A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Rents-in-Clatsop-County.pdf.

During the February 13, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers described this slide during the public comment period. Here is the link (opens in new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/NXPp3l1Dv9c?&t=4519

2-Minute Speech

I, Rick Bowers, want to share some information I tracked down that helped me to understand the plight of low- and fixed-income folks trying to find housing. I think we all know housing in general is expensive… I just wanted to see some examples for myself and that’s what I’m sharing.

I talk about retail apartment rents…; I’m NOT criticizing landlords. I’m just trying to share the plight of the low-income.

I found the incomes of four categories of renters:

• Fulltime minimum wage
• And three programs managed by the Social Security Administration – a Retiree getting Social Security (AVERAGE)
• Social Security Disability Income, SSDI (AVERAGE)
• Supplemental Security Income, SSI (MAXIMUM)

HUD recommends we spend under 30% of our gross income on rent… including utilities.

HUD considers a person RENT BURDENED if they spend 50% or more on rent.

I calculated the 30% and 50% for the four categories.

Then I looked at retail rents for studio and 1-bedroom apartments. I looked at the usual places: apartments.com, other websites, social media, and craig’s list.

The only person in these four categories who can afford an apartment is a fulltime minimum wage earner and he would be in a studio apartment and RENT BURDENED. Many potential landlords look for an income 3 times the rent so some landlords would not rent to this person even if he was willing to be RENT BURDENED.

None of the folks in the programs managed by the Social Security Administration can afford a current retail rate apartment.

Notes

• Housing & Urban Development (HUD) considers “affordable rent” to be within 30% of the renter’s gross income (before taxes). The 30% includes rent and all utilities (except for telephone).
• HUD considers an individual (or a family) to be “rent burdened” if rent is more than 50% of the gross income.
• HUD’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) is based on questionnaires sent yearly from the Census Bureau. FMR reflects what existing renters are currently paying. FMR does not represent currently advertised “For Rent” pricing.
• Four categories of renters were considered: All incomes are gross (before taxes) for 2022.
  • Full-time Minimum wage in Clatsop County: $13.50/hr ($2,340/month)
  • Social Security retirees: $1,676.53 average
  • Social Security Disability Insurance – SSDI: $1,364.41 average
  • Supplemental Security Income – SSI: $841 maximum (average $601)
• Of these four groups, only the full-time minimum wage rent burdened worker can afford a currently advertised  studio apartment (Nov 2022) in the county.
• Clatsop Community Actions maintains a list of affordable housing at https://ccaservices.org/housing/housing-list/. None of the complexes that have been contacted have a vacancy. One representative said they don’t maintain a waiting list because they haven’t had a vacancy in years. A personal friend was on the Gateway waiting list for five years before being accepted.
• Some landlords require showing proof of income that is three times the rent. In these situations even if the potential renters are willing to be rent burdened (50%) they would not qualify for the apartment.
• At least one retail property listing limits the maximum stay to 11½ months. It’s my understanding that Oregon law differentiates between one year and longer rentals. See ORS 90.427 Termination of tenancy without tenant cause at https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_90.427.
• If single individuals join together to rent a 2-bedroom apartment, some landlords require each individual to show proof of income that is three times the total rent.

Data Sources

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Fair Market Rent for 2022: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html#2022.

Social Security

Retiree (average monthly): https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/.

SSDI (average monthly): https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/.

SSI (maximum monthly): https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-benefits-ussi.htm.

“The major difference is that SSI determination is based on age/disability and limited income and resources, whereas SSDI determination is based on disability and work credits.” See https://ncoa.org/article/ssi-vs-ssdi-what-are-these-benefits-how-they-differ.

Clatsop Community Action

Affordable Housing List: https://ccaservices.org/docs/housing/Affordable_Housing_List_04-16-2021.pdf.

Retail “For Rent” in Clatsop County (reviewed listings Nov 25-30, 2022)

Apartments.com: https://www.apartments.com/clatsop-county-or/.

Craig’s List: https://portland.craigslist.org/search/nco/apa#search=1~gallery~0~0.

Facebook’s Astoria (Oregon) Area Rental Resource Group (Aarg!): https://www.facebook.com/groups/426925654024995.

