Whine whine whine! We want it all and we want it now! And we want someone else to pay our expenses for a life style we cannot afford to maintain.
Lots of us have lived in places we disliked for lack of money. Many people are doing so right now.
The Willy Week kids need to grow up.

I know of two families, both capable of buying houses, that are renting by choice at the moment, simply because they perceive that housing prices still have some decline left in them in the near future. It isn't a matter of affordability; it's strictly improving their investment upside potential.

Obviously this is anecdotal, but it illustrates another dimension to the renter statistics cited that isn't often covered by the media: there is a renter population segment that will disappear quickly once things hit bottom and stabilize.

Nowhere mentioned in the story is the fact that landlords' expenses have shot up drastically over the last few years -- especially water and sewer bills and property taxes.

Property taxes probably not so much. There is a 3% statutory cap on growth in base property taxes -- about the average of long-term inflation over the last 10 years. The other additions would be levies: there is currently a children's levy, a library levy, and a schools operating levy. Did I miss one? The children's levy was new in 2004(?), and the others have been around in one form or another for awhile.

I think this is a straight supply/demand issue. Demand for rentals is higher, thus rents are higher too. Housing supply is relatively inelastic, but higher rents will cause some people to rent out homes or spare bedrooms, so supply will increase somewhat. And your overall point about neighborhood desirability is right on.

The absurd thing, of course, is that the reason the "hip" neighborhoods are hip now is because people started moving there because the rents were cheap. That's how areas become hip! Was Alberta or Hawthorne hip 20 years ago? No! So hip kids/artists moved there, and then businesses followed them, and then restaurants, and now those places are hip. The best way to improve outlying areas is to encourage people to move there for cheap rent, not to build up already established areas. Gah.

Headwaters Apartments: Portland-owned property exempt from taxes but open to residents making $97,200

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/12/headwaters_apartments_city-own.html

It's the increased costs to a property owner.
Water and garbage have both gone up 50% or more in the past two years.

Add that on to energy costs.

Words can be used to deceive. Katz would often say we need more affordable housing and in the face of things that may have sounded reasonable, if in fact, she had kept saying we need more subsidized public housing, more subsidized public housing and we had heard that term over and over again, things might not have progressed in that public housing scene.

It is almost as though the drive is to get as many people into subsidized housing as possible. This can be done in several ways, such as high taxes, water rates, paying for the ubiquitous pet projects, bonds that in-debt our community, that many people can no longer afford to live in their single family homes, or live here period and will have to leave the area OR be a ready made market to live in more public housing, OR keep "promoting/inviting" new ones in for this market. This is only lucrative for some. Puts many more people living in these places under scrutiny as well. Sounds a bit Orwellian but what are we to think? The downward spiral of a debt laden community will not help the people to stay in their homes.

My view is that we HAD real affordable housing, housing that was affordable which is very different than "subsidized affordable" housing. Small duplexes, bungalows and the real affordable apartments have been razed to make room for what I perceive to be this housing agenda they have in mind for many. I believe that if they could, they would come into neighborhoods, raze them down as the land underneath some of the homes in the "mantra of smart growth" is too valuable to be occupied with a single family home.

The UGB creation of land scarcity within is not helping.

Create blight in some areas or merely call it that, then go in and take the land.

On a parallel path, run propaganda to approve of the agenda.

As I said before, my concept of what is going on here may sound jaded, but I do not think that my eyes and watch-dogging deceive me here.

There were also a couple of recent changes, thanks to the wisdom of the Oregon Legislature, that probably end up costing tenants: 1) landlords can no longer charge for such things as cleaning fees--so now landlords have an incentive to recoup tenant turnover costs through higher rents--likely costing most tenants more than the fees they would have paid when such fees were disclosed; and 2) tenants now get 60 days' notice before a rent increase (while tenants still only have to give 30 days' notice to vacate)--so landlords have an incentive to be more aggressive about pricing at the outset. Whoever was behind those legal changes needs a course in how businesses actually run.

