Portland Mayor Tom Potter and Multnomah County Commission Chair Diane Linn will speak at a rally against proposed federal housing policy that would cut essential programs that serve working families, veterans, seniors and people with disabilities at 12:00 noon on Thursday, May 26 at Portland City Hall. 

The 'Rally for Housing Justice,' sponsored by over 20 organizations and coalitions, is part of the 2^nd National Housing Justice Day, a day designated by the Independent Living advocacy groups for public demonstrations for affordable, accessible, safe, decent housing for all.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank, Oregon ranks 48^th among states in rental affordability, often resulting in Oregon households being forced into horrible choices between paying for rent and utilities or paying for necessities, such as food, clothing and medicine. With these proposed cutbacks to proven housing programs, the impact on vulnerable Oregonians will be devastating. 

“Thanks to the federal cuts from last year, I got a 25% rent raise despite the fact I moved from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom apartment”, said Mary Latourette, Board member with the Community Alliance of Tenants and a Section 8 Voucher holder. As a result of her disability, Mary receives a monthly SSI check of $579 for all her living expenses. “At the end of the month, I have to choose between food and medication. In the last year, I have lost almost 100 pounds because I do not have enough food.”

Among the proposed Federal policies that would negatively impact Oregon are cutbacks to the Section 8 housing choice voucher program, slashing the Community Development Block Grant and shifting the program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the Department of Commerce, and restructuring HUD rules for housing authorities to induce them into no longer serving the most economically vulnerable, as well as harmful cuts to public housing programs, HOME funding and highly successful youth programs.  All of these proposed cutbacks and policy changes are a direct result of the Bush Administrations on going tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

“We need our elected leaders to stand up for regular Oregonians,” said Julie Massa of the Oregon Food Bank. “Even at the current funding levels, income qualified seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and families working for low wages were not being served because these programs are chronically under-funded.  To pull the rug out from under thousands more Oregon households to fund tax cuts for the rich is unacceptable.”

The sponsors of the “Rally for Housing Justice” are Affordable Housing NOW!, City Club of Portland, Community Alliance of Tenants, Community Development Network, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Elders in Action Commission, Homestreet-Banyan Tree Inc., Independent Living Resources, Mental Health Association of Oregon, Multnomah Disability Services Advisory Council, National Association of Social Workers—Oregon Chapter, NW Center for Independent Living, NW Pilot Project, Oregon Advocacy Center, Oregon Association for Retired Citizens, Oregon Food Bank, Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force, Portland Community Reinvestment Initiatives, Inc., Portland Gray Panthers, Portland Habilitation Center, Service Employees International Union Local 503—OPEU, Sisters of the Road, and Socialist Party of Oregon.

“All of these organizations understand that housing gives people an opportunity to build better lives,” said Sam Chase, Executive Director of the Community Development Network. “These proposed changes and cutbacks to federal housing programs will take away opportunity from Oregonians already forced to make do with barely enough income to get by month to month. We must stand up as a community and say that these cuts are wrong.”

The Rally for Housing Justice will take place on SW 4^th Avenue plaza at Portland City Hall (1221 SW Fourth Avenue).  The Rally begins at noon, and will last approximately one hour. 

To get involved with the Rally or if you have questions, contact Michael Anderson at (503) 335-9884 or mike@cdnportland.org.

Century Old Building on Way to a New Life, New Housing

The 100 year old Estate Hotel, purchased by Central City Concern (CCC) in 1982, is badly in need of rehabilitation. The neighborhood is badly in need of more housing for people living on very low incomes. Putting the two problems together, CCC devised a daring solution; add two stories to the Estate. This will increase available housing units and at same time completely renovate a unique landmark in the Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood.

The proposed design for the Estate Building fits in well with the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood, which has a high concentration of historic buildings. Preserving this history is a high priority for the neighborhood, and Central City Concern's plan to rehabilitate the Estate will help meet this goal. CCC's proposed architectural plan for the building will retain its historic aspects and improve its overall appearance.

"The Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association also places high value on affordable housing in our neighborhood," says Howard Weiner, Chair of the Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association. "Central City Concern's plan for the Estate meets this goal in two ways: adding two floors to the Estate creates new affordable housing and rehabilitating the older units preserves the existing affordable housing. Our neighborhood supports a range of housing for various income levels," added Howard, "and CCC's preservation of the Estate will keep this important resource available for the lowest income members of our community".

A Portland Development Commission funded feasibility study shows that this would be a cost effective solution.  Such a good idea in fact, that the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department has committed in Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits, and other grants to the project. The Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association approved the preliminary plans.

