Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman wanted to incentivize where it was not attractive or profitable to build housing. The proposed addition requested by Ms. Ortiz worked for Ms. Bettman because this was an area of interest for the next Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route in Eugene which would be a great compli- ment to multi-unit housing that was not currently being built. She was not interested in regulating for quality standards, preferring that those issues be addressed in the code. She was concerned that affordable and low-income older houses were being torn down in the WUN. She asked if existing housing would be torn down in northwest Eugene under the proposed expansion displacing low-income people. She asserted it was about tax breaks and not development, and everyone should pay taxes. Mr. Weinman concurred that demolition of older homes and new construction in the university area cost more, adding the proposal was likely to occur on the west side as well. Typically redeveloped and new rentals tended to cost more per month than older rentals. Mr. Clark asserted the question was one of density policy. Everything the council did had an effect on what was or was not built in the community, and drove what and where development occurred regardless of whether it was incentives, regulation or density policy. He opined that without MUPTE some things would not be built, but with it or without it, development occurred, with a variety of impacts. People in the industry had told him that without MUPTE the only way to make a project profitable was to make it taller, with more bedrooms per unit, and increase the th parking load on the street, similar to what was occurring at 19 Avenue and Alder. He asked if without MUPTE more of that type of development would occur. Mr. Weinman responded that there was an increased chance that development that occurred would be of lesser quality. Development was difficult with an incentive and without an incentive there would either be no development or something of lesser quality. This was one of the reasons that the council adopted quality standards in the past. Mr. Clark said this was not about profitability, because people in the business of developing housing needed to make money or they would not stay in business. The question was what they could afford to build: either those things that worked well and fit with the City’s policy regula- tions and direction, or those things which created more problems. Ms. Taylor emphasized MUPTE was never a guarantee but had been interpreted as such over time. She said everyone should pay taxes, and the only way she would support exempting people from taxes for ten years was if there was a very clear benefit to the City and the community as a whole, and not the builder. The council could contribute to homelessness by encouraging people through incentives to build multi-family housing. We would no longer have run-down single room occupancy (SRO) development, the kinds of places that were not the best, but affordable, and better than being on the streets. She definitely wanted to get rid of the university area tax exemption, and wanted to take more time to think about the extension. Responding to Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman said MUPTE could be used for rehabilitation if it was an extensive rehabilitation project that created five or more units. Ms. Solomon said, in addition to previously cited reasons, while looking at the applications previously approved, it appeared that 95 percent of the applicants were local people investing back in the community, which was important to her. She noted local bankers, realtors and contractors were part of this investment pool, living in the community, wanting to make a difference and invest in the community, and MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 7 Work Session