Observer's points are well taken, with some gloss. A month to month tenant who has lived in the premises more than 1 year is now entitled to 60, rather than 30 days no-cause notice before termination. Thus, to impose a rent increase on a month to month tenant, a landlord would have to give not less than 60 days notice to only those tenants who have lived in the premises more than 1 year that they either need to accept the rent increase or vacate the premises. This change and the abolition of most fees is the doing of the tenant lobby [primarily Legal Aid and John Van Landingham], which has systematically imposed its economically ignorant left-wing views into the Residential Landlord Tenant Act since 1973. How many fewer homeless would we have if landlords were not mandated to maintain "habitable" housing? The cost of doing such is passed through, like all costs, to tenants and many sleep under bridges rather than in "slums" because they can't afford the cost of "habitable" housing. Think what rents would be if all rentals were mandated to have air conditioning, a swimming pool and a hot tub! "Habitable" housing is only a difference of degree, not kind.

The more things change. This was the same kvetching that was going on fifteen years ago when I lived in Southwest. Back then, there was a shortage of affordable apartments in Portland proper, due to the beginnings of the dotcom boom. I wish someone would explain to the hipsters that rental prices will go as high as the market can bear, and rental prices are as insane in downtown Portland as they are in Brooklyn right now. Namely, the huge influx of new renters may be nonexistent, but the ones who are moving in are doing so with Mommy and Daddy's money. Cut off the regular plunderings of Dad's 401(k) for rent, art supplies, and thrice-daily trips to Stumptown 'to be seen", and you'd see downtown rental prices drop like a rock.

This:

“It’s absolutely true we won’t be able to build our way out of our housing crisis,” says Mary Li, Multnomah County community services director.

Followed by:

Bozanich hopes the city and developers figure it out.

“I know that community is really important to Portland,” she says. “I hope we get to keep living that way instead of being pushed out and separated.”

Makes me lmfao.

The housing market is so screwed up from decades of manipulation - everything from manipulated interest rates and monetary policy to central planning style subsidies/penalties to private fraud/theft to "public/private partnerships" that are little more than fronts for graft to a manipulated construction labor market - and more! - that it won't be "figured out" any time soon.

Acutally it's easy to figure out at a personal level: if there's no place you can afford where you are, move to where you can afford it.

Systemically? Fugetaboutit...

"the facts that vacancies are down and rents are up are certainly noteworthy, but they're hardly as horrible a thing as the WW story suggests."

There are plenty of spaces in Milwaukie or Gresham. In addition, if CoP didn't want SDCs of about $15K/apt, we might build a few more.

Is there a law that prevents "progressives" from learning about economics, or are they just incapable of understanding the topic? I've been wondering that for awhile now.

It does appear that a person needs to be completely ignorant of basic economics in order to work at City Hall.

This just in, having unrealistic expectations may lead to disappointment.

It was nice of the WW to throw some numbers in there in an attempt to give this 29-year-old woman's story some legitimacy. However, it really seemed like just another "me"lennial complaining about not getting exactly what they wanted right when they wanted it.

"Bozanich hopes the city and developers figure it out."

Obviously city government has failed since this woman couldn't find her dream rental in her dream neighborhood at rock bottom prices. Guess we should subsidize more condos, which typically can't be occupied by more than 15-20% renters and still get financing, that ought to solve all her problems.

In 1980, I rented a 1-bedroom apartment on NW Couch (right behind the Burnside McDonald's) for $350. Around 1983, they raised the rent to $380, so I moved to NW Marshall, where I rented a beautiful 1 BR condo (ceramic tile floors, walnut wainscoting) for $385. Washer & dryer right off the kitchen.

I bought a house in SW in '86 - then they brought in the infill. Before long, cars were whizzing past every few seconds on the formerly quiet street. Good times, bad times.