The construction project manager is the Housing Development Center, SERA Architects will design the addition and building rehabilitation and Walsh Construction Co. will be the general contractor.

At Least 1,501 Adults and 983 Children Without a Home in Clackamas Co

Staff from the Clackamas County Coordinating Council for the Homeless, staff from area shelters and over 100 community volunteers conducted a count of people who are homeless in Clackamas County this past January, identifying a staggering 2,484 people living in Clackamas County without a place to call home. Of the people counted, there were 489 families with children.

“With nearly 1,000 homeless children living in our County, this is a serious wake up call for the community to address this growing problem in the suburbs,” said Martha McLennan, executive Director of Northwest Housing Alternatives, a non profit housing provider based in Milwaukie.  “These kids are experiencing incredible instability that jeopardizes their future as well as the health of our communities. Children deserve an opportunity to succeed in school and life, and having a stable home is huge part of that opportunity.” 

The Clackamas County Homeless Count 2005 count conducted by Clackamas County to enhance the County’s understanding of the scope of homelessness in a jurisdiction that is both largely rural and part of the Portland Metropolitan area.  The Homeless Count is a point-in-time count of people who are homeless: All of the people were surveyed during the fourth week of January. County staff acknowledge that not every person who is homeless in the County was surveyed.  However, the count serves as a reference point for extrapolating estimates of the total number of people living in Clackamas County who are homeless.

Using the extrapolation formula developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Clackamas County officials estimate that the true number of people who are homeless in the county is over 7,500.

In addition to counting people who are homeless, the Homeless Count catalogued demographic information about those without homes. Of the 2,484 people surveyed, 44% said that they had been homeless for over a year, and 43% said that they had been without housing four or more times or continuously during the past three years, suggesting the problem for many in chronic in nature. 

People were also surveyed as to where they sleep.  35% said that they have stayed with friends and relatives, 17% are living in automobiles, 14% said they are sleeping outside, with the balance sleeping in number of different situations. Of the 1,501 adults who were counted as homeless, 10% were veterans of the U.S. Armed Services.

When asked what would help them escape homelessness, people cited money to help pay for rent and deposit, assistance getting a job, access to food, and simply having a safe, warm dry place to sleep.

The House Financial Services Committee held its first hearing on H.R. 1999, The State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005 (click here for background) on May 11, with HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson as the sole witness. In his opening statement, Committee Chair Michael Oxley (R-OH) said, “the Housing Choice Voucher program reflects a major commitment on the part of the Federal government. It is time for us to reevaluate the program to determine how we can create a more efficient, effective way of providing rental assistance to the neediest low-income families in this country.”

Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) said that previous attempts by the administration to create a flexible voucher program “created a firestorm of opposition” and that he expects this bill will be met with a similar response. Representative Robert Ney (R-OH), Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, agreed and said that after the first flexible voucher proposal was introduced there were “no takers in the entire country.” He cautioned against wholesale changes to the Section 8 program and said he instead favored a more measured approach of compromise with all stakeholders. Mr. Ney referenced the roundtable discussion he had convened to that end, in which NLIHC participated, calling it a successful method for change.

Neither Mr. Oxley nor Mr. Ney stayed past their opening statements. At their departure Representative Gary Miller (R-CA), sponsor of the bill, chaired the hearing. Notably absent from the outset were the six co-sponsors of the bill, all members of the Committee.

Mr. Jackson said that the administration, through Mr. Miller’s bill, seeks to limit the time that households remain on the Section 8 voucher program, move families to “self-sufficiency and homeownership” and allow Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to design their own rent policies. The overriding goal of the bill, he said, is to lower the costs of the program and reduce administrative burdens faced by PHAs.

Almost every member present voiced serious concern with the bill. Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) said that, with this proposal, “we’re pushing this program off a cliff. We’re passing the buck, giving local communities the ability to push people off the program…we have to be willing to spend more money on HUD.” Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) said, “this administration has it out for the poor and low income and why? I don’t know.” Representative Nydia Valazquez (D-NY) said, “This proposal rolls back 30 years worth of protections for low income people.”

Several committee members voiced concerns about changing the targeting requirements of Section 8 vouchers. Currently 75% of vouchers must go to extremely low income people, or those below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI). SLHFA allows for 90% of vouchers to go to those earning up to 60% of AMI. When asked how this change would affect extremely low income people, Mr. Jackson repeatedly said, “no one in the lowest income bracket will be displaced…as long as they already have a voucher.”