Cost of Utilities:

Electricity: https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/oregon/astoria/.

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Rents-Homelessness.pdf.

During the February 27, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers shared this information during the 3-minute public comment period. Here is the link (opens in a new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/_SBKKbMAnYg?feature=share&t=4514.

2-Minute Speech

I, Rick Bowers, have spent the last 4- or 5-years reading consulting reports, academic studies, and books related to homelessness. I want to share a few things I’ve learned about rents & homelessness.

The chart in the center of the handout compares states — showing median rent in each state and their corresponding rate of homelessness. As you can see, states with higher rents tend to have higher rates of homelessness. Clatsop County’s rate of homelessness is 7 or 8 inches above the top of the page.

The ECONorthwest report discussing this chart says “High rents are to blame for the severity of the state’s homelessness crisis. Economists John Quigley and Steven Raphael were among the first to demonstrate that housing affordability—rather than personal circumstances—is the key to predicting the relative severity of homeless across the United States. They estimated that a 10% increase in rent leads to a 13.6% increase in the rate of homelessness. Consistent with Quigley and Raphael’s findings, our analysis indicates that median rents across U.S. states explains 43 percent of the variance in rates of homelessness.”

Elsewhere this same report says “over the 2010-2016 time period, Oregon created only 63 new housing units for every 100 households that formed during the time period.” From what I can tell we’re not doing any better in subsequent years.

Two economists writing in Economic Policy Review say “If policy advocates are interested in reducing housing costs, they would do well to start with zoning reform.”

The handout has related quotations from other sources I don’t have time to share.

Thank you for your time.

Notes

• The graph compares rent with rates of homelessness across the United States. The rate of homelessness in Clatsop County is easy to miss in the graph… follow the red arrow to the top of the page!
• The major points being made include:
  • Researchers have shown a 10% increase in rent is associated with a 13.6% increase in the rate of homeless.
  • Government assistance is available for only about 1/4 of those in need.
  • Oregon is going backwards in solving the problem of the lack of housing.
  • Government regulation significantly increases the cost of housing.

Data Sources

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/ACE-Homelessness.pdf.

During the March 13, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers shared this information during the 3-minute public comment period. Here is the link to the meeting (opens in a new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/7tsqVsci1F0?feature=share&t=3972.

3-Minute Speech

Over the past couple of meetings, I, Rick Bowers, have described how unaffordable rent is for low- and fixed-income people and then tied rental prices to homelessness rates and briefly mentioned the lack of housing. Today I would like to talk about some of the folks who get left out in the housing shortage.

Specifically, I want to share some information about Adverse Childhood Experiences, or the ACEs score. This score is the result of a Center for Disease Control and Kaiser study trying to figure out what impacts our long-term health. There is a short quiz that asks participants whether they have experienced any of about 10 different categories of traumas as children. These include:

• Physical, sexual or verbal abuse
• Physical or emotional neglect
• Separation or divorce
• A family member with mental illness
• A family member addicted to drugs or alcohol
• A family member who is in prison
• Witnessing a parent being abused

So what’s the impact of these experiences?

Toxic stress from ACEs can actually affect our brains as we develop. This can have a lasting impact on tools like decision-making and learning. This can impact our adult lives with things like struggling with depression, jobs, and managing life in general. [Higher ACEs impact long-term health issues like asthma, cancer, and diabetes in adulthood.]

Fortunately, most of us have a low number of ACEs. On a bar chart, the tallest bar is those of us having zero ACEs. I’m in that group. Those with one ACEs is a smaller group; two smaller still;… and keeps shrinking until very few of us in the general population have a score of eight Adverse Childhood Experiences.

A study in Washington state gave the “ACEs quiz” to about 6,000 residents and added an additional question asking whether they had ever been homeless. As expected, overall, the respondents matched the results I’ve just described. But when the subset of those who had ever experienced homelessness was examined, the results were completely the opposite of the general population… a mirror image. The largest bar of the homeless population was a score of eight Adverse Childhood Experiences. This was followed with the seven bar being somewhat smaller, then the six… and keeps shrinking until very few are in the zero category.

