The Better Housing Together Forum, Wednesday, February 21, at the EMU Ballroom, University of Oregon (photo by Jenna Fribley, AIA)
Project lead and event host, Kaarin Knudson, AIA, set an appropriate tone by quoting Ronald Heifetz, founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. As Heifetz noted “Attention is the currency of leadership.” It’s incumbent upon leaders to get people to pay attention to the tough problems everyone would often rather avoid facing. Our housing crisis is one of these tough problems. Here in Lane County, 42% of local households struggle to simply meet basic needs, and this struggle is compounded by the high cost of available accommodations.
Better Housing Together intends to provide leadership through public education and advocacy. It is a community-led effort built to address a community problem. Every community grows in the direction of the questions it answers, and the question of housing affordability is perhaps the biggest one those of us living in Lane County must confront today. As a prominent community leader, University of Oregon president Michael Schill emphasized this to the audience by stressing that now is the “right time,” and that the housing crisis is the “right issue” for the “right people” to address. During his academic career, Michael’s prominent work has focused on a wide range of matters related to housing law and policy, so his endorsement of the Better Housing Together platform is significant. He welcomed the prospect of shining a light on the problem and encouraged all of us to do what we can to work toward solutions.
Moderated by Noreen Dunnells, president and CEO of United Way of Lane County, the forum’s panel discussion, entitled Perspectives + Solutions, featured four experts whose backgrounds made them eminently suited as panelists:
Jim Long, Affordable Housing Manger, City of Bend (retired January 2018):
Jim cited the success of the City of Bend’s implementation of a construction excise tax (CET) in 2006 to help leverage the development of affordable housing (more on CETs in just a moment). In Jim’s words, we need to change the discourse to a “both/and” conversation. We need housing abundance and diversity.
Shane Johnson, Regional Director, Hayden Homes:
Shane firmly believes private builders must be part of the solution. That said, municipalities can prime the pump by instituting incentives in the form of density bonuses (to increase the diversity of housing types) and exemptions from a portion of systems development charges for projects involving affordable units. There is no one solution, but tools like these are available. The key, according to Shane, is to use those tools that are at hand. Trying something is better than doing nothing.
Emily Reiman, Executive Director, Neighborhood Economic Development Corp. (NEDCO):
Emily emphasized there is a cost to inaction. Every moment we wait compounds the problem. She cautioned any group whose goal it is to help ameliorate the crisis to not fall into the trap of becoming an “echo chamber.” It’s important that opposing views are in the room to build real consensus toward the identification of solutions everyone can rally behind.
Dylan Lamar, Architect, Cultivate Design-Development:
Dylan imagines every neighborhood as a unique ecosystem. Neighborhoods that are exclusively comprised of single-family residences are monocultures lacking in healthy diversity. Dylan favors inclusionary zoning, and ordinances that work to create affordable housing units in market-rate developments. Inclusionary zoning fosters diverse neighborhood ecosystems. As with biology, diversity contributes to the greater vitality, health, and resilience of a community.
The Perspectives & Solutions discussion panel; from left to right: moderator Noreen Dunnells (at the podium), Dylan Lamar, Jim Long, Shane Johnson, and Emily Reiman (my photo)
The subject of a construction excise tax was a common thread during the panel discussion. A CET can be a powerful tool to help local jurisdictions address their communities’ housing needs and ensure everyone has a safe, stable place to call home. It’s not clear to me why, but the State of Oregon Legislature banned CETs in 2007. The city of Bend had adopted the state’s first CET the year before, so it was grandfathered in. Bend’s CET has generated millions in revenue since its inception, which it has leveraged to obtain an additional $77.6 million in state and federal affordable housing development funds, and $28.4 million in private investments. Bend kept opposition to its CET to a minimum by involving representatives of the construction and real estate communities in crafting the tax and giving them seats on the city’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, which decides how the revenues will be invested.
In 2016, the Oregon State Legislature passed SB 1533, which permits local jurisdictions to implement a construction excise tax for affordable housing and allows inclusionary zoning. Seven jurisdictions (Portland, Corvallis, Tillamook County, Cannon Beach, Hood River County, Hood River City, and Newport) have passed local construction excise taxes to date, and many others (including Eugene) are considering adopting this important tool. A recent Register Guard editorial explained how a 1-percent CET in Eugene would raise an estimated $3 million a year during periods when construction activity is strong, as is currently the case. If Bend’s experience is a reliable guide, that amount could be expected to leverage 7.5 times that much in public and private investment, or about $25 million a year.
Click image to enlarge
The steering committee carefully populated each table with as varied a group as possible. The table activity portion of the program consisted of each person engaging in a group discussion, and also recording his or her own responses to a predetermined set of questions from the forum organizers. For example, I answered the question about what I would personally do to help solve the housing crisis by saying I would advocate for increasing the range of available housing types through implementation of updates to local development codes, property tax exemptions, and other incentives. Ultimately, Better Housing Together will compile the results of the table activity and make them available for anyone to review.
My one reservation about the forum is one I expressed during our table discussion. While it was easy for me to attend, the same is certainly not true for the many who comprise the very constituency at the center of the housing crisis in Lane County. They are families and individuals who simply could not afford to attend the forum and be heard. They may have been burdened by an inability to pay for temporary childcare or transportation. They may have lacked the time to attend because by necessity they work two or more jobs. They may not be fluent English-speakers and so may have felt unwelcome or uncomfortable. They simply may have been unaware of the forum. The bottom line is—if they were underrepresented—we missed their voices.
Regardless, I’m guessing Kaarin and the other members of the Better Housing Together steering committee were thrilled with how the forum played out. I’ve no doubt their primary goal was not to find a silver bullet—a simple, seemingly magical solution to the housing crisis—because that unicorn doesn’t exist (sorry for mixing metaphors). Instead, they achieved something else, something potentially game-changing, which was to bring together motivated community members and leaders with the hope of galvanizing the will to finally take positive steps toward a broadly supported set of strategies for addressing the challenge. If Better Housing Together bottled the energy I witnessed as I left the forum, I’m confident they will channel it with great effectiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment