Item 3C - Housing Dispersal - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· The policy is potentially limiting in some neighborhoods, such as downtown, where there are few total housing units, but the existence of one or two subsidized developments potentially makes the area ineligible for future assistance - even though it is zoned for higher density housing. · The policy may be an impediment to federally mandated "Fair Housing" practices. The policy discriminates against families with children, by singling them out for limitations. Staff proposes that the policy to be included in the Consolidated Plan not be limited to families. Reasons to Repeal Pohcy 2 (Maximum Number Of Units) · As noted above, the HPB could exercise common sense and determine an appropriate number of units on a case-by-case basis. Given the scarcity of sites, and the size of the current landbank sites, it is not likely that many approved projects would end up being larger than the current 60- unit recommended maximum. · The 1968 Plan had no maximum number of units. The 1974 amendments added a maximum of 80 units. The 1996 amendments lowered that maximum to 60, but gave the council authority to balance the policy with other community goals. · There is typically an economy of scale associated with construction of a larger project. Given the needs and the financial constraints, opportunities to build more units for less money per unit should be considered. · One key to a successful project is on-site management. Smaller projects struggle to financially support on-site management. · As noted above, there are a limited number of good multi-family development sites. The unit limit prevents maximizing the use of those sites. · Other communities, including Portland, allow construction of much larger projects and they are not experiencing problems. For example, a current Portland project, New Columbia, will build 850 housing units in a new mixed-income neighborhood that will include home ownership, family rentals and elderly rentals. Staff research has not turned up a similar policy in any other city. · The State of Oregon does not have a history of problems associated with the large projects found in big cities. Most people have negative impressions based upon large projects in the east that include hundreds of housing units and that were poorly designed and maintained. An Argument in Favor of Retaining the Policy A member of the Housing Policy Board requested an opportunity to submit a minority opinion. Mr. Bob Doppelt believes we need a free standing dispersal policy as opposed to relying on comprehensive plans or RFPs. He believes that such a policy provides clarity of purpose for affordable housing developers. Mr. Doppelt also believes that over time there is a risk that low-income housing could become L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S0501103C.doc