I’m going to repeat myself: Toxic stress from ACEs can actually affect our brains as we develop. This can have a lasting impact on tools like decision-making and learning. This can impact our adult lives with things like struggling with depression, jobs, and managing life in general.

My point… let’s be careful before blaming the victim.

Notes

• We may be “created equally” but some of us grow up in toxic environments that can impact us for life.
• Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are just that… traumatic events during childhood. Like having a family member die by suicide; having an alcoholic parent….
• Most of us have very few traumatic events during childhood.
• However, those that experience homelessness tend to have many traumatic events during childhood.
• Toxic stress from ACEs can actually effect our brains as we development. This can have a lasting impact on tools like decision-making and learning. This can impact our adult lives with things like struggling with depression, jobs, and managing life in general.
• What’s your ACE Score? Find out at https://americanspcc.org/take-the-aces-quiz/.

Data Sources

Center for Disease Control https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Systemic-Causes-of-Homelessness.pdf.

During the March 27, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers described this slide during the public comment period. Here is the link (opens in new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/KYzpqfor-Kw?feature=share&t=4275.

3-Minute Public Comment

In the late 1960s I, Rick Bowers, lived in Denver, Colorado. There was a downtown street named Larimer… also called skid row. There were 57 flophouses and 10 missions. A renewal project was approved by voters in 1967… today it’s a tourist destination. At the time I was in favor of the urban renewal although I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t even consider where the people living in the 57 flophouses would go….

What I didn’t consider were the unintended consequences. That’s what I want to point to today… systemic changes and the unintended consequences of many decisions.

We removed flophouses, sometimes called SROs, along with boarding houses all across the country. Where have all those people gone?

Now I’m switching to another systemic change, mental health:

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed a bill meant to free many thousands of Americans with mental illnesses from life in institutions. It envisioned building 1,500 outpatient mental health centers to offer them community-based care instead. But only half of the proposed centers were ever built, and those were never fully funded. Meanwhile, about 90 percent of beds have been cut at state hospitals. In many cases, that has left nowhere for the sickest people to turn, so they end up homeless, abusing substances or in prison. The largest mental-health providers in the nation today are jails.

Now onto the systemic impact of zoning… or lack of zoning.

The slide shows an aerial view of Community First! Village outside the city limits of Austin, TX. This is a project of Mobile Loaves & Fishes, a social outreach ministry focusing on homelessness. They purchased 51 acres and in Phase I of the project created 100 RV/Park homes, 130 Micro-homes, a Community Art House, Community Cinema, Community Inn, Community Market, an Organic Farm, a Family Health Resource Center, and a Woodworking Shop. Phase II will expand this to 500 homes. The creators said building the village was possible because in Texas, county land, land outside of city limits, has no zoning. The nonprofit did not have to deal with conditional use permits, NIMBYs, appeals, LUBA, or the courts.

My point… the current situation regarding homelessness, both positive and negative, is the result of countless systemic policy decisions that have taken decades to manifest the current unintended consequences.

Notes

The following talk discusses both the slide 2019 Clatsop County Housing Strategies Report and the slide 2021 Implementing a Regional Housing Needs Analysis Methodology in Oregon. Both slides are shown below the talk.

3-Minute Speech

The 2019 Clatsop County Housing Strategies Report slide in front of you has a chart in the upper left showing the years 2017 to 2040 with population information provided by Portland State University’s Population Research Center (PSU/PRC). This chart contains the population forecast the Clatsop County housing study consultants relied upon. I, Rick Bowers, want to point out two items from the chart. First, towards the right of the chart, towards the center of the page, there is a circled item saying the “2019 Housing Study projected a population of 41,806 by 2038.” Second, to the left there is another circled item saying “The 2022 actual population was 41,971.”

What this is saying is the population increase that was forecasted for 2038 was reached last year. To say it differently, three years after the 2019 study was published, we had exceeded the 20-year population forecast.

Based on this population forecast the consultants predicted 1,500 new housing units would be needed by 2038. I suppose that means we need this housing today.

On to the next slide.

With ongoing unreliable housing forecasts across Oregon, the consulting firm ECONorthwest was hired to coordinate developing a new forecasting methodology for Oregon.

