BLOG: "I am the product of subsidized, affordable housing..."
Sam Adams
This is a summary of the comments I made at today's City Council meeting regarding the housing resolution that I co-sponsored with Commissioner Erik Sten:
I am the product of subsidized affordable housing.
My single Mom raised four wily and independent kids while she attended college. She was able to do so because of affordable housing programs and other public benefit programs we were fortunate enough to be eligible for.
But my co-sponsorship for this resolution is about more than honoring my roots.
I want change and results.
A recent in-depth study in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that about 30% of income earners in Multnomah County subsist as the working poor. This compares to about 20% in King and Snohomish counties. A recent Economist.com study ranked Portland as the 3rd least affordable city in the U.S. Why? Because our buying power as Portlanders just doesn't match up to our costs.
My co-sponsorship of this resolution is part of my overall mission to help boost the economic self-sufficiency of Portland’s families, and so is my support for:
• $10 million in new city government funding for local schools;
• new grants for neighborhood businesses districts; and,
• reforms to WSI, Inc., the organization that trains Portlanders to increase their earning power.
We can create more opportunities for our families to reach economic self-sufficiency by increasing their affordable housing options. This resolution is about those options.
This resolution begins a process that will require an informed discussion of stakeholders. It will identify opportunities and potential trade offs for the use of tax increment financing.
I look forward to being informed by this discussion.
Posted by Sam Adams on April 26, 2006
(23) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Housing
Comments by site visitors
Anthony,
Actually that is one of the issues that we've consistently heard and this resolution tries to address: That too often PDC housing dollars are not spent to help the working poor.
The purpose of this resolution is to guarantee that we are spending these dollars for individuals or families who couldn't afford to rent at $550, or who just need a push to make homeownership a reality.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Apr 26, 2006 3:52:19 PM
Gotta admire your intentions but laugh at the results. I've been taking classes at a particular training center (to get more certs) - there is some other class going on, which is obviously a class for the 'under-privledged' to become trained for a better job (a job in construction). In very short order we looked at this group of misfits (and trust me that term popped in to EVERYONE's mind} and we were willing to take bets that about 80% of the class will never complete the course. Of the 20% that do graduate, half of them won't be able to pass the drug test. Of the remaining 10% (of the original class) half of them won't last 6 months on the job. So out of the 50 or so people, costing us an average of $2000 per person - we MIGHT get 2 or 3 working bodies, taxpaying citizens. The rest? They'll end up in the next "improve your working skills" class and go through it all again.
Regarding the 'subsidized' housing. I'm in construction, remember? I had a hand in the demolition of Columbia Village, what those folks did to that place was a crime. I also have a part in the new construction of the new Columbia Village, we're all betting that the new residents will have the new complex looking much like the old one in less than 3 years ... any takers?
Yes, helping the poor, the 'under-privledged' (whatever that means) is all fine and good. But when you see the absolute WASTE of tax dollars ... what's the use, the vast majority of readers of this blog continue to think that throwing more money at a problem will solve it. It won't, accountability will, but then that would involve standards and judgements, something that "progressives" can't stand.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Apr 26, 2006 7:22:28 PM
I want change and results.
[Election content]. Opie's had his 10 years to work on this, and he's failed.
Posted by: Jack Bog | Apr 27, 2006 12:46:35 AM
Mmmarvel,
YOU: “Gotta admire your intentions but laugh at the results. I've been taking classes at a particular training center (to get more certs) - there is some other class going on, which is obviously a class for the 'under-privledged' to become trained for a better job (a job in construction).”
ME: We still have a long way to go before WSI is what I want it to be – I am proud, though, that I have pushed through major change in 7 months. Email me (samadams@ci.portland.or.us) which poor training program you attended, I want to follow up.
YOU: “Yes, helping the poor, the 'under-privledged' (whatever that means) is all fine and good. But when you see the absolute WASTE of tax dollars ... what's the use, the vast majority of readers of this blog continue to think that throwing more money at a problem will solve it. It won't, accountability will, but then that would involve standards and judgements, something that "progressives" can't stand.”