As a twenty-something with many friends, I am astonished by some of the insane expectations I hear. And Jack isn't out of touch by pointing out the leaders of this idio'city', that's why the population isn't growing, all my co-workers with children live outside of city, and why I won't be buying a house here either.

Dave J makes the perfect point above. That said, most of those hip people will move to a different city, rather than a suburb of a city. And we can complain all we want that we're doing too much to lure those hipsters, but many hipsters are actually employed, employers, entrepreneurs, and community activists that made neighborhoods come alive. Only some are losers, so we need to find a good balance between attracting and resisting. We need to make sure attracting isn't coddling/subsidizing, and we need to make sure that resisting doesn't become flaming, antagonizing, and stereotyping.

When will these blue hair tatted out losers understand you can't be a barista and live in a million dollar condo on the river? Until they realize they must assimilate with the rest of us who are supporting their derrieres they will continue to be relegated to shacking up for months on end on someone's couch. Let me know how that pays. Losers.

The other additions would be levies: there is currently a children's levy, a library levy, and a schools operating levy. Did I miss one?

What about Admiral Randy's "pay extra property tax for my fireboats" levy?

TAXES
Rental house in city limits $22.28 per K.
Rental house in suburbs(east $16.05 per K.

Jack's points are well taken. We've lived in some really horrible places until we got back on our feet. Housing has always been expensive here.

But this?

How many fewer homeless would we have if landlords were not mandated to maintain "habitable" housing?

Yeah, darn that Legal Aid for "systematically imposed its economically ignorant left-wing views" on those poor slumlords!

Gee, if only we let slumlords do as they please, everyone would have a place to sleep. It might burn down or rain on you in the living room, maybe electrocute your child, or lack running water, but golly it's a home.

Take a gander at what is considered "habitable" rental housing in Oregon: http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1259_Habitability.htm

Briefly: A rental unit must be waterproof and weatherproof, have running potable water and be hooked up to a sewage system. It must have adequate heat and electrical, working appliances, and generally be clean and safe. How very unreasonable.

Yes, just imagine what rentals would cost if we mandated hot tubs and swimming pools! Because that's just the natural extension of expecting homes to have a safe water supply. Puhleeze. And just imagine what they would cost if we mandated a golden unicorn for each tenant too. The argument makes about as much sense.

Earlier this week a commenter was advocating for orphanages for the nation's poor children. Now we have someone actually saying rentals cost too much because we insist they be habitable. What next... are there no prisons, are there no poorhouses?

Every time I hear the phrase"affordable housing", I translate that to mean subsidized housing, or government built housing. Government is the worst possible entity to be getting into the real estate development business. Since gov. Doesn't have to turn a profit, they deal with visions paid with funny money all day long.

Hillsdale Terrace, a HAP housing project in Hillsdale, is scheduled to be torn down and replaced with new construction for the tidy sum of about $400K per unit. That includes social services for current residents and admin. costs, but for that price, the low income folks really could be living in a nice condo with a view of the river. Even at half the price, with money left over for HOA fees.

The Headwaters Apartments in Multnomah cost about $147k each to build. That would buy a condo in a vintage building in NW Portland. Pretty nice for workforce housing.

So I wonder about the term "economic equity" and the like. Does this mean that the real workforce who make just enough to scrape by and live in perfectly nice apartments that have a shared laundry room and perhaps an unheated pool and way too many dogs are now considered too well off to be subsidized? Does it mean that we have to keep subsidizing everyone until we ALL get to live in the home of their dreams? How sustainable is any of this, and why should government be building housing in the first place? (I do approve of section 8 vouchers that get low income people into private housing, but there is a multiple-year waiting list in every county for a voucher.).

For $56 - $70K per unit, older apartment apartments are being bought and sold right now to investors who intend to operate them for a profit. But no government agency can ever figure out how to get this done. Why should they? It isn't their job, and when they do it they do it badly.

"a 20-yr old punk rock musician..."

Now that must pay well. There is probably around 1000 bands in town all competing for a $50 gig- if they can get that.