In March of 2021 they produced an almost 600-page report outlining their new proposed methodology. The tables you see document additional housing that is needed by varying income levels throughout the county. The tables are pulled from the 2021 report. The total is 4,295 additional housing units will be needed by 2040. That’s almost 3 times the number of units the 2019 Clatsop County housing study predicted would be needed by 2038.

That would mean building the equivalent of about 4.3 of the new proposed Owen’s Adair 50-unit apartment buildings every year over the next 20 years throughout the county.  Approximately 49% of the units are targeted to require government subsidies. That means finding roughly $1Billion in government funds over that timeframe.

In December of this past year Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development along with Oregon Housing and Community Solutions produced a Legislative Report recommending Oregon adopt this new methodology. As I understand it, this is part of HB2001 & HB2889 that is winding its way through the current legislative session.

The 2019 Clatsop County Housing Strategies Report: Drastically Underestimates Growth!

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Housing-Demand.pdf.

Notes

• It’s my understanding consultants are required to use Portland State University’s Population Research Center (PSU/PRC) forecasts for studies related to Comprehensive Plans and land use regulations. [See Oregon Law under Data Sources below.]
• The 2019 Clatsop County Housing Strategies Report drastically underestimates population growth (using PSU/PRC forecasts).
• Certified population estimates (PSU/PRC) indicate in 2022 the county has reached the population that was predicted for 2038!
• The 20-year growth prediction happened in three years.
• The housing study predicted 1,500 new housing units would be needed by 2038.
• That’s the equivalent of building, countywide, 30 new Owens-Adairs expansion apartment complexes by 2038… which turned out to be needed in three years. I don’t mean to imply with this example that the housing units need to target low-income households. An alternate example is building 1,500 new single family homes across the county.
• The Portland-Beaverton-Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical area (PMSA) forecasts have included confidence intervals (see below). Confidence Intervals emphasize that forecasts are not exact. PSU/PRC does NOT include Confidence Intervals. Note… It’s my understanding “Metro” is excluded from ORS 195.033 Area population forecasts (meaning PSU/PRC does not forecast for Metro).
• So what? The leading indicator is the county is growing faster than anticipated. Therefore, we should examine the housing study’s recommended strategies to increase the housing stock and implement changes to the Comprehensive Plans and Development Codes aggressively.

Data Sources

Portland State University – Population Research Center: https://www.pdx.edu/population-research/population-estimate-reports.

The certified 2020 population estimate for Clatsop County was originally set at 39,455 in December of 2020. See https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1SaBFYWirIkJaIgRQRDVsvWVDwq925o7j. However, the estimate was updated (probably due to information from the U.S. Census) to 41,137. See https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1yYQZE_p1-Lsdc-rhtNYviR1ns2bmh1pT.

Clatsop County Housing Strategies Report: https://www.clatsopcounty.gov/county/page/clatsop-county-housing-study See Appendix A, p. 32 for the table showing the the need for 1,500 housing units by 2038. See Appendix A, p. 29 for the 2038 forecasted population of 41,806.

Oregon Law (related to population forecasts): https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_195.033.

Portland-Beaverton-Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical area (PMSA) forecasts

The following graph shows the use of confidence intervals to emphasize the single line forecasts are not necessarily precise. Note… It’s my understanding “Metro” is excluded from ORS 195.033 Area population forecasts (meaning PSU/PRC does not forecast for Metro).

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/OregonMetro-Population-Forecast.pdf.

Clatsop County Population Growth Forecasts & Actuals

The following is the insert used within the slide at the top of the page.

2021 Implementing a Regional Housing Needs Analysis Methodology in Oregon

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Housing-Demand-OHCS.pdf.

Notes

• In March of 2021 ECONorthwest released a technical report prepared for and with Oregon Housing and Community Services (and many others).
• During the 2019 legislative session Tina Kotek said “The state’s housing crisis has continued for far too long and demands a bold set of solutions from the Legislature… We must publicly finance more affordable housing across Oregon. We must create more housing choice in exclusively single-family neighborhoods. And we must smooth the way for more construction at the local level. This is the goal of House Bill 2003.”
• The purpose of the study was to develop a methodology for a Regional Housing Needs Analysis for Oregon (RHNA) as required by HB 2003.
• Using the proposed methodology, the report provided tables showing forecasted housing needed by the year 2040.
• In December of 2022 (this past December) the Department of Land Conservation & Development in conjunction with Oregon Housing and Community Solutions released their legislative report that “describe the comprehensive, system-wide reforms needed to reverse decades of underinvestment in housing production and development readiness, organize our land use planning systems toward the common goal of building housing, and begin to redress disparities in housing outcomes.”

