Greg Frick
Portland and Oregon have a lot to be proud of: Oregon is at the top of the list for in-migration, Fast Company recently ranked Portland a top city for job-seekers, and innovative environmental policies have garnered international attention. Still, many Oregonians are left behind.
An article in last year’s The Atlantic brought national attention to Oregon’s dismal record of racial segregation. Housing prices across the state are rising at unprecedented rates, far outpacing wage gains, particularly for minorities and single-parent households. Rates of child hunger are incredibly high. High school graduation rates are at rock bottom. Oregon and Portland are at a crossroads: If thoughtful solutions are found, we will continue to raise our stature on the national and international stage. Otherwise, we risk setting ourselves up for a study in governmental failure.
If Oregon lags behind other states nationally for corporate tax rates, we have dozens of case studies in front of us to learn from. Leaders have an obligation to dig into available data and conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis. Which states continue to attract businesses despite higher tax rates for corporations? What can we learn from them? Measure 97 sought to provide much needed funding for schools by raising Oregon’s comparatively low corporate tax rate but would have relied on an untested measure of collecting taxes.
Now, Oregon lawmakers are considering overturning our ban on rent control while tenant groups lobby the Portland city council for a rent freeze. There is no denying that rent control sounds great. Unfortunately, all reputable economists agree rent control has never been successful. In Boston, rent control was tried and later repealed. More recently, an extremely nuanced version was attempted in Berlin, where studies found it benefited upper middle-class renters most. In San Francisco and New York, rent control has contributed to skyrocketing rents.
No one denies renters in Oregon are struggling. It is the responsibility of lawmakers to find the best solution – one benefiting renters of today and in the future. Voters depend on lawmakers to do thorough cost-benefit analyses and to research the best possible policies – not Band-Aid solutions.
Recently, members of the Portland city council do not seem to be aware of the full extent of ordinances they are voting on. A stated goal of the city’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan was to increase housing density in transit corridors. Part of Northwest Portland – arguably one of the most walkable and transit-oriented parts of the city — has just been down-zoned under pressure from neighborhood groups. Is this how leaders demonstrate our commitment to increasing housing supply and advocating multi-modal transit? Why do neighborhood groups’ concerns outweigh plans for more desperately needed housing?
Decades of policies enacted without thorough cost-benefit analysis has led to a lack of confidence in our politicians. Voters must be told how data-based analyses, recommendations from experts and case studies have convinced them that a given policy is the best solution, not just the easiest, fastest or most progressive sounding. The future of Oregon depends on it.
Greg Frick is a partner with HFO Investment Real Estate, a Portland-based regional multifamily apartment brokerage. He can be reached at greg@hfore.com or (503) 241-5541.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