Mr. Frank questioned the component of the bill that would have enhanced vouchers expire after one year. “What will happen to these families?” Mr. Frank asked. “I think they have a right to pay a higher cost” if they wish to stay in their market rate housing when their voucher expires. Mr. Jackson answered. “I don’t think people will be evicted. I think they can pay the higher rent,” “I don’t think that’s certainty,” replied Mr. Frank “I think that’s indifference.”

Representative Julia Carson (D-IN) and Mr. Frank questioned the civil rights and fair housing implications of severely limiting the portability of vouchers, as proposed in the bill. Mr. Frank said that, by allowing both the issuing PHA and the receiving PHA to choose to allow a voucher into their area of administration (or not), the proposal would result in greater housing segregation and concentration of poverty. “How does HUD intend to follow its own goals of fair housing?” asked Ms. Carson. Mr. Miller said he was willing to work with the representatives on this issue, particularly around the concern of allowing receiving housing authorities to deny vouchers.

Mr. Jackson repeatedly spoke of voucher holders and public housing tenants defrauding the system. He spoke of his experience administering housing authorities and insisted that PHAs must do a better job to ensure that “everyone receiving assistance deserves to receive it.” When asked what will happen to people who time out of the program if housing authorities implement the time limits allowed in the legislation, he said that “they will be fine. I’m well aware of the games people play. In many cases people have the ability to pay more for their rent.”

Several members of the committee questioned this philosophy. Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) said, “Worst case makes bad law” and questioned Mr. Jackson’s tendency to cite the minority of abuse cases within subsidized housing. Mr. Jackson responded, “It is not a small number…it is a large number of people who are not honest with us.”

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) said, “You have to either believe that a government has the role to assist low income people or you don’t. I believe you don’t.” Representative Artur Davis (D-AL) said, “Your major premise is wrong. You seem to believe if people would get their act together they would get off the program.” Mr. Davis attempted to question Mr. Jackson about declining wages among the lowest wage earners, about rates of unemployment in minority communities.

Mr. Jackson said low income housing advocates have a paternalistic view towards low income people, and seem to believe they must always remain in poverty. In contrast he believes that poor people have the same self worth that he does, and have the same capabilities to rise out of poverty. He and all HUD employees, he said, are “compassionate, competent and capable.”

(From National Low Income Housing Coalition Director Sheila Crowley) The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is required by the Fair Housing Act to affirmatively further fair housing. This means HUD is required to do more than to simply not discriminate itself and to respond to cases of housing discrimination that comes to the attention of the department. HUD is required to proactively promote policies and practices that reverse historical patterns of housing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, disability, and other protected classes that have resulted housing segregation.

One of the most effective tools HUD has at its disposal to actually make a dent in the deeply embedded patterns of racial residential segregation in the United States is tenant-based assistance, which provides the tenant with the ability to more effectively compete in the housing market and with a wider range of choices about where to live. Initially a tenant could only move within the jurisdiction where the assistance was issued. Later intrastate mobility was added. In 1998, tenant-based assistance in the Section 8 program was consolidated and renamed the “housing choice voucher” program to accentuate the mobile nature of a housing voucher, and voucher holders gained full portability, allowing them to move anywhere in the country. About 44,000 voucher holders have exercised the choice to move from jurisdiction to another. Reducing racial segregation and deconcentration of poverty are explicit goals of the voucher program.

Now HUD would reverse course and deny voucher holders the right to move outside the boundaries of the city or county in which they live. In both versions of the State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005, written by HUD and introduced in the House (H.R. 1999) and Senate (S. 771), portability is severely limited. A voucher holder could not move to another jurisdiction unless that jurisdiction agreed to accept him or her, which the receiving jurisdiction has no obligation to do. This provision would codify restrictions on portability that have already taken place as a result of the funding chaos in the voucher program in the last two years.

HUD does not have a stellar record in “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” as we were recently reminded in the Thompson v. HUD decision, in which a federal judge determined that HUD was at fault for the racial segregation of public housing tenants in Baltimore by failing to promote regional or cross jurisdictional solutions to housing segregation. But for HUD to actually propose to restrict mobility of voucher holders affirmatively denies fair housing. Not only is HUD trying to roll back progress on housing affordability, but clearly intends to undo gains in fair housing. The fox truly is guarding the hen house.

National Big Business Group Says Oregon’s Biz Taxes Among Lowest in Nation

State and local taxes on businesses in Oregon were the 47th lowest in the nation as a percent of private sector economic activity in 2004 according to a new study published by a national business lobby group. As a share of all state and local taxes, business taxes in Oregon ranked 50th among the states and the District of Columbia.