Data Sources

ECONorthwest. (2021). Implementing a regional housing needs analysis methodology in Oregon: Approach, results, and initial recommendations, from https://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/about-us/Documents/RHNA/RHNA-Technical-Report.pdf.

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development & Oregon Housing and Community Services. (2022). Oregon housing needs analysis legislative recommendations report: Leading with production, from https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Pages/OHNA.aspx.

Total Clatsop County

The following table shows the sum of the data within Clatsop County cities (shown above).

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Housing-First-HUD.pdf.

During the April 24, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers shared this information during the 3-minute public comment period. Here is the link (opens in a new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/_StWI3xrj_Y?feature=share&t=4300.

3-Minute Speech

Today I, Rick Bowers, would like to share some information about HUD’s “Go To” program – Housing First. It’s important to understand this program because it frequently finds its way into news articles and discussions… and is frequently misunderstood.

The Housing First model is frequently compared to the Traditional Model that has many names. In the Traditional Model a homeless individual who is using drugs or alcohol might be offered space in a low-barrier warming center. Case management might be offered. If the client is willing to meet certain conditions, like quit using drugs and alcohol, he may be referred to a transitional housing program. With success in that program, she may eventually be offered permanent supportive housing.

In the early 1990s Dr. Sam Tsemberis pioneered supporting chronically homeless people with a Housing First model. His controversial model begins with permanent supportive housing… and has three major components: “(1) program philosophy… emphasizing consumer choice; (2) community based, mobile support services; and (3) permanent scatter site housing.”  Using the gold standard of research, randomized controlled trials, Dr. Tsemberis and others showed Housing First was more effective at ending long-term homelessness than the Traditional Model. In a landmark study “…individuals assigned to the Housing First group spent approximately 80% of their time stably housed compared with only 30% for participants assigned to [Treatment First] after two years.” Many studies since then, in many settings, confirm these results.

It’s hard to fully grasp how radical this approach is. First, when I say “chronically homeless”… these have been the frequent flyers into emergency rooms and jails… the most challenging. Second, consumer choice means no requirement to stop drugs & alcohol; no requirement to continue taking psychiatric meds. Instead, when requested by the client, mobile support is available 24/7. From a book on Housing First… “An absence of demands that… participants take psychiatric medications did not result in an increase in psychiatric symptoms.”

Another quote… “staff witnessed it happening, again and again: men and women leaving the streets and entering into their own apartment in a matter of days, living there as if they had never been homeless in the first place.”

I know of no program in the county that is based on Housing First and with extremely low vacancy rates, it’s probably not feasible without new housing.

Notes

• “Housing First” means radically different things to different people. The original researched, evidence-based variant is called Pathway’s Housing First.
• Pathway’s Housing First includes several components:
  • Program philosophy and practice values emphasizing consumer choice;
  • Community based, mobile support services; and
  • Permanent scatter-site housing (multiple clients are not housed in one apartment complex or shelter).
• Variants of Housing First have also been extensively researched. For example, in some situations scatter-site housing is not available so “centralized” housing is constructed. This has been shown to be effective.
• A major barrier to Pathway’s Housing First includes a lack of affordable housing.
• “In 2010, the Obama administration released Opening Doors, the first-ever comprehensive federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness…. Over the next five years, HUD will work with its partners to deploy the solutions that we know are effective… informed by a Housing First approach….”

Data Sources

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/Clatsop-PIT.pdf.

During the May 8, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers described this slide during the public comment period. Here is the link (opens in new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/Xr5__DSGJ3M?feature=share&t=4197.

3-Minute Public Comment

Today I, Rick Bowers, would like to share some information about homelessness counts… specifically HUD’s Point-in-Time count. It’s important to understand this program because it frequently finds its way into news articles and discussions… and is frequently misunderstood.

