Question four: The 30 percent set aside from Urban Renewal Areas for affordable housing was created four years ago, but it is not guaranteed. What will you do to regulate the system to guarantee that the set-aside dollars are spent as intended to fund affordable housing in the future?
Martha Perez: I am concerned that there is no provision for affordable housing in the South Waterfront development. Homeless veterans are especially hard-hit by this fact and I will use my power as commissioner to ensure that we use every resource tool available to remedy this.
Dan Saltzman: The economy has affected the building of affordable housing — but I maintain my commitment to making sure requirements for the 30 percent set aside are met.
Mary Volm: This is the solely the City’s responsibility. When we enter into a development agreement there needs to be safeguards written into the contract with strict timelines and financial consequences when developers do not honor their part of the agreement for affordable housing. During tough economic times, they finish the profit part of their construction and leave the social benefit for later.
Just as there are financial consequences written into public contracts when constructing using public dollars, there needs to be financial penalties in the agreement if there are financial rewards. These consequences may even reclaim portions of the investment on behalf of the public good if the agreement is not honored.
Jesse Cornett: The PDC should ensure that the tax increment financing is contingent upon the inclusion of subsidized and affordable housing. Developments like the South Waterfront are a victory for the City, but we must make sure that this prime housing does not become an exclusive enclave of the affluent. High quality housing close to the center of the City should be an amenity that is shared with Portlanders rich and poor.
Michael Courtney: Here again I will refer back to drug testing public officials. Asking for 30% of a public black hole of over 100 Million tax dollars is kind of like trying to cash in on a free state room on the maiden voyage of the Titanic: There is just no good outcome for it. When these Professional Politicians promise to buy you a new pony when they get elected they neglect to tell you that everything they learned about ponies they learned from a French Chef. That pony won’t make the race. There is no amount of spending that can fix a bad plan. If we could bring some common sense into city hall affordable housing would truly be affordable, for all involved. The money thrown at it should have produced vastly greater results, especially in these difficult times.
Ed Garren: The “set aside” was a good idea but was poorly enforced and with the construction of new housing almost at a standstill, it is not going to produce much new housing.
I have offered an alternative plan to commissioner Fish, utilizing small manufactured housing units, which persons could actually own, that could create small village style communities, similar to “Dignity Village” but with more permanent plumbing and infrastructure for long term solutions to providing housing.
I live in a manufactured housing community, and it is a way to provide affordable housing at a fraction of the cost of conventional housing, but none of the current governmental agencies have seriously embraced creating new similar communities utilizing manufactured housing, which costs 50% less per sq.ft. to build and install.
In the meantime, our homeless populations continue to expand, and city leadership appears paralyzed in the face of it.
Question five: What are your goals to reinvigorate the city’s small business environment and neighborhood economies?
Ed Garren: Our unemployment figures are unacceptable. In particular, the very high unemployment among construction and related workers is a primary reason for our loss of small business and the deterioration of our neighborhood businesses.
Certainly our tax structure contributes to the problems and pressures businesses feel. An honest conversation about how the state, county and city tax structures need to be reviewed and possibly reformed is long overdue, but will probably not happen in the foreseeable future.
In addition, I have proposed a program that would significantly encourage the retrofitting of our existing housing stock for energy efficiency and seismic viability. This would put a lot of people back to work in well paid jobs, and that income would stay in our local economy.
Basically, the program would create financing and incentives for persons to re-insulate and install solar panels on their existing houses, upgrade the heating/cooling systems, to the extent that the home would use 30 percent of it’s current energy. This would reduce carbon emissions, and create many jobs to actually do the work. The “work” would be more extensive than simply adding insulation. It would rebuild outside walls to double or triple insulation, retrofit with triple pane windows, and utilize passive solar technology, as well as other new energy efficient technology.
The details are on my web site: www.edforpdx.com/cms/?q=node/107.
Michael Courtney: This is why I’m running for office. Without a private sector economy there is no public sector economy. If we don’t come up with some good answers to this question, all the other questions become moot. In Portland alone we lost over 40,000 jobs last year, gone. Mayor Daley came along with four other states to pick up the businesses that we clearly don’t want. Portland is famous for being business unfriendly. They are leaving in droves. They would like to stay; they just can’t do it under the present administration. The River Plan that they are pressing is killing the Port of Portland and assuring continued business losses. They don’t seem to understand that business is where we get jobs, perhaps they should go look for one and learn. I have worked with numerous businesses, mentorship programs, trade schools and business missions; all of that experience uniquely qualifies me in this race. All the other candidates I am running against supported business killing taxes, fees and legislation. Their platforms rely on increased spending and revenues — TAXES. Asking them to reinvigorate business is like asking an arsonist to be the new fire chief, it just can’t end well.
Martha Perez: I propose that we work with the US Postal Service to create a fleet of bicycle-based system of service delivery, that is sustainable, reduces oil dependency, and is long-term, while at the same time, provides living-wage jobs for homeless youth and/both the working homeless with low-incomes.
Dan Saltzman: Supporting micro-lending to help small businesses be successful when banks won’t give them the time of day. I also continue my support for storefront improvement grants. As we focus more on environmental and social sustainability- I’m happy to see more revenue staying within Portland.
Mary Volm: I believe the city has made it very difficult for businesses to grow, prosper, expand, hire or even stay in business by increasing the fees, charges, licenses, taxes and any other way the city raises more money. I am a firm believer that cities should support business growth rather than tax or charge for it. With a healthy economy, people are paid, businesses prosper and taxes are collected which then pay for city services. The city’s model is charge first, collect first. This is both counterintuitive and unproductive. We are chasing business out of Portland or out of business.
The City should be a partner with business, supporting growth, expansion and retention. It is a common sense model. In tough economic times, the city must also reduce its spending and even some of its services. I also believe that the city must develop a rainy day fund, with a commitment to not spend more in good times, but save for the tough times to bridge services and programs until the economy recovers again. In my 20 years at the city, I have watched elected officials spend millions of “one-time dollars” (as we forecast and budget over five years, leaving extra money as we head towards a downturn in the economy). If I had a nickel, for every dollar spent, rather than saved, the city would have a substantial rainy-day fund, and not need to constantly raise business fees and charges.
Jesse Cornett: Portlanders are hurting, and they need to know their leaders have concrete ideas to keep food on their tables, a roof over their heads and opportunities that will lead to brighter days ahead. Portlanders don’t want to talk about an economic development plan or even sit in a jobs forum; they just want to go to work. To that end, I submit five ideas that can help spur job growth in our city.
5 Ideas to Create Jobs in Portland:
1. The mayor and council should name a Commissioner of Jobs to interact with each city bureau to ensure its operating in as business friendly manner as possible and to suggest changes when they are not. This position wouldn’t oversee a new bureau but would serve as the council’s liaison to chambers of commerce and other business groups in Portland.
2. Think globally but bank locally. Recently, the City Council passed a “Buy Local” resolution. If they really want to put some teeth into it, they should deposit city funds into a locally owned community bank or credit union that is more likely to invest its money in Kenton rather than Dubai.
3. In exchange for exponentially increasing community bank assets, The City of Portland would have leverage and local banks would have more incentive to provide low-interest loans and grants to neighborhood business owners through creation of a Neighborhood Business Development Fund.
4. As a city, we should do our part to encourage the efforts of homeowners and businesses to lower their energy usage. Portland should reduce or even waive permit fees for energy conservation improvements that qualify for state and federal incentives if local contractors are utilized.
5. Portland should waive business license fees for 12 months for any existing or new small business with between 2-10 employees.