When that postcard arrived in my mailbox, I did a quick read on it. Two sentences jumped out at me: “The ordinance, if approved, is subject to referendum,” and “The adoption of the Plan may affect property tax rates.” Terrific. Something new to fight about — and the first public hearing is the day after Election Day.
Housing isn’t supposed to be a guaranteed investment. It’s supposed to be a place to live. Just because one generation made a killing on the real estate market doesn’t mean every generation is now entitled to the same.
" 'Permanently affordable homeownership' means homeownership opportunities which prescribe affordability for subsequent buyers of the property or home, in contrast with homeownership opportunities which proscribe no additional affordability beyond the first purchaser."
Because my mind is still reeling from what Portland's benevolent hyper-ultra-woke planners have in store for Cully, for the time being I'll limit my comment to a paradox that hit me between the eyes like a rake handle when I stepped on the text quoted above.
On the one hand, the city's planning apparatchiks, BIPOC activists, media and elected officials treat "gentification" as if it were a race crime only slightly less heinous than slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps elsewhere pundits have recognized the vilification of gentrification for the low-grade (for now) taxpayer funded, class war against the middle and upper middle classes that it is. Not so in Portland, where progressives universally lament the fall of historically black (and redlined) neighborhoods to white interlopers. That's all in the past now, since real estate in the Alberta neighborhood today fetches about the same as a nice house in Portland Heights would have 25 years ago. But memories of "displacement" and its consequences are long.
Let's examine one of the primary grievances of gentrification's progressive foes. A brief hypothetical will help explain it:
If Geoffrey and Arabella Trustfunder hadn't come along in 1993 and snapped up Grandma's beautiful Old-Portland-style house with its big maple tree off Alberta, the house might have passed tax-free to her heirs, say a granddaughter. Today, that granddaughter and her husband might decide to downsize now that they're empty-nesters. Meeting with their realtor,® they learn that the house grandma bought for $15,000 in 1970 is worth a cool $625,000! The For Sale sign is up before the end of the day.
There's a term for what happened in the preceding scenario. The house appreciated by $610,000 in 52 years. When the sale closes, the net proceeds will constitute what racial justice advocates call "generational wealth." The granddaughter didn't earn the $625,000 that was just deposited in her account. Neither did she buy the house. The money came to her from past generations of her family.
BIPOC generational wealth is so important to the city of Portland that it has a program that is meant to help people like the granddaughter in our scenario stay in their houses. A success story is even featured on the city's web site:
"Miranda Monroe’s grandparents lived in their NE Portland home for 60 years before Miranda and her sister inherited the home in 2014. Although not fully prepared to take over the maintenance of the home, Miranda understood the importance of keeping the family legacy going and her grandparent’s home was a big part of that history."
“My grandmother left it for us to be able to connect with each other—to be able to have GENERATIONAL WEALTH, and to have something to pass on to our children. My four-year-old son didn't get to meet her, but he thinks he can feel her presence in the house—he even creeps around as if we have to be quiet!” (Emphasis added)
And how is it that your tax dollars and mine are helping Miranda preserve her generational wealth?
The city tells us:
"To prevent displacement of longtime N/NE Portland homeowners, PHB supports home retention through a number of programs and resources, including 0% interest loans and grants, to help low-and moderate-income homeowners, seniors, and people with disabilities make the repairs and accessibility modifications to continue living safely in their homes."
"Struggling to pay for the repairs and hoping to avoid costly fines, Miranda was relieved to learn that she qualified for PHB’s Lead Paint Abatement Program as well as a Home Repair Loan."
Now, let's imagine that Miranda's good friend Patty, who's heard about Miranda's good fortune, goes looking for an affordable property that might give her grandchildren a nice nest egg 50 years hence. It happens all the time all over Portland, though what's affordable to some might be out of reach of others.
Be that as it may, let's hope that Patty has a responsible realtor® who understands her needs, and that the terms of "Permanently Affordable Homeownership" in Cully's TIF zone are clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Otherwise, I would not want to be in the room when Patty learns that "Prosper" Portland put a permanent cap on the sales price of her permanently affordable house and that neither she nor any of her children or grandchildren will be ever be able to enjoy the kind generational wealth that just fell into Miranda's lap.