ME: You seem to see all issues through partisan eyes. I don’t. Part of my efforts to reform WSI and all City government is to require standards and accountability for how money is used.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Apr 27, 2006 8:27:28 AM
SAM: "Part of my efforts to reform WSI and all City government is to require standards and accountability for how money is used."
ME: Then how could have possibly voted for the tram? Much less, Urban Renewall, TODs and TIF in general? Is speculating on development with tax-dollars responsible?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Apr 27, 2006 10:10:57 AM
"Because our buying power as Portlander's just doesn't match up to our costs."
Because that is what socialism gets you. The polical policies and leanings in this area of the country have created this environment. Because people want a high standard of living. If you get that with socialistic principles you get higher costs of living. It's how things work. To try and fight that with policy is insane. Please look at historical examples and what the economic system provides. When the politicians (that's you) start manipulating market demand, that's like forcing animals to live in a box for their "safety". It doesn't make things better. By attempting to fix this "downtrodden" minority (the 30% of whoever it is) all you do is cost the other 70% even more money. It NEVER works out and NEVER decreases the actual amount of unemployed, unproductive, undoing, unwilling, and incompetant people out there. You can call it economics, statistics, studies, or whatever you might spin. The fact of the matter is that the market will take care of what it CAN, if you force it to do more then you're only creating a scenario where these people (and the producers), are living on borrowed time and borrowed money.
"My co-sponsorship of this resolution is part of my overall mission to help boost the economic self-sufficiency of Portland’s families, and so is my support for:"... blagh blagh blagh...
All you're attempting to do is to erase the mistakes of a certain group of people. I'm sorry if you have four kids and you wanna go to college you've already made a mistake, I don't see a single reason why because someone already made the mistake the rest of us should pay (an already high taxed populace) to have this person get a semi-mediocre job (obviously they won't be excessively productive if they where dumb enough to have four kids, then need to go on subsidy/welfare/housing) to still subsist off of the rest of productive society.
Stop with the hard core socialist propoganda. Stick to getting things done that people want that have a REAL return on our money. Quit supporting the embarrassing people that screwed up so much they're begging for hand outs from the Government.
This is sad, embarrassing, and outright pathetic for the rest of us "producers". We get punished for the non-producers not participating. Why do WE get punished for this?
Portland has this backwards mentality and policy that isn't based on actual historical relevancy, so what do we have, the exact thing this bill/proposal/initiation is supposed to fight against. It's a catch 22 so just break the cycle.
I'll take bets, it won't make a ding in the difference. Especially when right around the corner the producers are gentrifying areas because they like it here. Remember, the producers don't like or work well with non-producers. If you enable the unwilling and trouble making non-producers too much you'll chase away your tax base, the producers. Otherwise the not so productive will continue to be pushed from the city core. Producers don't want them there. The affordable housing is OUTSIDE of the core, by mere market demand it will always be.
Enough of me ranting about this though.
It is just scary as there is no intelligent basis of historical or economic empirical facts being used for this proposition.
This is just embarrassing.
Come on Sam, get back to productive things. If you REALLY want to create affordable housing and decrease living costs here is a list of things you need to work on. But be prepared for the trade offs.
#1 Lower income taxes or eliminate them.
#2 Decrease road, public transit, and other subsidies.
#3 Eliminate more social services that only create an additional drug culture.
#4 Completely eliminate the urban growth boundary.
#5 Allow more suburban sprawl and move the poor/unwealthy to those areas. Allow cores to be created in those low cost areas. (generally called ghettos)
#6 Encourage and assist businesses with growth outside of the downtown core.
These things will create an environment where people will get affordable lives. It's been done a thousand times in other parts of the country.
If it is done smartly then these things could be done with Portland style and better effect than most American cities.
But be prepared for;
#1 A decrease in tax revenue.
#2 An increase in crime.
#3 A decrease in clean technologies being used & enabled.
