urban planning and services

Oct 14 2016

If you live in unincorporated Washington County, Virginia Bruce has news for you

“I have a passion for community. If people understand the place where they live, they’ll be more likely to stay and invest themselves in it.”

This is how 70-year-old Virginia Bruce sums up her life philosophy and her life work.

Founded in 2003, her 12-page monthly Cedar Mill News has been described as a “must-read” for anyone who wants to know what’s going on in the community by Oregon Live.

Interviewed in the white geodesic dome where she offices just off NW Murray Rd, Virginia talks fluently about many facets of community life:

Virtual chats with her neighbors in 97229 on Nextdoor.com
The local Business Association board member responsible for banners and flower baskets along NW Cornell Rd and other thoroughfares
The need for parks in the new Bonny Slope West development
Traffic fatalities on county roads
The Cider Festival held every October
Plans to restore the 1869 saltbox house of John Quincy Adams Young, who came to the area on the Oregon Trail and gave Cedar Mill its name
Governance of urban unincorporated areas (UUAs)…and more

In fact, the area’s unincorporated status is a common thread across many of the topics and issues Virginia covers. Since its days as a rural outpost served by postmaster JQA Young from the saltbox family home, Cedar Mill has relied heavily on private, volunteer and improvised efforts to meet community needs. Even as Virginia continues this tradition with her newspaper, she asks herself and others if there might be a better way.

With Washington County’s growth almost double the state average, densely populated suburbs – including Cedar Hills, Garden Home, Raleigh Hills, West Slope, Aloha and Bethany – still function in a governance grey area. They have passed on the early incorporation examples set by Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove and Tigard. At the same time, Cedar Mill and other UUAs have resisted annexation by both Portland and Beaverton.

As a result of this history, services normally provided by city governments – water supply, sanitation, roads, schools, parks and libraries – have developed piecemeal through single purpose service districts, private companies, county taxes or volunteer contributions. Though Cedar Mill maintains a Portland address and zip code, for example, it’s served by the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District and Beaverton Independent School District. Its library was built by volunteers.

The quality of these basic services is generally high, says Virginia. But a 6-part series on the governance of Cedar Mill identifies areas where it lags behind neighboring cities, including representation and voice in local government, infrastructure (such as sidewalks, crosswalks and traffic lights), public spaces and events, community identity and planning, and economic development. Published in 2008, the last installment of the series sums up the choices open to Cedar Mill and other UUAs.

Whether we can get the kind of community we need and deserve without a city to guide our development remains to be seen. Alternatives to annexation or incorporation might include a strong private community development association, the village/hamlet concept that’s being explored in Clackamas County (we could learn from their successes and mistakes), even the provision of another urban service district specifically to deal with [services that are inadequate or lacking].

Eight years on, Virginia’s quick to concede that the County has stepped up its game and law enforcement and road services have improved. But she remains concerned about community identity and economic development.

Whatever the future holds, Virginia and her newspaper are pioneering guides to Cedar Mill. Her curiosity, energy and heart help residents understand its past and present, imagine its future, and feel a part of and give back to the community.

Jun 20 2015

Good news for Portlanders – livability is also profitable

ian-sane-autumn-evening-bench-commercial-ok-w-attribution — (Ian Sane)

As Portlanders know, walkable urban development is good for the environment and for community ties. But it also builds prosperity.

At an annual trade meeting last month, realtors and real estate developers learned about the growing demand for and economic benefits of walkable urban neighborhoods.

Walkable areas generate four times the tax revenue of regional and business malls.
They have a 41 percent higher Gross Domestic Product compared to non-walkable areas.
Though home prices are generally higher in walkable neighborhoods, they are actually more affordable to residents because transportation costs – usually the second largest household expense after housing – are lower. People living in walkable areas spend 43 percent of their income on housing and transportation on average, while those in non-walkable areas spend 48 percent.

Panelists at the May meeting of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) also suggested that obsolete zoning regulations in many cities may hold back the development of walkable urban areas – and America’s economic growth.

These trends and findings seem to promise a bright future for Portland, which has long been regarded as a model of urban planning and development. Residents, developers, investors, businesses and local officials have a common interest in honoring and extending the legacy of walkable urban neighborhoods here.

Portland architecture critic Brian Libby revisited that legacy in a recent posting on Leo Williams, former head of the Portland Planning Bureau and longtime member of the Historic Landmarks Commission. Williams received the University of Oregon’s annual George McMath Award for historic preservation last month.

Libby reminds us that iconic Portland places like Waterfront Park, the Central Library, the Pittock Mansion, Old Town and Skidmore either didn’t exist or were severely threatened when Williams began his career in the late 60’s.