I sure hope I've misunderstood what Prosper Portland's magnanimous social engineers are planning for Cully. Assuming I'm more or less right, it would not surprise me if, when confronted with the terrible paradox of unequal outcomes, a planner would smile and call it equity in action.
I am a Cully resident (and homeowner) and still trying to fully understand the Cully TIF. Can you help me understand why a cap would be placed on the sales price of the houses here? And would it be every house in Cully? Where can I find more information about this?
Richard Cheverton's post about the Cully TIF included the following text that appears to have come from Prosper Portland, the organization that is spearheading the Cully TIF.
“ ‘Permanently affordable homeownership’ means homeownership opportunities which prescribe affordability for subsequent buyers of the property or home, in contrast with homeownership opportunities which proscribe no additional affordability beyond the first purchaser."
Historically, many people in Portland have bought their homes with the hope that they will sell their homes for more than they paid for them. Depending on the housing market and other factors, this means that a house that was considered "affordable" when one person purchased it might no longer be deemed affordable when that person later puts it on the market.
The text quoted above suggests that one of the objectives of the Cully TIF will be to make sure that a house that was affordable to one purchaser will still be affordable to the next purchaser when that person puts the house on the market.
What is not at all clear is how that objective would be accomplished if the fair market value of house when it is put on the market makes it unaffordable. Since the information from Prosper Portland in the text of the original did not provide an answer, it leaves the answer open to speculation.
For example, perhaps under the terms of the TIF program the owner would sell the house for its full fair market value to a third party, maybe a governmental agency, and then that third party would put the house back on the market for a lower price than it paid for it. That way, the house would remain affordable to the next buyer. In that case, no price cap would be involved. Instead, the owner of the house would get the net benefit (if any) of an increase in value after all deductions like they would in a regular sale. Essentially, there would be a subsidy from an as-yet unidentified third party in order to put the house back on the market at an affordable price that is less than what the owner sold it for. Again, this is speculation.
Another possibility would be to place a cap on the amount the owner could sell the house for. This might prevent the owner from realizing any gain from to the appreciation of the fair market of the house on the open market. This approach seems extremely unfair to the seller because it would deprive them of part or all of the gain, sometimes referred to as generational wealth.
Nothing in the Prosper Portland materials Richard posted confirms there would in fact be a price cap. All it did was say that one of the objectives would be to make sure that houses under that part of Cully TIF program don't appreciate so much that they become unaffordable to the next buyer and the ones after that. It's possible to imagine different ways to accomplish this. One way might be a subsidy of some sort. Another would be a price cap. There might well be other methods not mentioned here. At this point, based on the limited available information, it is only possible to speculate.
Since Prosper Portland is spearheading the Cully TIF, it would make sense to contact that organization. This is Prosper Portland's phone number according to Prosper Portland's web site: 503-823-3200.
To put this in context, I am not a lawyer and nothing here or in my original comment is meant as legal advice. Also, I am not affiliated with Prosper Portland, so neither my original comment nor this one is intended to speak for Prosper Portland. I am just a private citizen with an interest in public affairs. The opinions here are my own. I am not making any claims as to their accuracy or completeness. Nobody should base any decisions on them.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. That is what I thought might have been buried somewhere - that Prosper Portland may have specified a price cap. I completely agree that with this limited available information, it is only possible to speculate!
One of the few remaining ways for the rapidly-vanishing middle class to build wealth is homeownership. Thus our progressive overlords really would like everyone to herd into small apartments--and build "equity" (in its true meaning) for someone else.
It must have occurred to the people who straitjacketed Portland with the urban growth boundary that this would drive up land values...and home values with it. Now, thanks to their mouthpiece in the legislature, Tina Kotek, the single-family house has become a target...cities cannot zone for single-famiily houses and developers now can plop down grim, socialist-architecture apartments and "townhouses" on single-family lots. It's happening in several locations here in my neighborhood...nine (count 'em) condos on an R5 lot--to the cheers of the neighborhood's "boosters."