#4 A decrease in the living standard of the area.
#5 A more average and mediocre (in intelligence, behavior, and other characteristics) population.
#6 A decreased elite & productive/creative class
#7 An increase in traffic.
#8 An increase in transit demand.
#9 An increased cost of logistics & traffic costs across the board.
All of these things WILL happen if you really want to take care of all these theoretical problems.
Also... please correct your use of economic self sufficiency. Most of the people that are subsidized/assisted/welfare recipients are always a drain on society and NEVER become truly self sufficient. It would be better to spend the money on a tax break, or a tax break to a major corporation that would bring thousands of new high income jobs to the area, or transportation, roadway, or other related construction.
Almost anything would be better than what was mentioned. Just be prepared, either way you will incriminate a large group of voters as long as these types of issues are brought up. There is no real positive when dealing with socialistic measures.
Posted by: adron | Apr 27, 2006 11:31:32 AM
Sam, I think you and the other bloggers on this "affordable, subsidized housing" topic should also correlate the discussion that occurred recently in blueoregon.org under "Homeless in Portland" on April 14 (see under "past posts").
What is interesting in that blog that I contributed to is the fact that Eric Sten in the City Club debate claimed that 660 homeless people were "housed" in 05 to the tune of $28M dollars of taxpayer and grant money. These numbers came from the Bureau of Housing & Community Development in their 05 Progress Report.
In further postings it became obvious that the 660 number can include housing that can be just one nite of lodging.
The question becomes "are the taxpayers getting a fair shake by expending $28M dollars plus adding in all the other dollars from other "agencies/religious affiliations, in solving the "housing problems?"
This you add to the excellent comments above.
Posted by: lw | Apr 27, 2006 11:43:42 AM
What ever happened to the churches taking care of the poor? That IS one of their core missions!
Our church has rent assistance, utilities assistance, food boxes, clothes, drug and alcohol counseling, job boards, etc, etc.
All of this without a dime of taxpayer money!
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 27, 2006 12:00:20 PM
Sam,
Good job and thank you for the hard work.
Chuck Currie
Posted by: Chuck Currie | Apr 27, 2006 2:20:28 PM
Hey Sam -
Sorry if you mistook what I said, I didn't personally attend the class I talked about, I was attending another class (with folks who know what they are going for and how to get it - more and better certifications which will increase our value in our jobs and in the work force). No, this was another class being held in the same facility and the people that were there ... suffice to read my previous comments.
You want to make subsidized training and housing accountable? On training, they sign a contract saying that if they miss ANY class without a hospital excuse (and not some stupid ER excuse, a real one like they had a hand get cut off) then they are out of the program. Not only are they out of the program but they owe the city/state the money for the program and are not allowed into any other programs till that money is paid. You make them willing to take random drug tests. You make them sign that they will pass the weekly tests in the class or will come in two hours early the next week to get up to speed on what they need to know. You make them responsible for finding a job (with a little help) in the field that they were trained for within the first 6 months of graduating out of the course. You make them sign that they will stay on that job for a minimum of a year once hired, if fired for ANY reason, they will pay back the money (notice, not laid off - fired). If they don't agree to any and all of these terms, they don't get the training. THAT is accountability!!!!
Subsidized housing? Sign the contract! You will be expected to keep the place clean and in good repair. This will be checked at random, a minimum of once a week - you fail 'inspection' twice you'll have 10 days to move out. ONLY the people to whom the place is rented are allowed to stay there. Anyone seen coming and going on basically an 'overnight' aspect will be considered living there if that person is seen 'coming and going' in the morning more than 7 days in a row. Once a person has been identified as 'coming and going' (in the morning) the renter has 7 days to register them as living there too, or they are gone. If the person 'coming and going' is seen there, they should NOT be seen again for a minimum of 6 weeks without the registration (who lives there) being changed. All apartments have a maximum number of people allowed to register/live in them.
Come on Sam, this is common sense.