It was nice of the WW to throw some numbers in there in an attempt to give this 29-year-old woman's story some legitimacy. However, it really seemed like just another "me"lennial complaining about not getting exactly what they wanted right when they wanted it.

Sounded like that to me, too.

Bozanich, the woman who found fingernails in her new apartment’s bed, needed to live close to the city center. She’d been living with her parents in North Plains, but she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer and wanted to be nearer to her clinic in North Portland. 

Darn whiny breast cancer woman.

If her clinic was in the Peal District, would she get the right to an apartment there too? Breast cancer sucks, but a doesn't have anything to do with this story.

Nolo:The Headwaters Apartments in Multnomah cost about $147k each to build. That would buy a condo in a vintage building in NW Portland. Pretty nice for workforce housing.

To live there, you can't earn more than $97,200/yr.

To government types, that's poverty.

Could the WW article be a response to the Headwaters controversy? "Hey Willamette Week, there really is a housing shortage, so tell people about it and maybe they'll understand that city subsidies to rental housing is a good thing."

Manipulation of the housing market?
My hands began typing way too quickly and out came Nip –
was this a slip of the hand or mind?
nip does however fit within manipulation!

Message may be -
nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Jack,

Please run for Mayor.

I gave up on Fish and regret thinking he was any different: I'm moving to Salmon Creek (North Vancouver).

I can't vote for you, but I'll donate $1,000 and 50 hours of door knocking. Just so Portland doesn't become Detroit.

...then we need a range of housing choices in each neighborhood," says City Commissioner Nick Fish, who oversees the Housing Bureau.>>>

Does Fish mean particle board ghetto housing should be a range of housing choice in EACH neighborhood?
...or is that "choice" only for some neighborhoods?

Mr. Tee, I'll see your 1K and raise you 1K, plus 30 hrs a week for "the duration" of the campaign. (And I live in Clackamas County...)

I'll kick in a thousand as well and promise to exert influence on all who will listen. If only we could be so fortunate.

I come to offer a slightly different view.

Due to a pending divorce, I recently had to engage in apartment-hunting for the first time in YEARS.

Here's my beef: The market is so saturated here that no matter how quickly I managed to respond to a craigslist ad, there were three or four people who beat me to it.

So it's not the cost hike that bugs me -- it's the impenetrable market. And I'm not talking about "hip" parts of town -- I'm talking about places in Hazelwood, a.k.a. Meth Land and Home-Invasion Land.

WORSE than the completely impenetrable market is that some landlords don't play fair. Instead of giving preference to the first applicant, many landlords want to choose from a pool of applicants to find the renter who is "just right for them."

In my difficult experience finding a place, I encountered such landlords, and often what constitutes a "good fit" is an effete, buzzword-spouting, green propagandist. Quiet, neutral-appearing rubes like me? Forget it. I just don't look like an ace composter.

So I guess what I'm saying is -- even the Willamette Week wrote the article with a creative class sob-story angle -- they are nevertheless correct that the entire process of finding an apartment in this town is a SERIOUS EFFING PAIN IN THE AS$.

Well said. As always.

Thanks, JB!

I cried because I couldn't find $500 digs in the Pearl or Nob Hill. Then I met a man who couldn't find space under a Portland bridge....

If her clinic was in the Peal District, would she get the right to an apartment there too? Breast cancer sucks, but a doesn't have anything to do with this story.

I thought I was responding to the comment about how she was just another "'me'lennial" not getting what they want, Jack, but if you want to throw out specious arguments about the siting of breast cancer clinics in the Pearl, go ahead.