I am grazing through Sam Knight's book , The Premonitions Bureau.
It suffers from a few structural problems and at times its focus, is, uh, unfocussed. It is certainly worth the bother of scanning though.
Near its end it discusses the great post-war problem of the English in warehousing the mentally unstable or unwell. I bring it up here because the author discusses it in the terms of the time and what used to be the normal way to discuss a national problem (issue, to you): it is a national problem, a common or shared problem. It is not a matter to be balknized or politicized to gain one group or another favor, power, and money.
Fianlly, The dreadful Enoch Powell makes an appearance as he seeks to make matters better for all. As usual he is articulate, good humored, effective and largely right.
I read The New York Times review of Knight’s book. It seemed absurd that a newspaper would try to drum up business by asking people to send in ESP predictions so they could see how many came true. But it may not be that much different from our current media’s obsession with polls.
Ever since Great Society initiatives began their now-sizable contribution to the modern degradation of America, particularly harming the black community, the offertory chorus of urban victimhood alternates between Ghettoized In Substandard Conditions, How Could You!, and OUR Special Neighborhood, How Dare You! Meanwhile, that bureaucratic leviathan of a Plan is both complex and vapid, like Scientology or Unification Church tracts. All the better cover for those who distribute the system’s spoils and truly write social policy, behind the scenes.
Read the classic book on city "planning," Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of Great American Cities." City planners like to PLAN...but cities are organic, ever-changing, adapting. I'm going to be writing more based on the Jacobs book--just finished re-reading it--but freezing parts of a city is suicidal, as many cities have learned the hard way. .
Ms Jacobs is holy writ for many as you must know. I've avoided her because of my personal familiarity with some of its readership. Guess I'll have to extend a hand to the madamoiselle. It's your fault. Being snottily dismissive is so much easier.
When that postcard arrived in my mailbox, I did a quick read on it. Two sentences jumped out at me: “The ordinance, if approved, is subject to referendum,” and “The adoption of the Plan may affect property tax rates.” Terrific. Something new to fight about — and the first public hearing is the day after Election Day.
Housing isn’t supposed to be a guaranteed investment. It’s supposed to be a place to live. Just because one generation made a killing on the real estate market doesn’t mean every generation is now entitled to the same.
" 'Permanently affordable homeownership' means homeownership opportunities which prescribe affordability for subsequent buyers of the property or home, in contrast with homeownership opportunities which proscribe no additional affordability beyond the first purchaser."
Because my mind is still reeling from what Portland's benevolent hyper-ultra-woke planners have in store for Cully, for the time being I'll limit my comment to a paradox that hit me between the eyes like a rake handle when I stepped on the text quoted above.
On the one hand, the city's planning apparatchiks, BIPOC activists, media and elected officials treat "gentification" as if it were a race crime only slightly less heinous than slavery and Jim Crow. Perhaps elsewhere pundits have recognized the vilification of gentrification for the low-grade (for now) taxpayer funded, class war against the middle and upper middle classes that it is. Not so in Portland, where progressives universally lament the fall of historically black (and redlined) neighborhoods to white interlopers. That's all in the past now, since real estate in the Alberta neighborhood today fetches about the same as a nice house in Portland Heights would have 25 years ago. But memories of "displacement" and its consequences are long.
Let's examine one of the primary grievances of gentrification's progressive foes. A brief hypothetical will help explain it:
If Geoffrey and Arabella Trustfunder hadn't come along in 1993 and snapped up Grandma's beautiful Old-Portland-style house with its big maple tree off Alberta, the house might have passed tax-free to her heirs, say a granddaughter. Today, that granddaughter and her husband might decide to downsize now that they're empty-nesters. Meeting with their realtor,® they learn that the house grandma bought for $15,000 in 1970 is worth a cool $625,000! The For Sale sign is up before the end of the day.
There's a term for what happened in the preceding scenario. The house appreciated by $610,000 in 52 years. When the sale closes, the net proceeds will constitute what racial justice advocates call "generational wealth." The granddaughter didn't earn the $625,000 that was just deposited in her account. Neither did she buy the house. The money came to her from past generations of her family.