Finally you say that I "seem to see all issues through partisan eyes." No Sam, I see them through the eyes of reality. I'm out there all day, every day, I see these people the good, the bad, the ugly. The drug addicted, the near-dwells, the beggers, the hard workers, those willing to do what it will take to boost themselves up and those not willing to. I watch as people quickly figure out ways to take advantage of systems that were truly put into place to help people who want/need the help, but the vast majority figure out ways to scam the system(s). Yes, there are folks out there who do use the system, the programs in the way it was/is intended and many of them do make it out of impoverished lifestyles - but they have to WANT to, and the VAST majority of folks in 'retraining' programs and in subsidized housing DON'T want to do what it will take to better themselves; they just want lower rents and money for going to class (every now and then) that they have no intention of finishing or getting a job in.
Don't get me wrong, the programs SHOULD be there, but there should be some MAJOR accountability marks and checks being done. That accountability is what is sorely missing.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Apr 27, 2006 2:48:36 PM
Great job Sam and Erik and the rest of Council, this is a great step by City Council. Props to Affordable Housing Now for pushing the issue tirelessly.
Posted by: Steve Hoyt | Apr 27, 2006 3:00:37 PM
"What ever happened to the churches taking care of the poor? That IS one of their core missions!"
"All of this without a dime of taxpayer money!"
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 27, 2006 12:00:20 PM
Thank you Anthony, for posting the obvious.
The Government SHOULD NOT BE IN the business of taking care of the homeless. Yeah there is a seperation of church and state but there is and never was an intention of ANY form of American Government to allow moochers to eat up taxpayer money. Taxpayer money should go to those things that taxpayers need, want, and choose. Not some arbritrary spending of 28 million to house 660 people.
If 28 million is the right number that is a disgrace to all Americans, not just Portlanders. That IS NOT a good shake for the money.
I seriously hope I see you doing something more productive with your power than attending to the homeless with everyone's taxpayer money.
Posted by: adron | Apr 30, 2006 10:37:27 AM
Thank you Sam and Erik for funding affordable housing!
Homelessness doesn't simply go away. We have to change the environment that causes homelessness and affordable housing is a step in the right direction. The housing market is out of control. (Yup, that's the same market that some people tonight seem to worship as a god that will solve everything.) Housing is becoming harder and harder to afford and this legislation tackles that issue.
By the way, thanks Sam for this blog. It's important to keep the communication lines open.
Posted by: Jonah Willbach | May 1, 2006 1:47:16 AM
Sam,
good work on affordable housing...even Adam Smith recognized that society through its institutions sets the parameters for the market.
We want some flexibility in what's available, so studio's in South Waterfront are not foolish; I think the latest proposal is that the taxed abated mix should reflect a project's mix.
But the real key to affordable housing is good paying jobs, so keeping the tram and OHSU's expansion on track was probably the best thing you've done of late on that score.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | May 1, 2006 12:06:00 PM
Thanks Sam for your leadership on this crucial item of MIS-SPENT tax payer dollars. Currently many urban renewal dollars are spent subsidizing the lives (and housing) of the wealthy. . . talk about waste. By directing public resources to help working families earning under $13 an hour, our retirees relying on fixed incomes that have been left behind in the housing market we cna do much good for the strenghth of our community.
As for Mmmarvel and Adron, your slams against people with lower incomes need to stop. Your ideas are wrong-headed, cruel and without merit.
You know who needs the type of housing this reform will provide? Bank tellers. Retail salespeople. Janitors. Are these the lazy folks to whom you refer? Or is it seniors relying on fixed incomes? Maybe people unable to work because of disability surviving on a remarkable $517 a month? Or is it veterans, who after serving our country live under a bridge? Or is the well over 1,000 homeless children attending Portland schools?
What you both fail to realize, either because you are blinded by your knee jerk right wing talk show idealogy or because you are simply ignorant is that single largest housing GOVERNMENT subsidy goes to home owners in the form a a mortgage interest deduction (http://www.cfed.org/publications/Final%20HIPS%20%20Version.pdf). The concept that the poor are living off the fat of the land is ludicrous. It is the rich who are making off like bandits.
