I have previously outlined the many problems I have observed with Metro policies related to affordable housing within the existing urban growth boundary.
Sadly Metro Council has not fixed any of those problems, and has actually reduced transparency and local accountability. (Do a keyword search of the blog using "Metro" and you will find multiple posts with dozens of problems and recommended solutions that Metro has ignored).
Rather than address affordable housing needs within the existing growth boundary some sought to create affordable housing requirements for areas that might be brought into the urban growth boundary in the future, via TITLE 11 of the Capacity Ordinance. (While well intentioned, that effort struck me as a diversion away from planning for the more immediate [and much larger] housing needs within the existing urban growth boundary).
Even that very modest effort turned out to be too much for the Metro Council to address, and as a Metro news post HERE indicates, at the last moment the Council deferred any action on the affordable housing provisions in Title 11 until next year.
Until such time as a lawsuit establishes that Metro has NOT met it's affordable housing obligations, I have concluded after 10 years of effort that Metro and the Metro Council is institutionally and politically incapable of carrying forward on any meaningful planning for " needed housing, including government assisted housing".
Future Efforts Better Directed to Other Forums
IMHO, the energy of housing advocates would be better directed to the legal arena and to working with Metro area housing authorities and local governments to insure that the needs of low income renters are addressed in local plans. In particular public investment plans for Centers and Corridors should be examined to insure that the housing needs of lower income renters are addressed AND that actual results for low income renters are tracked.
No comments:
Post a Comment