BIPOC generational wealth is so important to the city of Portland that it has a program that is meant to help people like the granddaughter in our scenario stay in their houses. A success story is even featured on the city's web site:
"Miranda Monroe’s grandparents lived in their NE Portland home for 60 years before Miranda and her sister inherited the home in 2014. Although not fully prepared to take over the maintenance of the home, Miranda understood the importance of keeping the family legacy going and her grandparent’s home was a big part of that history."
“My grandmother left it for us to be able to connect with each other—to be able to have GENERATIONAL WEALTH, and to have something to pass on to our children. My four-year-old son didn't get to meet her, but he thinks he can feel her presence in the house—he even creeps around as if we have to be quiet!” (Emphasis added)
And how is it that your tax dollars and mine are helping Miranda preserve her generational wealth?
The city tells us:
"To prevent displacement of longtime N/NE Portland homeowners, PHB supports home retention through a number of programs and resources, including 0% interest loans and grants, to help low-and moderate-income homeowners, seniors, and people with disabilities make the repairs and accessibility modifications to continue living safely in their homes."
"Struggling to pay for the repairs and hoping to avoid costly fines, Miranda was relieved to learn that she qualified for PHB’s Lead Paint Abatement Program as well as a Home Repair Loan."
https://www.portland.gov/phb/nnehousing/news/2022/9/7/saving-my-grandparents-north-portland-home
Now, let's imagine that Miranda's good friend Patty, who's heard about Miranda's good fortune, goes looking for an affordable property that might give her grandchildren a nice nest egg 50 years hence. It happens all the time all over Portland, though what's affordable to some might be out of reach of others.
Be that as it may, let's hope that Patty has a responsible realtor® who understands her needs, and that the terms of "Permanently Affordable Homeownership" in Cully's TIF zone are clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Otherwise, I would not want to be in the room when Patty learns that "Prosper" Portland put a permanent cap on the sales price of her permanently affordable house and that neither she nor any of her children or grandchildren will be ever be able to enjoy the kind generational wealth that just fell into Miranda's lap.
I sure hope I've misunderstood what Prosper Portland's magnanimous social engineers are planning for Cully. Assuming I'm more or less right, it would not surprise me if, when confronted with the terrible paradox of unequal outcomes, a planner would smile and call it equity in action.
I am a Cully resident (and homeowner) and still trying to fully understand the Cully TIF. Can you help me understand why a cap would be placed on the sales price of the houses here? And would it be every house in Cully? Where can I find more information about this?
Richard Cheverton's post about the Cully TIF included the following text that appears to have come from Prosper Portland, the organization that is spearheading the Cully TIF.
“ ‘Permanently affordable homeownership’ means homeownership opportunities which prescribe affordability for subsequent buyers of the property or home, in contrast with homeownership opportunities which proscribe no additional affordability beyond the first purchaser."
Historically, many people in Portland have bought their homes with the hope that they will sell their homes for more than they paid for them. Depending on the housing market and other factors, this means that a house that was considered "affordable" when one person purchased it might no longer be deemed affordable when that person later puts it on the market.
The text quoted above suggests that one of the objectives of the Cully TIF will be to make sure that a house that was affordable to one purchaser will still be affordable to the next purchaser when that person puts the house on the market.
What is not at all clear is how that objective would be accomplished if the fair market value of house when it is put on the market makes it unaffordable. Since the information from Prosper Portland in the text of the original did not provide an answer, it leaves the answer open to speculation.
For example, perhaps under the terms of the TIF program the owner would sell the house for its full fair market value to a third party, maybe a governmental agency, and then that third party would put the house back on the market for a lower price than it paid for it. That way, the house would remain affordable to the next buyer. In that case, no price cap would be involved. Instead, the owner of the house would get the net benefit (if any) of an increase in value after all deductions like they would in a regular sale. Essentially, there would be a subsidy from an as-yet unidentified third party in order to put the house back on the market at an affordable price that is less than what the owner sold it for. Again, this is speculation.
