Throw another $200 million on the burn pile
The Oregon legislature just passed a bill or two that will steer $200 million of state tax dollars in the general direction of reducing the number of people living on the streets of the state's cities.
Alas, what they have decided to do with the money is full implementation of the "Housing First" fantasy. A lot of it is handouts to poor people to pay their rent. In my day we called that "welfare," but now it's called something else. The new law will continue to obstruct lawful, justified evictions; force cities to give up zoning rules that were once the state's pride; and hand out massive subsidies to the apartment weasels and construction goons to further sully the livability of what used to be a sweet little state.
There is nothing in the law for treatment of mental illness or drug abuse. There isn't much in there for shelters, either: Multnomah County, with far more than 3,000 people on the streets, will get enough for 150 shelter beds. The City of Portland's managed camp initiative will get nothing.
Almost as depressing as what the legislature did and didn't do is the way the Oregonian is reporting it. Today we get the third puff piece in a row from a reporter named Nicole Hayden, who might as well be writing press releases for the governor. No dissenting voices are welcome, thanks. It's all rah rah rah, crowing about what a "major victory" it is.
At first $200 million sounds like real money, but here in the Portland metro area, we are now in the third year of a $200 million a year regional income tax, imposed on the upper-middle class and higher, which is supposed to clean up homelessness but so far has next to nothing to show for it.
Let's come back in six months and ask ourselves if the scene on the streets is any better thanks to the new state money earmarked this week. I wouldn't bet on that.
An acquaintance once mentioned that the Oregonian acted like the publicity arm of the DNC. At the time, I thought it was a little harsh.
ReplyDeleteFunny I am old enough to remember when The Oregonian was a Republican paper.
DeleteThere was absolutely nothing in the article about HOW it will be paid for.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it only now that Kotek pushes this through? She had years as Speaker of the House to work on this but now it’s pushed as her crowning achievement.
ReplyDeleteI know that there’s little likelihood that Kotek could lose reelection in this state but she is going to lose a ton of goodwill if things don’t improve quickly in this state. One thing she could do, as the overseer of ODOT, is clear the favelas along Portland’s highways. Has anyone heard her say a peep about this?
ReplyDeleteYou must have missed the latest article on the governor and city complaining that neither is doing their job.
Deletehttps://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/03/kotek-pledges-more-money-for-homeless-sweeps-along-portland-freeways-accuses-city-of-mismanaging-odot-funds.html
if this keeps up the wealthiest remaining Oregonian is going to be a Trimet driver
ReplyDeletePerfect
DeleteA *retired* Tri-Met driver.
DeleteWho do think pays for additional tenant "protections"? If, instead of 72 hours to pay your rent, you have 10 days [hey, let's just triple it...10 is, after all, a round number], how likely is it that new landlords will want to provide low income housing? The holding cost of additional non-revenue producing days must be reflected in higher rents. Benefiting current deadbeat tenants only harms future low income tenants. Many clients have exited this side of the business, and those that are left just roll their eyes at the utter economic ignorance of the legislature. Maybe if they extended the grace period after default in rent to one year, it might dawn on progressives, that someone has to pay the mortgage, taxes, etc., and ultimately the landlord won't continue to do it out of the goodness of her heart.
DeleteMy younger brother moved back to Portland and has been working doing remodeling. He lost a job to a client out in Lake Oswego who was renting a house and she tried to evict them the tenants so she could make the improvements. They took her to court and they won, they continue to live rent free and trash the house. I suggested perhaps her only option was to just sell the house and let the new owner deal with it. Worked for that person with the house that was taken over by squatters out near 82nd. and I bet a developer would love to get a piece of property in Lake Oswego.
ReplyDeleteI would not want to be a landlord anywhere. But especially not in Oregon. Property rights have very little meaning here.
Delete