The Point-in-Time count was started by HUD in 2005. The point-in-time count is an unduplicated count on a single night of the people in a community who are experiencing homelessness. It includes both the sheltered (e.g., couch-surfing and those in temporary shelters) and the unsheltered. It occurs in the last ten days of January… every other year.

At the federal level the counts are by Continuum of Care, regions of the country defined by HUD. Clatsop County is one of 26 counties in the Rural Oregon Continuum of Care… also known as the Balance of State Continuum of Care. Similar “by county” data is also reported to the state of Oregon which is what you see in the handout.

There are many legitimate criticisms of the Count. For example, many folks are homeless for a few days to a month… never to return to a shelter. The Point in Time would miss many of these folks. Another criticism… how do we possibly find all the unsheltered on one particular night? I’ve known individuals who sleep in the woods and others behind trash bins. How are these people counted? The handout has another example of “iffy” data. The 2015 Point-in-Time count reported just over half a million homeless across the country while another government entity says there were 1.3 million homeless children that same year. The HUD number represents all ages. The almost three times larger National Center for Educational Statistics is only children. How can that be? Another problem is year-to-year comparisons of data. Entities have learned lessons and developed better tactics for the counts throughout the years. Some part of increasing homelessness may be due to better counting practices.

Yet… the Point-in-Time count is really the only count we have. From my perspective I view it as a minimum count of the number of homeless who are in the county. There are probably more. And as shown in the handout, Clatsop County has experienced the highest rate of homelessness for many many years.

Notes

• Housing & Urban Development (HUD) requires each Continuum of Care (CoC) to do a Point in Time (PIT) count in early January every other year.
• The PIT includes counting both unsheltered and sheltered (e.g. warming center) homeless individuals and families.
• Clatsop Community Action is responsible for the count in Clatsop County.
• Clatsop County is in HUD’s Rural Oregon Continuum of Care (that includes 26 Oregon counties).
• PIT data reported to the State of Oregon is at the county level.
• The 2021 “count” is an estimate (due to the pandemic). See https://www.pdx.edu/homelessness/statewide-homelessness-estimate-2021.
• Clatsop Count has, and has had for years, the highest reported rate of homelessness among counties in the State of Oregon.
• Among states, Oregon ranks number 4 in the rate of homelessness (number of homeless per 100,000 residents).
• “Clatsop County is ground zero for the housing crisis in the country” (Leslie Ford is a housing strategy and development advisor for Columbia Pacific Coordinated Care Organization and Project CareConnect). Seaside Signal, January 6, 2023.
• “The PIT count is also the main data source for measuring progress on the goals of Opening Doors, the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness.” See https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/point-time-counts-are-crucial-data.

Data Sources

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Point-in-Time (PIT) Count Standards and Methodologies Training: https://www.hudexchange.info/trainings/courses/point-in-time-pit-count-standards-and-methodologies-training/.

Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and-subpopulations-reports/.

The State of Oregon

Oregon Housing and Community Services – Point-in-Time: https://www.oregon.gov/ohcs/homelessness/Pages/index.aspx.

Portland State University: Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative: https://www.pdx.edu/homelessness/statewide-homelessness-estimate-2021.

Misc.

More information on the PIT count: https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/research-pit/.

DON’T COUNT ON IT: How the HUD Point-in-Time Count Underestimates the Homelessness Crisis in America: https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HUD-PIT-report2017.pdf.

Is There a Better Way to Count the Homeless: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-04/the-problem-with-hud-s-point-in-time-homeless-count.

State of Homelessness in 2022: Statistics, Analysis, & Trends: https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/.

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Gap.pdf.

During the May 22, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers shared this information during the 3-minute public comment period. Here is the link to the meeting (opens in a new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/BMsgAfeEkyI?feature=share&t=4072.

3-Minute Public Comments

Today I, Rick Bowers, would like to share some information about “The Gap”… an unfortunate situation where someone earns too much to qualify for subsidized affordable housing yet doesn’t make enough to afford retail rate apartments. This isn’t just theoretical; I know people in this situation.