To "ex-bartender": So, you'd rather have folks living on the streets, homeless, than live in a house with "vermin", a window that doesn't latch, or a porch with a rotten board? I was one of the legal aid lawyers involved in drafting the original Residential Landlord Tenant Act and testified before the 1973 legislative committee considering it, telling horror stories like those you recounted. I, and my fellow legal aid lawyers,in our idealism, and economic isgnorance, had no clue what we were about to "achieve". During my stint at legal aid, I had virtually no homeless clients...it only became a problem when the "low end" of the housing market was lopped off by the Act. If you let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you'll get "better" housing, but less of it, because the cost of maintaining "habitability", and fighting off tenant's lawyers who are quick to exploit any "non-habitable" premises, raises the bar for "affordable housing". Do we read of many "homeless" in NYC at the turn of the 20th century? No, because they were crammed into "slums"...but at least they had a roof over their heads. Better a leaky roof than no roof at all...and if you think you can have "habitable" housing for all in a market economy...the last 38 years have proved you wrong...unless the taxpayers subsidize "low-income" housing for all our current homeless, you are supporting a system which forces people to be homeless, when, as before 1973, virtually all of them would rather live in "non-habitable" housing than no housing at all.

Well that's a new one, Ms. Moos. I must admit I hadn't heard the claim before now that it was the Residential Landlord Tenant Act that lead to homelessness in Oregon, as presumably similar laws did so across the country. Do you have any actual data to back that up, or are we to rely solely on your anecdotal tale? I was under the impression that homelessness was a  much more complex issue than that. 

So by that logic, if we simply do away with all consumer protections, a good many of society's problems would just go away? Sure, starving people will eat poisoned food. They will probably die, but at least they didn't starve to death. And by golly, someone got to make a buck off of it, so it's a win-win situation! We can now cross world hunger off the list of society's great problems. Wow. The cynicism is palpable.

If you were indeed an attorney for Legal Aid, you know full well the utter BS behind your claim that "the cost of... fighting off tenant's lawyers who are quick to exploit any "non-habitable" premises" is an issue, let alone a barrier to affordable housing. 

A cursory reading of the Act shows plainly that the remedies for violating it are so small that the cost of hiring a lawyer would far exceed any award. Not that the majority of those who would need to bring such an action would have the resources to hire a lawyer anyway. And you must know that Legal Aid has never had the resources to chase after landlords for "a window that doesn't latch, or a porch with a rotten board." I know this from first-hand experience. If you were involved with Legal Aid, you do too.

I am simply amazed that people keep pining away for the good 'ol days where we warehoused the poor and other "undesirables" in orphanages, asylums, workhouses and slums. How far we've come. 

Do we read of many "homeless" in NYC at the turn of the 20th century?

Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean they weren't there.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=166

In 1872, James B. McCabe, Jr., wrote:

There are 10,000 children living on the streets of New York....The newsboys constitute an important division of this army of homeless children. You see them everywhere.... They rend the air and deafen you with their shrill cries. They surround you on the sidewalk and almost force you to buy their papers. They are ragged and dirty. Some have no coats, no shoes and no hat.

Yet isn't the affordable housing issue part of the argument on behalf of transportation projects like light rail? It makes it possible to get an apartment in Park Rose and easily commute downtown, or wherever. So now it's about expanding supply closer in... Or creating more density. Which will eventually make people who can afford to live close in actually want to escape the inner city, thus creating more blight and greater need for... More urban renewal! Brilliant! We underestimate these people.

And poor Zac Thayer (obviously no relation to Tommy Thayer, Portland guitarist now in KISS) should go to a true punk scene like New York or London and see what that $500/month he and his friend has to spend will get him.

Affordable housing or what much of what is called affordable housing is public housing, subsidized housing?

In my view, we had real affordable housing in our city, such as small bungalows, duplexes, affordable apartments. Those are being incrementally replaced by the UGB creating scarcity of land and the mantra of smart growth. These policies have not helped to save our real affordable housing and are perpetuating high density, much of what is public housing now instead of the real affordable housing we had.

Yes, quite the plan they seem to have in store for us.

The dude in the article wants a $500 apartment *share* -- meaning, a situation where three roommates, for instance, pay $1500 together for a house or apartment. That isn't very far-fetched at all for inner Portland, which demonstrates how affordable the place still is relative to other cities.