Further, you fail to acknowledge that with now nearly three decades of your 'the church will take care of it; get the government out of social programs' philosophy being the guiding principal in DC and in Salem, we have more families living in desperate poverty than any time since the depression. Nice work. You ideas and strategies baseless and bankrupt.
Finally, as far as all of your inferences that people with low incomes are degenerates and lazy low life scammers, tell me about those classy CIA folks and their hookers. Or how about Rush popping his pills? Or how about that gem of a human from Homeland Security soliciting teenagers? Or the champ from the Presidents Faith Based Initiative that was running a shop lifting scam?
Posted by: Michael Anderson | May 9, 2006 6:05:16 PM
Michael Anderson -
If I didn't realize that you are serious about your comments, I'd laugh. Unfortunately I KNOW that you are serious. What that does for me is shows me that you live in a fantasy world; the world that our socialistic policies in both Oregon and Portland has brought us to. A world where NOTHING is a person's own fault, no one really needs to be responsible for much of anything. A world where the government will do everything for everybody.
First, regarding our 'housing market' THAT, my friend, has been brought on by our governmental agency Metro. 96% of the population of this state lives on less than 5% of the land in this state. When you create a shortage of something (in this case land to build housing on) the price for it goes up. In a place like San Francisco, it's not an artificial shortage, they have just plain run out of land. Up here, they have created the shortage artifically by creating the "Urban Growth Boundary". We have land, land which could be developed and built on to increase the housing units available and lower the price. But no, folks like you and those in government want to first create the artificial shortage then subsidize folks who have to try to live with the high, high price that available housing has. Ever think that through? Or are you just too happy thinking about how poor the poor have it.
You claim that the mortgage deduction is a government subsidy. It would depend on how you define that word. To me a deduction is NOT a subsidy because the government never got it's greedy hands on MY money in the first place. To ME a subsidy is when the government GIVES you something, like money.
If you look back at my posts, I do acknowledge that there are hard working folks trying to better themselves. However, I'm out there day after day and I can tell you that the slackers out-number the hard workers by at least 3 to 1. Further, in my past posts, I've said we DO need programs that help folks help themselves - BUT (big but here) - we need to hold them accountable when they accept the help. Do you have a problem REQUIRING them to be drug tested? Heck, you even have to get drug tested to work at McDonalds, why not for a government funded 'help' program? Do you have a problem requiring them comply with ANY of the conditions I listed, or did you even bother to read my suggestions?
I see these folks on a daily basis, I see kids who dropped out of high school come and ask for work at job sites. Some don't come back when told they will have to take a drug test. Some are told to come back, but don't. The rest do a poor job on their first day and then don't come back.
This society is set up for success but you DO have to put in some kind of effort. Unlike high school, we're not going to GIVE you something (like a high school diploma) for merely showing up - while I'm at it, think of how many can't even do the minimum required to get a high school diploma? A girl that my daughter went to high school with (for one year, then my daughter changed schools) made it a stated goal to get "F's" in all her classes for the year. She succeeded, they passed her to the next year.
Responsibility Michael, THAT is what it SHOULD be all about. If you want to be responsible for your actions, your course in life, then go for it, we have LOTS of programs set up to help you do that. If you're elderly, crippled or truly handicap, then we need to care for those folks. What we DON'T need are the boat-load of folks who do the minimum and DON'T want to better themselves.
I see the free-loaders EVERY DAY! I DON'T live in your fantasy world, I live in the everyday, work-a-day world.
Posted by: Mmmarvel | May 10, 2006 2:37:03 PM
Mmmarvel,
Frankly, I don't think the issue is black and white. I think we need to acknowledge both our personal and collective responsibilities to better ourselves.
For many of our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly and disabled, we collectively have a responsibility to provide safe and decent places for them to call home.