I’ve created an example of someone peering into the gap. Suppose my friend makes minimum wage, works fulltime, and takes off a couple of weeks per year. Doing this she earns $27,000/year and qualifies for the 50% of Area Median Income program at the Gateway II (which is affordable housing in Astoria). Wonderful.

All is going well at work and she is offered a promotion that comes with a pay increase of $1 per hour. Great except she will now be above the income limit of this affordable housing program.

So, what about retail rate housing? HUD recommends paying no more than 30% of Gross Income for housing, including utilities. With the promotion, she would be able to spend up to $725. But as I showed in a previous Public Comment, studio apartments advertised rates range from $1,100 to $1,600 in the county. She can’t afford it.

What about stretching what she can afford? HUD categorizes her as Rent Burdened, living paycheck to paycheck, if she pays 50% on housing. That’s a limit of $1,208. But one missed paycheck and she’s in trouble. And in any case, many landlords require an income of 3 times the rent which would limit her to paying $805 per month… below the cost of a studio apartment.

To play it safe, she declines the promotion and will refuse all requests to work overtime for fear of losing her affordable housing.

Again, this is not just theoretical. Many folks coming out of recovery programs struggle to find housing. One reason is The Gap.

And perhaps worse… I know of people avoiding pay raises and avoiding overtime for this very reason… losing benefits such as affordable housing. And in creating this situation we’re creating a 2-tiered society… those in the bottom that rely on subsidies with limited options… actually disincentives… for moving up the ladder of success.

In this real-world example I’ve described, the rational response is to avoid a promotion to stay safely housed. Is that the world we want to create?

Notes

Data Sources

HUD Income limits for 2022: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2022/2022summary.odn?states=41.0&data=2022&inputname=NCNTY41007N41007*4100799999%2BClatsop+County&stname=Oregon&statefp=41&year=2022&selection_type=county

Gateway Apartments: https://www.cascade-management.com/property/astoria-gateway-ii/details

A pdf of the above image is available at https://friendsoftheunsheltered.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-RHNA.pdf.

During the June 12, 2023 Seaside City Council meeting Rick Bowers shared this information during the 3-minute public comment period. Here is the link to the meeting (opens in a new window): https://www.youtube.com/live/8kf_jJMGCec?feature=share&t=393

3-Minute Public Comment

Over the past several months I, Rick Bowers, have shared various facts related to housing and homelessness. Today I’m going to add my opinion about the direction the state seems to be taking. I’m really frustrated because to me it seems Oregon is heading down the same failed housing path as California… where housing prices and associated homelessness is much worse than here. Why my concern…?

Recent legislation steers Oregon in a new direction toward attempting to solve the housing crisis. In a nutshell, Oregon is modelling its housing forecasting methodology on California’s approach. A 2021 consultant’s report, based on this new methodology, estimated Clatsop county would need 4,295 additional housing units within 20 years. They estimate 48% of the needed housing is in the range from extremely-low to low income.

Having accurate forecasts is one thing; actually building the housing is another. California has used 8-year planning/building cycles and is in the process of wrapping up Cycle 5. For the last five years 83% of the developed housing has been in the Above Moderate Income category when much of the demand, as well as the goals, are for less expensive housing. So, they’ve been at this for 40 years and they are still building the wrong type of housing.

Like California, Oregon’s approach seems to be encouraging, rather than requiring, local jurisdictions to make substantive changes to policies, procedures, codes and / or ordinances to promote more housing. For example, in Oregon only cities above the 10,000 population threshold even need to play the game. Most of Clatsop can continue as usual. Also, Oregon has not made substantive changes in zoning at the state level.  In California, the Governor is just now asking for laws to force cities to comply… after 40 years. How many twenty-year cycles do we have to go through before Oregon gets serious about providing affordable housing which is the greatest need?

As in California, Oregon seems to be relying on subsidized housing for the lower income range. That requires a government subsidy of almost $200,000 per unit… which translates to about half a billion dollars for affordable housing for Clatsop County. Where do we get that kind of money?

My point, I suspect we’re going to have a housing shortage for decades and should plan on finding other ways to support homeless folks for the long haul. We can’t rely on market solutions in Oregon’s highly regulated environment hoping the housing problem will go away. It won’t go away given Oregon’s current strategy…; in my humble opinion.

Notes

Data Sources