I hope they use a good chunk of that money to buy homes in foreclosure. Not only will it help the neighborhoods that are suffering from them, but the new residents as well.

They could create a Hab for Hum type program with unemployed construction workers to rehab the homes that need it.

This will also work out well for the "poor" and integrate them into middle class neighborhoods rather than warehousing them in large low income housing.

JMO

I am elated over this news. As a county commissioner, vice chair of the Oregon Ending Homelessness Advisory Council and a member of the Housing Alliance, I have been working for this bill for more than two years. Even with the sharp downturn in the housing market, the Legislative Fiscal Office still estimates revenues of $16.9 million during the 2009-2011 budget cycle; $27.9 million for 2011-13; and $30.5 million for 2013-15. One point I found compelling is that seven other states use a portion of their document recording fees as a stable revenue source for affordable housing. I'm proud that Oregon is on track toward joining them. Yes, Kari, elections matter!

Here's the breakdown on how the funds will be used:

--76% of the funds will be used for new construction and rehabilitation of multi-family housing, which also means new jobs that fuel the local economy. This might include strategic land banking or manufactured home park purchase, as well as strategic investment in non-profit and community based partners. --10% of the funds will go to work immediately to end and prevent homelessness. --14% of the funds will support first time lower income homebuyers.

I think it's a good mix of homeless services, home buyer assistance, and fuding for multi-family housing.

I think there are valid doubts about whether the stimulus package will help. Of course, you can argue what will happen if there is no stimulus. But with this stimulus the federal deficit is likely to go even higher. I saw an interesting article, I think, on

http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

--76% of the funds will be used for new construction and rehabilitation of multi-family housing

Just what we need, more "new" housing. Oregon is #5 on realtytrac for # of homes in foreclosure. This WOULD have been a great opportunity to save neighborhoods and benefit low income occupants.

It also routinely means that the bulk of affordable rental units are in bad areas of town, such as Rockwood.

That's why we should locate them in middle class neighborhoods by buying foreclosures.

Which means low income folks don't end up with all the benefits of owning their own home.

There is some data to suggest that home ownership is actually hurting low income workers during bad economic times. Nobel Prize-winning economist Edmund Phelps writes that:One of the downsides—there are upsides—but one of the downsides is that it tends to lock you in at your present employer....But if you own your home in Peoria and you're working for some specialized firm, and things don't go so well there—at that point, you'd like to have the mobility of picking up stakes at no cost and looking for some similar kind of firm elsewhere. But if you own your home, it could be very expensive to sell it in a hurry and that tends to reduce worker mobility. story here

It may not be an overriding factor, but something to think about.

I think most people at the decision-making level in housing policy focus the majority of resources on multi-family projects on the "more bang for the buck" theory. With the need so great, they want to create or preserve as many units as possible.

On the question of five cents for the clerks--as a county elected official, I know that the operations of clerks are underfunded (as are many county operations). Testimony at the first hearing, however, indicated that the only new duty this measure imposes on them is segregating funds in an additional account and sending a check to Oregon Housing and Community Services four times a year. I think legislators found it hard to see that as justifying a five percent administrative fee.

I think most people at the decision-making level in housing policy focus the majority of resources on multi-family projects on the "more bang for the buck" theory.

Inside the box thinking = government Outside the box thinking = private sector

Housing has not been this cheap in years. Oh well, it's only "poor" people.

Not too far back in time the PDC was hot to build $850 per mo. studio apartments downtown.....(until the developers bailed, and one of that developer's executives became Oregon's newest Real Estate Commissioner)....and called those affordable for minimum wage workers.

Affordable housing has been a topic like gun control....everyone talks about it but nothing changes. I'd like more info on just how tuned in the creators of this bill are to the multiplying need for honest affordable housing. And how would they go about administering these funds.

Menawhile L.A. has found a solution that I cannot BELIEVE anyone could be proud enough of it to put a positive slant on it for the CBS Evening News. A cheery story? Really? I was appalled. Is this what the collateral damaged can aspire to? Should Oregon be budgeting for units like these? (Sorry you'd have to cut and paste, but it is an eye opener....)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/16/eveningnews/main4804824.shtml

@MCT:A cheery story? Really? I was appalled.

You go right ahead and be appalled, from the comfort of YOUR home.

Kari: The 2007 bill actually received only 33 votes (not 35) and it was actually exactly the same as this bill (not just similar). Otherwise, great post.

It's truly amazing that eight Republicans voted YES today on the exact same bill they voted NO on just two years ago. And only because the bill was passing anyway and their votes made no difference. What hypocrites.

Yes, elections matter. I find mp's points well taken, though. Is the difference consequential?

Another great article written to make even Great Leader proud! These homes should be confiscated from the capitalist pigs and given to the proletariet!

Keep up the good work in keeping us informed on the evil ways of the oppressive corporate fascists!

Section 8 is one of the most successful rent assistance programs in history, but is currently way underfunded. I had to wait 5 years in Clackamas County before funds became available and I could get on the program. It allows tenants to pick their own housing - within reasonable guidelines - and they typically pay 30% of their gross income. While I agree with Jenni that I'd love to be able to own my own home (hopefully, someday!), Section 8 allows me to live in a nice duplex here in a residential area of Sandy and has finally given my family much needed stability. Why not rent out some of those empty, foreclosed homes through the Section 8 program?

HOOORAY! More fee increases! When the economy is on the rocks we can always count on democrats to raise fees and taxes. You must be proud!

