|
<br /> t
<br /> !housing plan. Preparation ,of a housing plan was dependent upon adoption ofa d'is=---:
<br /> 'persal plan, she said, so to be eligible for funds when they were appropriated under
<br /> Ithe new law it would be necessary to move along with the dispersal plan. She added
<br /> I
<br /> ithat questions should be directed toward specific changes which the Committee would I
<br /> - ;be able to make, recogni zing that it was not possible to disperse low-income families,:
<br /> that only location of low-cost housing could be controlled. In response to Council~ I
<br /> 'woman Beal, Mrs. Niven said the new Federal program had no requirement at this time
<br /> ,for housing dispersal.
<br /> ICouncilman Murray supported the proposed policy so far as interest in dispersal of ;
<br /> IIow-cost housing for achievement of social goals and avoidance of economic ghettoes.
<br /> iHowever, he said, he had serious philosophical reservations that the plan presented
<br /> iwould not further the desired goals. He said history had shown that low-income
<br /> ;people as a rule did not choose concentration in certain areas, rather they were i
<br /> !left behind by others. He felt the answer lay not in dispersing low-income house-
<br /> holds but in providing some kind of direction and j[ncentives to those moving olit of
<br /> !low-income housing areas to return. He suggested that consideration should be
<br /> :given to the impact of zoning policies and speculative and debilitating land use i
<br /> !practices, traffic patterns and ways the city complicated those problems, the nega- !
<br /> , : tive impact of property taxation and of the assessment system, education staffing I
<br /> ,(recognizing that was not a city government issue), access to certain areas, and
<br /> high quality of social amenities. Aside ,from philosophical reservations, he said,
<br /> 'he was concerned that the Joint Housing Commi ttee ,had left behind most low-cost
<br /> 'housing in switching from "lower income housing" in the introductory paragraph to
<br /> e ; the Plan to "subsidized housing." He said there was no.low-cost housing in Eugene
<br /> ;except subsidized housing and the Plan did not tak,e, into account nonsubsidized
<br /> low-income units. ,
<br /> I
<br /> Mr. Murray distributed to other Council members statistics and maps illustrating I
<br /> concentrations of persons paying rents of $79 per month or less and owner-occupied f
<br /> ,
<br /> homes having an assessed value of less than $10,000, based on 1970 census data.
<br /> He called attention to the disparity between figures therein with regard to concen- I
<br /> trations of low-income housing and planning district concentrations, shown in the
<br /> proposed Dispersal Plan which led him to "radically different conclusions" than
<br /> those of the report. He recognized elimination oE elderly and students in the
<br /> report's stat}.stics, but thought the same patterns would emerge were they taken
<br /> linto consideration. He said he was not persuaded that low-income people were
<br /> (living where they preferred to live rather than where the low-cost housing was.
<br /> He_thought existing low-cost housing should be considered in any housing dispersal;
<br /> ithat the proposed Plan recommended location of more of that type housing in planning J
<br /> districts already having a concentration, and that other areas not having low-cost
<br /> l~ousin~ were not ,mentioned: ~e felt to adopt such a plan would be going backwards i
<br /> ~n try~ng to ach~ eve the c~ ty s goals. ' _ ,__ -- --- -- __ __ --~----- ,,', .---~. ,-,~
<br /> ..... . _ - .-' ,0 ~ _ "_...ll..
<br /> . Mayo~ Anderson suggested that discussion be kept to information in the report, ~
<br /> :leav~ng lengthy discussion to public hearing which would be necessary in formula- \
<br /> :tion of a policy of this sort. He recognized Mrs. Niven who responded to
<br /> Mr. Murray's comments on data in the report. She said the study referred only to
<br /> ;dispersal of subsidized housing, not all low-cost housing. And that the definition "
<br /> "of housing uni ts should be considered. It could be that low-cost uni ts, might in-
<br /> :clude a number of single rooms rather than housing units in which families Could
<br /> ,:live. She added that there were limitations too because of funding requirements
<br /> \ on capacity for moving people into low-cost housing even if it was available. She
<br /> 'recognized the proposed plan would not solve the housing problem, but if funds
<br /> were forthcoming the plan would say where to locat,e low-cost housing. The' Housing
<br /> ! Committee felt the central planning district as set out in the report, for instance,
<br /> iwould be best for walking to nearby services, and she didn't feel it was fair to
<br /> ,lOW-income people if they wanted to live close in to say they couldn't. -I
<br /> -,I Councilman Murray said he appreciated the number of rental uni ts comprising single '-,
<br /> , rooms, but felt that that consideration would not greatly affect the patterns of
<br /> q c(:mcentration. His concerns were graver! he said, in that he thought the ci ty
<br /> would be going backwards 'in its social goals, and "it would riot be a change, it
<br /> would be a mistake." He accepted the Housing Committee's findings that subsidized
<br /> housing was all that could be influenced, but he also thought existing low~cost
<br /> Ihousing could not be ignored, nor could the people living in that housing be ignored.
<br /> . I
<br /> iHe was not in favor of the Council's acting on this plan; he did favor the Housing
<br /> icommittee~s looking at it again to see if there was some way to build into the dis-
<br /> :persal formula for district allocations some consideration of existing low~cost units. i
<br /> --------- ..... -. . _h___. -----...--.-- -., -c-._~.- . ~--"~ -.~ -
<br /> ..... -.0. .-. . '-,. -. . ~ - - ~.'.,"'. .._~
<br /> 9/16/74 - 9
<br /> ~2.b
<br />
|