I also agree that self-sufficiency
is a critical and too-often overlooked goal. I think we've begun to address this. In the ten year plan to end homelessness, connecting people with the opportunities they need to better themselves is a key component. I think it will define the next
It is not enough to find folks places to live, we must also point them to chances to move up.
Of course, we must also acknowledge that our local economy is not producing these chances at the rate we must to make this possible for many families.
Though I think that drug testing is an invasive way of showing accountability, I think any employer ought to be able to hold employees accountable to their performance.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | May 10, 2006 3:05:51 PM
mmmarvel is a hoot, I wonder what the average person would think looking in on his training class. If you are so smart on all the topics you opine about, why not use your name to sign your blogs? Scott
Posted by: Scott Tillman | May 13, 2006 10:44:25 AM
What would the average person think about the training classes I attend? Basically the majority of them would be snowed after the first 15 minutes, it's all about laws and regulations - boring, but important. Those who stayed awake through the first 15 minutes would then be amazed (at least I think they would be) by the amount of regulations that I have to learn and apply to the various job situations.
As for why I don't 'sign' my posts - I'd rather NOT have my name plastered around the city. It's MUCH easier to see how things really are if someone is unaware that you are going to talk about it. Do you speed? Do you speed when a cop is around? See my point?
Posted by: Mmmarvel | May 16, 2006 5:34:26 AM
I would tend to sympathize with mmarvel's appraisal of a 'skills training class' in construction. I work in that field, and I'm a crafstman, last of a dying breed. I make sure my math is correct; I know the geometric axioms I need to know; I'm always in good health, not hung over or complaining of a damaged back. I always make sure I have the correct equipment or tools w/o overspending on worthless s--t. And you know what? Our do-gooder leaders continue to dump the dregs of society into what should be the domain of craftsmen. I'm fed up with obnoxious degenerates, fed up with illegal border crossers being serenaded by tax-crazy politicians, fed up with incompetent people flooding our industry because someone thinks they have been treated unfairly, fed up with whiners begging for jobs when thet don't give a s--t about involvement in the political process, fed up with the people who cheat the public treasury of unemployment dollars and tax dollars. Got it?
Posted by: r. | May 16, 2006 7:36:43 PM
Hey Sam!
let's get together and bring some attention to the way that no cause evictions are used to punish tenants that stand up to landlords.
Last December you helped change Title 29. I got a no cause eviction and have had to move because of this.
Why is Norris and Stevens now only liable for twice my rent. $1120 doesn't seem like much of a fine for getting rid of me cause I changed the law.
Posted by: Aaron | May 26, 2006 1:26:47 PM
Mr. Adams would you cre to exsplain to the people of Portland why you helped chge Portlands Comp Plan so that it doesnt even comply with Metros plan for the state let alone for infill for the city! It was on your watch that Portlands Comp Plan for S.W. Portland waqs changed thus elininating over 14,000 acres out of Portlands Comp Plan! Lets see 14,000 acres inside the UGB with (Metros Plan calls for 4.5 lots per acre but with your help Portlands Comp Plan was changed to less than 2 lots per acre inside the UGB and the city of Portland) thats a net loss of aprox 3900 buildable lots of 10,000 sq ft (this is twice the size of you average lot in the City.
Come to think of it this Backdoor deal happened in 2001 Anyone remember getting notices saying WE ARE Taking your neighborhood out of Merto and Portland Comp Plan to save FISH BECAUSE FISH ARE MORE IMPORTANTE THAN FAMILIES AND KIDS? (come to think of it 5 years would be preschool).
Posted by: Dean Grudzinski | Jun 7, 2006 11:13:56 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Is this the same "affordable housing" that charges $800/month for a studio apartment.
I live in what would be called "affordable housing." that is not subsidized by the government in any way.
It is a small, 2 bedroom house, with a decent sized front and back yard, on a low traffic cul-de-sac. $550/month. Low crime, good school district, etc, etc. An area someone could raise a family in.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 26, 2006 1:07:59 PM