Wow, Sid, you're right! I'm going to spend $350,000 on a house and be bummed out by a $15 fee!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but doesn't the scale of the fee matter at all? And the purpose -- to increase affordable housing? Isn't that what we should be doing during a downtown - helping the most vulnerable?

"but doesn't the scale of the fee matter at all? And the purpose -- to increase affordable housing?"

To them, not one bit. You are asking them to think, and they prefer to recite dittohead talking points

Menawhile L.A. has found a solution that I cannot BELIEVE anyone could be proud enough of it to put a positive slant on it for the CBS Evening News. A cheery story? Really? I was appalled.

This does nothing to address the causes of or solutions to homelessness in LA, very true. We're also talking about 71,000 people and a State on the verge of financial destruction so my guess is that the people who sleep in one of these things don't give a rat's patoot about your outrage versus not sleeping in one of these things. Someone has taken a real world step to help mitigate our social failures and because it isn't a grand solution you're outraged?

Outrage that such conditions exist may be reasonable but aiming it at mitigation is, well, at best stupid.

"Isn't that what we should be doing during a downtown - helping the most vulnerable?"

You don't need to pass laws and raise fees to accomplish this Jesse. Just simply cut a check to your favorite agency. If you can afford $350K, why not make it an even $1k? Send it to the government and ask it to be earmarked for the poor.

There is nothing to prevent you from sending a little more cash along.

So, a filing fee increase to help fund the clerks who record the filing. Makes sense and is very easy to trace (transparent). Why not apply the tax increase on beer similarly to fund the OLCC. Wait - remind me again why there is an OLCC?

I think the theory of "affordable housing" is a misnomer.

First of all, when did buying a house become the only way to have a roof over your head? There are a lot of affordable rental options for singles, couples, and families, especially when you can't afford to buy a home.

When my wife and I first married over 10-years ago, we paid $475 per month for a decent apartment. I made $7.50 an hour, she made less. Even then, we were considered below poverty and qualified for food stamps. To us, however, we lived very comfortably. We didn't have much, but our basic necessities were met.

As time went on our salaries slowly increased. It wasn't until seven years into our marriage, and saving money, that we were in a position to buy our first home in Eugene. Our debt-to-income ratio was low, we had decent credit, and a small down-payment. We bought a modest, 1200sf home.

My generation, and those behind me, have an issue with entitlement. They want what their parents have now, even though it took their parents 30-years to get where they are today. They want the big house, boats, and nice cars. And they don't want to wait until they can actually afford them.

I'm not implying here that there aren't folks out there who need additional help; those in transitional housing, single mothers, the homeless, former drug addicts, etc. Those are all the downtrodden that we as a society have an obligation to help. And I completely support organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which actually has stipulations for new homeowners.

I'm talking about people who are unwilling to educate or train themselves; work hard for a living; don't run up credit cards, and are diligent with their savings. Instead, they work hard to put themselves in a position to buy a house, without getting a hand-out from the government. (Which just means higher fees on something or more taxes.)

I'm sorry, but if you're considered low-income and don't have the credit-worthiness or means to get a traditional loan at a bank, you have no business buying a home. (I put myself in this category 10-years ago.)

Owning a home is a privilege, not a right.

Sid Leader? Sid Vicious suits you a lot better.

Wait - remind me again why there is an OLCC?

Objection. It's a commission. They're not accountable and you can't vote them out of existence. You can't even ask why they exist. They exist because they really think they should. OK. They're accountable to Ted. Tough row to hoe, that one. Every few years there's a study done, it concludes they should go away, then everyone carries on as before.

Why is there an OLCC? Why is there syphilis? Someday when science is better, someone will be able to prove that x number of years was taken off their life by never drinking any alcohol at all, based on OLCC's propaganda. If proved, you could recover, and they would evaporate. At present, that's less likely to happen with OLCC than with big oil on account of climate change.

I share mp's concerns.

How best to spend taxpayer money to help provide housing for disabled, homeless and lower income people? Provide access to as many decent rental housing units as possible through as many different mechanisms as possible - vouchers, rehab, acquisition, various financing tools w/ the private sector - BUT every dollar towards helping a low income person buy a house is a misspent dollar. It is far far far more cost effective to spend a dollar towards creating a decent rental unit than it is to spend three dollars propping up and subsidizing a low income person's purchase of a house - and consider what happens when that person who can't really afford to own a house now owns one - who pays maintenance and property taxes? Have you really helped that person get to the next rung of the opportunity ladder? When Barney Frank was in Portland, he made this same point about the cost-inefficiency of using affordable housing d0llars on home ownership.

RE: "@MCT:A cheery story? Really? I was appalled.

You go right ahead and be appalled, from the comfort of YOUR home."

Sooooo.....mp97303, did you think putting a rosy spin on the charitable goal of thousands of people living in portable tents is acceptable? An I the only one who sees the hubris? Yes I am appalled that in a country like this where the cost of a CEO's Friday night dinner out (on taxpayers' dollars of course) would feed and house a family for a week....or buy a homeless person a rolling canvas shack.... I'm appalled that no one seems a bit embarrassed about that CBS story. And did anyone see the irony that these units are being manufactured by a company that makes shopping carts?

<h2>And as a matter of fact I no longer have the comfort of my own home. But I'd offer myself up in a Soylent Green manner if being consigned to a cloth bedroom with axles was my other choice.</h2>