Greater Portland Vancouver Indicators Project Meeting: Quality Housing and Communities Results Team Date: September 24 th, 2010 Time: 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM Place: Portland Housing Bureau, 421 SW 6 th Ave. 5 th Floor conference room Meeting Notes Attendees: Trell Anderson, Clackamas Co. Housing Authority Lisa Bates, School of Urban Studies and Planning (PSU) Michael Buonocore, Housing Authority of Portland Ellen Johnson, Legal Aid Services of Oregon Kelly Moosbrugger, Graduate Research Assistant, PSU Leroy Patton, Fair Housing Council of Oregon Antoinette Pietka, Portland Housing Bureau Progress Update We are currently in phase one of this project, in which we are coming up with big-picture outcomes and drivers. The second phase will be looking at which of these are measurable and how we want to measure them translating concepts into things we can measure. Next year we will find the data and then set targets for the future. On Monday the Advisory Board will look at our progress and possibly give feedback on our outcomes and drivers. We also need to find linkages to other teams at this step. Overall Project Questions and Comments: It would be good to have symbols for each team, we could put symbols next to the drivers that go with that team. We must communicate with the other teams and not stay in our silos. What is the process for coming out of silos and talk about the overlaps? Anyone from PDC in this project? How will our work be implemented? Are the people in charge on board? Should we combine our thoughts and find an outcome, driver, and indicator at same time? It would help us to focus and narrow it down. We were told to look at big picture right now. We want to push for having measures and data that aren t in the typical indicator projects.
All indicators quantitative or some qualitative? Not sure but if things are measurable we need to still keep them in mind and maybe there will be a way to measure it later. Outcomes and Drivers Discussion: The team had a discussion about the issues discussed at the first meeting and about what was missing from that first discussion. A list of outcomes and drivers was not agreed upon, but the team leaders will use the notes below to update the current list for the next team meeting. People have limits when choosing where to live: We expect people to make connections between housing and transportation, etc. Sometimes they don't even have a high school degree and don t know how to budget. People need life skills, financial literacy---links to education team Vouchers are portable need for mobility counseling People need to be able to have information on housing locations, services, etc We have a problem with the choices people are able to make with limited information on housing and services in neighborhoods need assistance to make better choices. Housing location: Transportation planning and land use planning for affordable housing go hand in hand Affordable housing can help to accomplish state goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions Locational efficiencies estimate cost in terms of GHG emission for affordable housing in specific locations. With this, we can forecast what GHG emissions will be based on where housing is located Locational efficiency - fair an adequate geographic distribution of affordable housing in all communities. Land use planning is primary driver for that. Jobs-housing fit (enough housing for people of certain income) is different from jobs-housing balance (enough housing by location - lower income housing farther away from jobs, they have to pay more for transportation). Our group ought to look at location of housing as related to transportation. Question does transportation team take this on or do we? Accountability: Housing authority has a process of housing people a lot is subcontracted to other people, so housing authority is not held responsible (they blame subcontractors, subcontractors blame housing authority) for problems with tenants Need Identification of clear lines of responsibility and authority Need accountability fits into civic engagement Housing Tenures:
Outcome?: Enforcement of tenant protections (current law is not sufficient tenants cannot be self enforcer anymore, we need outside agency to enforce the protections) We talked about wealth creation from homeownership last time, but we didn't talk about renting being a good option, a comfortable option too and for that we need tenant protection. Homeownership should be open but renting needs to be a good option. There is an overwhelming need for affordable rentals. Right now there isn t a large gap in homeownership between needs and desires. Main issues for owning is fair housing and fair lending. In past homeownership was presented as solution for everyone, so affordability was not considered as important. Income gap exists even when there are good lending and good land use decisions for homeownership. There are co-ownership models (in between owning and renting) that work too - alternatives Does our first outcome address homelessness by saying everyone has access to safe affordable housing? We could still have homelessness when we have enough affordable housing. This is where we connect to the health team and the economic team. Is education or health team looking at youth services, youth homelessness? We have to address shelters and transitional housing Should we think of housing on a continuum? homeless-------------- home ownership HUD 10 year plan to end homelessness has outcomes for the different housing systems. They ask, What do we need for homelessness? We need transitional housing, shelters, rent assistance for homelessness prevention, education, etc. If we think in terms of systems it might help us organize our thoughts. Outcome?: Reduce nonpayment evictions. Top reasons for rent assistance need are loss of job and medical bills, based on interviews with evicted folks. Need housing stability, housing access once you are homeless, what kind of access is there? Diversity and Equity: Important to look at equity from the beginning, not just when looking at data. Equity is being pushed by EPA because federal government is looking at it through their sustainable communities initiative. Diverse communities: we need to talk about racial integration/segregation. Should there be outcomes about this? People want to be able to rent or buy where they want to live. What are the barriers to this? Need stronger investigation identification of discrimination in housing. Do we have an explicit goal of the location of people of different races? If we have addressed the location of affordable housing and there were still ethnic enclaves, would it be a problem? Is an ethnic enclave segregation or is it a choice? In the past, segregation was due to lack of choice. Red-lining is still an issue.
We always dance around this topic do we want to have an outcome that says people of color/minorities/protected classes are assured the same choices and access to resources as others? Drivers and indicators will be different for the different protected classes, so we should separate them into different outcomes. Accessibility for disabled is also important. Our outcome could be the opportunity of choice. The problem isn t segregation problem is being segregated from the stuff you need (services, transportation) or being stuck in an environmentally unhealthy area (pollution, etc) Outcome?: All communities experience equitable distribution of social benefits of location Goal: Your neighborhood doesn't predict the quality of your schools, healthcare, transportation, etc. Cost of housing: Goals of housing initiative of Clackamas Co. Housing Authority: o reduce housing cost o increase incomes o reduce housing+transportation cost burden How much affordable housing is enough? Every city/county knows the number they need. How do we deal with people paying more than 30% of incomes on housing? Raise incomes + lower cost of housing. Is that a good percentage? Do we agree with 30%? CNT uses 45%, Metro uses 50% We should stick with national standard, so we can measure against other jurisdictions outside of Oregon. Housing +transportation cost that HUD uses is 45% Or we don't have to use % of income. If the remaining percentage isn t enough to cover the rest of your costs, it doesn't work. Everyone's situation is different for some 60% might be doable, for others 20% is too much! People can choose to spend up to 70% of income on housing with vouchers from housing authority so they can make the choice to reduce transportation costs for themselves by living near work, etc. What do we need to help people stay in housing and not become evicted? Like the idea of including transportation costs in the cost-burden issue. Other comments: Are jurisdictions utilizing all possible legal and planning tools to develop affordable housing? What planning tools does each jurisdiction have, are they outdated? California has state statute that requires certain amount of affordable housing, Oregon doesn't. Some jurisdictions have the tools but do not want to use them because they don t want affordable housing. Affordable housing is trying to address energy efficient housing because it lowers energy costs green building may be an environment issue, not housing issue.
Can we articulate the importance of the equitable distribution of affordable housing as an economic tool? We need to figure out what groups are benefactors of presence of equitable distribution of affordable housing, and then use them as bas of political support. There is an assumption in traditional planning multifamily housing is not as valuable, so put it in a less desirable place. Example: apartment building or affordable housing next to freeway Communities must be able to organize their resources in an efficient way in order to compete globally in the future. We should prioritize our own outcomes and put it in writing, even if the Advisory Board has a different idea. Next Steps: Even though the next deliverable isn t due until December, our team wants to press on and keep the momentum we have. We will use doodle to schedule a meeting in the upcoming month to finalize our outcomes and drivers list and begin talking about indicators.