Item 3C - Housing Dispersal - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City had a supply of landbanked sites for future housing distributed in a variety of neighborhoods. · The need for low-income housing was acute and the land supply was limited. All opportunities to create new low-income housing should be on the table for examination. Dispersal Policy 1 actually limited site choice, and prevented use of some of the most affordable sites. · Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits were a critical funding source for many subsidized housing projects. Due to changes since the 2000 census, most of Eugene was not eligible for increased funding. Ironically, the very areas that were tax credit eligible were the areas excluded by the HDP. · The HPB provided an adequate filter to examine developments and their locations and to make recommendations prior to subsidy allocation. Most subsidies were offered after a Request for Proposal (RFP) process that offered ample opportunities for evaluation. The HDP, put into place before the HPB or the RFP process were created, was adopted at a time when most affordable housing development was done by the federal government, with little city support. Now, little affordable housing for very low- income families was built without city assistance and HPB support. · The 1968 Community Goals Plan, adopted by the City Council, first proposed a dispersal policy as an aspirational goal, not a prohibition. The plan stated: "Dispersal will, inevitably, be limited by certain considerations and must be tempered by common sense." Hopefully, that is where the HPB comes in. · New low-income housing has generally proven to be an asset to its neighborhood when properly constructed and well maintained. HPB supported projects historically were well-designed, constructed, maintained, and managed. Based on experience, new affordable housing developments enhance their neighborhoods. · The policy conflicted with other city goals that encouraged greater density, especially in city-center neighborhoods. · The policy was potentially limiting in some neighborhoods, such as downtown, where there were few total housing units, but where the existence of one or two subsidized developments made the area ineligible for future assistance - even though it was zoned for higher density housing. · The policy may be an impediment to Fair Housing law, in that the policy discriminated against families with children, by singling them out for limitations. Mr. Weinman said there was a minority opinion on the HPB in favor of retaining the policy, citing several reasons: · If it was not broken it does not need to be fixed. · It was a tool that should be held on to. · Over time there was a risk that there would be less dispersal without the policy. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S0501103C.doc