Another possibility would be to place a cap on the amount the owner could sell the house for. This might prevent the owner from realizing any gain from to the appreciation of the fair market of the house on the open market. This approach seems extremely unfair to the seller because it would deprive them of part or all of the gain, sometimes referred to as generational wealth.
Nothing in the Prosper Portland materials Richard posted confirms there would in fact be a price cap. All it did was say that one of the objectives would be to make sure that houses under that part of Cully TIF program don't appreciate so much that they become unaffordable to the next buyer and the ones after that. It's possible to imagine different ways to accomplish this. One way might be a subsidy of some sort. Another would be a price cap. There might well be other methods not mentioned here. At this point, based on the limited available information, it is only possible to speculate.
Since Prosper Portland is spearheading the Cully TIF, it would make sense to contact that organization. This is Prosper Portland's phone number according to Prosper Portland's web site: 503-823-3200.
To put this in context, I am not a lawyer and nothing here or in my original comment is meant as legal advice. Also, I am not affiliated with Prosper Portland, so neither my original comment nor this one is intended to speak for Prosper Portland. I am just a private citizen with an interest in public affairs. The opinions here are my own. I am not making any claims as to their accuracy or completeness. Nobody should base any decisions on them.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. That is what I thought might have been buried somewhere - that Prosper Portland may have specified a price cap. I completely agree that with this limited available information, it is only possible to speculate!
One of the few remaining ways for the rapidly-vanishing middle class to build wealth is homeownership. Thus our progressive overlords really would like everyone to herd into small apartments--and build "equity" (in its true meaning) for someone else.
It must have occurred to the people who straitjacketed Portland with the urban growth boundary that this would drive up land values...and home values with it. Now, thanks to their mouthpiece in the legislature, Tina Kotek, the single-family house has become a target...cities cannot zone for single-famiily houses and developers now can plop down grim, socialist-architecture apartments and "townhouses" on single-family lots. It's happening in several locations here in my neighborhood...nine (count 'em) condos on an R5 lot--to the cheers of the neighborhood's "boosters."
I am grazing through Sam Knight's book , The Premonitions Bureau.
It suffers from a few structural problems and at times its focus, is, uh, unfocussed. It is certainly worth the bother of scanning though.
Near its end it discusses the great post-war problem of the English in warehousing the mentally unstable or unwell. I bring it up here because the author discusses it in the terms of the time and what used to be the normal way to discuss a national problem (issue, to you): it is a national problem, a common or shared problem. It is not a matter to be balknized or politicized to gain one group or another favor, power, and money.
Fianlly, The dreadful Enoch Powell makes an appearance as he seeks to make matters better for all. As usual he is articulate, good humored, effective and largely right.
I read The New York Times review of Knight’s book. It seemed absurd that a newspaper would try to drum up business by asking people to send in ESP predictions so they could see how many came true. But it may not be that much different from our current media’s obsession with polls.
Well, Fleet Street did get its rep the old fashioned way as John Houseman used to say in the advert.
Ah yes, Boot of the Beast
Remember how UFOs, psychic nonsense, Bigfoot, and The Great Society all achieved a bizarre legitimacy about the same time.
Ever since Great Society initiatives began their now-sizable contribution to the modern degradation of America, particularly harming the black community, the offertory chorus of urban victimhood alternates between Ghettoized In Substandard Conditions, How Could You!, and OUR Special Neighborhood, How Dare You! Meanwhile, that bureaucratic leviathan of a Plan is both complex and vapid, like Scientology or Unification Church tracts. All the better cover for those who distribute the system’s spoils and truly write social policy, behind the scenes.
Read the classic book on city "planning," Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of Great American Cities." City planners like to PLAN...but cities are organic, ever-changing, adapting. I'm going to be writing more based on the Jacobs book--just finished re-reading it--but freezing parts of a city is suicidal, as many cities have learned the hard way. .
Ms Jacobs is holy writ for many as you must know. I've avoided her because of my personal familiarity with some of its readership. Guess I'll have to extend a hand to the madamoiselle. It's your fault. Being snottily dismissive is so much easier.