He took a pragmatic and collaborative approach to making the city more livable, working with developers, elected officials and residents to preserve and adapt historic landmarks worth saving, and to encourage investments in dense planning, greenspace and mass transit.

Today Portland is “a city where people want to be,” says Libby, and a place where they can expect to prosper, according to the NAR. But we have to follow Williams’ example in finding common ground for common action.

May 23 2015

Understanding Portland’s “hot” housing market – Part 2

Bratwurst on grill at farmer's market (Ian Sane) — Bratwurst on grill at farmer’s market (Ian Sane)

This two-part posting distills key facts, trends and perspectives in recent media coverage of Portland’s hot housing market. Today’s posting picks up where Part 1 left off: Questions 3 and 4.

What is a hot market?
Why is the Portland housing market hot?
What are the benefits, costs and risks of the market – and for whom?
What steps are proposed to offset costs and minimize risks?

3. What are the benefits, costs and risks of the market – and for whom?

To some extent, the benefits, costs and risks of a hot market vary depending on who you ask.

Sellers like the market more than buyers, of course. But sellers usually have to buy a replacement home. In fact, many owners have not put their homes on the market out of concern that replacements aren’t available – a factor that has limited inventory and added heat to the market.

Agents representing sellers tend to like the market more than those representing buyers. Buyer reps often write multiple offers on multiple homes before a sale is closed and a commission is earned. Though marketing a home is easier in a seller’s market, listing agents put in more time fielding and analyzing multiple offers for their clients. Of course, most agents represent buyers and sellers and all face increased time pressures due to the speed of sales.

In last month’s first State of Housing in Portland report, the Portland Housing Bureau found that lower income households, people of color, single mothers and seniors are being priced out of the city’s housing market, both rental and homeownership.

Even households earning the median income (about $56K per year) are being priced out of homeownership in many areas. According to the Bureau’s report, these households can afford to buy a home in 9 of the city’s 24 neighborhoods.

Investors seem to have profited in the Portland market. Last December, for example, RealtyTrac reported that institutional investors in Portland could expect an equity return of 50 percent if they were to sell the single family homes they had bought as rental properties since 2012. Portland was ranked #2 among US cities for this potential rate of return.

In fact, most owners of residential property benefit from rising values, yet all face risk if the hot market creates a bubble. This month analysts at Fitch Ratings identified Oregon as one of 9 states where home prices are overheating and said the Portland market is 9 percent overvalued. Still, that is one-third the overvaluation seen at the height of the housing bubble in 2008, according to OregonLive. And on KATU’s May 10 Your Voice your Vote program, realtor Sarita Dua suggested that strict lending standards will curb the trend. Even if there is volatility or a correction in the near term, good average gains in value can be expected for those who stay in the market over the long term.

4. What steps are proposed to offset costs and minimize risks?

On KATU’s May 3 Your Voice Your Vote program, Portland Mayor Charlie Hales identified growth as the #1 issue facing the city, and increases in housing prices as the #1 side effect of growth. What solutions are policy makers proposing?

While stressing that economic forces can’t be tamed, Mayor Hales has called for special taxes on demolition of homes worth at least $200,000 to build larger and more expensive ones, with the new tax revenues directed to affordable housing.
The Portland Housing Bureau will gather feedback on its State of Housing report and make policy recommendations in the coming months.
In April the state House of Representatives passed a bill allowing local governments across Oregon to set affordable housing requirements for large subdivision and condo projects in exchange for developer incentives – such as bigger buildings, fee reductions, subsidies or faster permitting. Oregon and Texas are the only states to prohibit what is commonly known as inclusionary zoning. House Bill 2564 is now under consideration in the state Senate.

The Portland Business Alliance is concerned that the city’s hot housing market will make it difficult to recruit employees in areas where middle-wage jobs are concentrated. While supporting incentives for workforce housing, the Alliance believes middle-wage job creation and wage or income upward mobility are more effective policy choices than housing affordability.

Architect and native Portlander, Rick Potestio, points to the King’s Hill section of Goose Hollow as a vibrant, dense, diverse, tree-lined, garden-filled, mixed-use model for the rest of the city. He envisions a partnership in which planners and neighborhood associations work together to cluster such development around schools and parks rather than mass transit corridors. The result? Portland can grow while maintaining or enhancing the qualities that draw newcomers: livability, character, affordability, diversity and sustainability. Potestio’s vision was presented in the April Portland Monthly, fleshed out in a follow-up piece on the magazine’s website, and featured in a May OregonLive report.

