to give renters more
than a 30-day notice to vacate units. The
argument for it is simple: This market is at near
zero vacancy rates, rental rates are rising
through the roof - far beyond wage increases -
and 30 days isn’t enough time to find an
affordable, comparable apartment.
Nocause evictions, as the name suggests,
are simply a way of landlords to clear an
apartment regardless of any violation of terms.
Lawmakers are considering a-bill to raise the
30-day notice period to 90 days - only for
nocause evictions and only for month-to-month
renters.
“Seniors and other low-income tenants all
over our city are receiving nocause evictions
even after 20-plus years of stable tenancy for
reasons of: sale of property, requesting mold
clean-up and repairs be made, etc.,” said Marih
Alyn-Claire with the grassroots Tenants Priced
Out From Portland. “Landlords are evicting
good tenants just to replace them with higher
paying tenants (many from out of town). Local
rents have been raised hundreds of dollars
beyond the subsidy amounts for Section 8
vouchers and once stable residents are being
priced out of their apartments.”
It’s important to note what this bill does not
do. Contrary to th e claims of some apartment
management companies, this rightfully leaves
evictions for problem renters intact. That’s
what forcause evictions are for, and they can be
applied to remove a tenant on even shorter
notice, in some cases, than nocause measures.
Landlords need that recourse.
Pamela Martin is a resident of Eugene who
testified to her own financial limits as a Social
Security recipient, trying to stay in her
apartment Her rent has gone up three times in
the past two and a half years, she said. She
fears she will become homeless if the pattern
continues.
“Good tenants should not fear suddenly
losing their homes or facing large rent
increases, both of which can have devastating
consequences, including homelessness,” Martin
said in her written testimony to lawmakers.
“Tenants should have at least 90 days’ notice
for no-cause evictions and rent increases, and
be protected from retaliation,” Martin said. “We
also need to allow cities to choose inclusionary
zoning as a local solution to create more
affordable units and diverse communities.”
Indeed, Ms. Martin. We couldn’t agree more.
B ,iavc
something
that you’ve
written published
in our pages, o r would
like to get involved as a
member of our reporting staff,
contact Managing Editor Joanne Zuhl at
H 3 228 5657. joam ie@streetroots.org.
S e ask that aii submissions include toe
S th o r 's name and contact information,
if available.
Street Roots S
211 N W D avis St
Portland, O R 97209
| | x : 503-227-3117
www.streetroots.org
www.news.streetroots.org
Hours; 7:30 a.m.-3 p.m, Mon.-Fri., 7 5 0
■ n . - 2 p.m. Sat. and 7:30-11 a.m. Sun.
interested in advertising in Street Roots?
Contact Israel Bayer at israel@streetroots.org
s ta ff;
Executive Director b a d Bayer
israei@streekoots.org
Managing Editor loanne Zuhl
■ joarm e@ sVeeVQOte.oiq.
V e n d o r C o o rd in a to r Cote fctowtet
oole@streetro6ts.org
Development D ire c to r Sarah Cloud
Operations Director Sarah Beecroft
Program Assistant Scott Jackson, Jesuit
Volunteer
Development Assistant Ann-Derrick Gailfot
Reporters Emily Green, Sue Zaiokar,
Ann-Derrick Gaiilot, Sarah Hansell, Amanda
Waldroupe, Jared Paben, Leonora Ko
Photographers Diego Diaz, Joe Giode, Ben
Brink
Editorial Assistant Monica Kwasnik
Canvasser Desmond Hardison
Board of Directors
Chairman Bruce. Anderson
Vice-Chairman Brad Taylor
Treasurer Heather Stadick
Secretary Amber Bielman
Directors Rich Rodgers, Michael Anderson,
Leo Rhodes, Nora Coon, Darren Alexander,
Eddie Barbosa, Rachel Langford, Marcus Swift
Volunteers
Jan Bayer, John Barker, Stacey Heath, Brian
Ritchie, Anders Frederickson, Stephanie
Holum, Anjali Rathore, Sam Bouman, Joanna
Chase, Zoe Klingmann, Haven Herrin, Ejiese
Baker, Dan Jones, Rob Shyrock, Tom Ray,
Doug Spangle, Susannah Kamala, Jessica
Pollard, Lee Ko, Diana Richardson, Cherie
Manning, Thomas Buell Jr.
If you are interested in volunteering with
Street Roots, please submit a volunteer
application at streetroots.org/volunteer. Or
call our volunteer coordinator for more
information at 503-228-5657.