May 14 2015

Understanding Portland’s “hot” housing market – Part 1

Portland’s “hot” housing market has been much in the local news over the past few weeks – from KATU’s Your Voice Your Vote program on May 10^th, to Oregon Public Radio, OregonLive, Portland Monthly, Portland Tribune, Investigate West and more. Key facts, trends and perspectives in the coverage are distilled in this two-part posting focusing on 4 questions:

What is a hot market?
Why is the Portland housing market hot?
What are the benefits, costs and risks of the market – and for whom?
What steps are proposed to offset costs and minimize risks?

1. What is a hot market?

Portland’s inventory of homes reached a 10-year low in March according to the Regional Multiple Listing Service. At the sales rate current then, it would have taken just 1.9 months to sell all listed properties, well under half the national average for inventory. In April inventory dropped to 1.8 months.

Competition among buyers for the limited supply of homes has led to multiple offers, quick sales, spikes in the volume of pending and closed sales, and price increases – with the sales price sometimes well above the asking or list price. As of last month, average and median sales prices had increased by more than 22 and 23 percent respectively since 2012.

The trend of low inventory is not new. Inventory has stayed below the threshold for a balanced market (6 months) for over 3 years. But the trend has intensified, as shown in the table. The market is now tilted heavily in favor of sellers. In other words, it’s hot, hot, hot.

	Portland Metro Inventory (in months)
	2012	2013	2014	2015
Jan	7	4.7	4.1	3.4
Feb	6.5	4.5	3.9	3.0
March	5	3.2	3.1	1.9
April	4.7	3.1	2.8	1.8

2. Why is the Portland housing market hot?

In this hot seller’s market, the demand for homes far exceeds the supply. The table below fleshes out key factors that have created the imbalance.

Factors increasing demand

Factors limiting supply

Portland is experiencing economic and population growth, in part as a result of in-migration from other states.
There is still pent-up demand created by the recession, when many people lacked the confidence or financing to buy a home.
Interest rates continue at historic lows and though credit remains tight, it has eased.
Owning a home is about 30 percent cheaper on average than renting a home in Portland.
As the housing recovery continues and foreclosure sales have dried up, investors have flooded Portland’s conventional market. Cash sales accounted for one-third of all single family home sales last year. In addition to flippers, remodelers and developers, new private equity firms or institutional investors have bid up housing prices. So have a growing number of ordinary homebuyers, who try to compete in the marketplace by paying cash or overpaying.

Owners of existing homes are not selling because they worry that they can’t find a new home, they don’t have enough equity in their current homes to afford a new one, or they are waiting for home prices to reach or surpass pre-crisis levels.
Construction of new homes has not kept pace with Portland’s population growth due in part to the lingering effects of the recession. Annual production of new housing has not yet regained highs seen before the recession.
Additions to the city’s stock of housing have lagged behind population growth for another reason. Local policy makers have flinched in the pursuit of housing and population density under pressure from

– market forces,

– developers seeking buildable land, and

– residents of close-in, established neighborhoods opposed to infill, taller buildings and zoning changes.

New development has been pushed to the suburbs and to the fringes of an ever-expanding Urban Growth Boundary. The result? Portland averages just 6-10 housing units per acre. And it ranks 8^th among major West Coast cities in population density – well behind sprawling Los Angeles. In fact, Portland has fewer people per square mile than suburban Aloha, Cornelius, Happy Valley, Beaverton, Gresham, Tigard and Sherwood.

Click here to read Part 2.

Mar 25 2015

Will Portland outgrow its livability? Weigh in on the city’s plans for the future

Now at just over 600,000, the population of Portland is expected to increase by some 30-50,000 people in the next five years. A story in yesterday’s GoLocalPDX reviews the implications — good and bad — of rapid growth.

Population and economic growth usually go hand in hand. So Portland will likely experience an increase in jobs and overall prosperity.
But economic growth may not be sustainable or of optimal quality since the city attracts many young people who don’t have jobs and retirees on fixed incomes.
The city’s current Urban Growth Boundary — designed to limit urban sprawl and promote density — may not be able to contain or house a growing population. Already the supply of single family homes and apartments is low compared to demand. Prices and rents have risen sharply.
Rising home prices and rents fuel gentrification, which revitalizes neighborhoods and increases the net worth of homeowners. But it also displaces lower income people unless construction of affordable housing is encouraged and enforced.
Enlarging the Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate population growth will lead to urban sprawl, more freeways and traffic congestion and tend to sap the vitality of the city center.
If the current Boundary is maintained, then the city will need to grow up. But taller buildings block light, create wind, and undermine the walkability or livability of city streets. Already residents and businesses in the west quadrant have raised concerns about taller buildings.

City officials will need to address these issues as they draw up the next 20-year plan for urban development. The GoLocalPDX story encourages residents to accept the mayor’s invitation to help shape the plan with their input.