The study was compiled by the accounting firm Ernst & Young for the Council on State Taxation (COST), an association of over 500 multistate corporations that works to influence state tax policies. COST is an outgrowth of, and is still associated with, the Council of State Chambers of Commerce.

“The COST study adds to the substantial evidence that Oregon is a low-tax state for business,” said Michael Leachman, who studies corporate tax issues for the Oregon Center for Public Policy.

“The COST study may be hard medicine for Oregon’s business lobbyists to swallow, but reading it might help cure them of their bellyaching,” he added.

Since the study uses corporate income tax data for tax year 2003-04 for Oregon, it does not include the full impact of a major corporate tax break that is being phased in between 2003 and 2008. This tax break changes the way Oregon calculates the state corporate income tax on the profits of multistate corporations. Beginning in 2008, the corporate tax formula will be based only on the companies’ sales in Oregon. Multistate companies with large portions of their property and payroll in Oregon but few Oregon sales will reap large cuts in their corporate income taxes when the tax break is fully implemented in three years. The Legislative Revenue Office estimates that this change will cost Oregon nearly $73 million in the upcoming 2005-07 budget cycle.

Leachman also noted that the study does not include a 50 percent increase in the research and development tax credit approved by the 2003 legislature and set to go into effect next year. That tax loophole is slated to cost Oregon $21.6 million in 2005-07, up from $5.1 million in this budget period.

“While it is hard to go any lower than 50th and 47th, the changes in these tax breaks will push in that direction,” said Leachman. “Either other taxpayers will make up for the further declines in corporate income tax revenue, or Oregon will have to cut more from its public investments in education and health care.”

The COST study emphasizes that state and local business taxes nationally rose more quickly than state and local taxes generally between 2000 and 2004. According to Leachman, the study neglects to mention that corporate taxes failed to keep up with the rise in corporate profits. “Between 2000 and 2004, corporate profits nationally grew 44.5 percent, while state and local business taxes were up just 13.7 percent,” Leachman said.

The Oregon Center for Public Policy uses research and analysis to advance policies and practices that improve the economic and social opportunities of low- and moderate-income Oregonians, the majority of Oregonians.

From Wallace Medical Concern in Portland to the Opportunity Shop in Lakeview, Oregon nonprofits are finding new resources to strengthen their boards, help raise more money, and streamline service delivery. Learn how your nonprofit can get help to build the infrastructure you need.

To read the full article from the TACS newsletter, click here: Full Article

National Program Facilitates Donations from Local Paint Retailers to Non Profits

Could your organization benefit from donations of free paint from your local retailer?

If the answer is yes, you and your organization should know about an important new program soon to be available in your community.
Each year, millions of gallons of paint remain unused or unsold by our nation's retailers as a result of mis-tinting or discontinuance of a product. The paint is of first quality and in full containers (quarts, gallons and fives). The paint consists of varying colors, which could be intermixed to create larger batches of a single color. The National Council on Paint Disposition, Inc. (NCPD), a not-for-profit environmental organization, is compiling a list of not-for-profit organizations that are interested in receiving the free paint.
There is no charge to participate in this program and no requirement to take in quantities more than your organization can use. To get involved in this program, please email Marv Goodman at marvgoodman@comcast.net with the following information:

Name of your organization

Address

Telephone number/fax number and name of key contact person

Email address

That is all you have to do! The National Council on Paint Disposition, Inc. will send to you by email the list of participating retailers in their area, as soon as it is compiled.

Questions? Contact at marvgoodman@comcast.net or 732.309.2022.

Request for Public Comment on OHCS Proposed HOPWA Extension

The State of Oregon is seeking public comment on amending the above named document for the expansion of Housing of Persons With Aids (HOPWA) program.

The Action Plan will be amended to reflect addition of the HOPWA program as a "formula funded" program. This is not a substantial amendment. Since OHCS currently operates a competitively funded HOPWA program, the necessary language was already in the 2001-2005 Consolidated Plan, which will not be amended.

Written comments regarding either document can be submitted to the address below at any time through June13, 2005. All Oregon residents are invited to provide written comments for the Amendments. Persons interested in reviewing the proposed changes to the HOPWA program may view the document here: Amendement to 2005 State Plan  for HUD HOME, ESGP, CDBG and HOPWA.

Comments may be submitted to:

Ms. Linda Hammond

Oregon Housing and Community Services 

Box 14508

Salem, OR 97309-0409

503.986.2114

E-Mail

Deaf and hearing-impaired individuals may use a TTY by calling 503.986.2100. Persons needing copies in other languages should contact Ms. Hammond at their earliest convenience. Questions, concerns, complaints, or requests for information in alternative formats from individuals with disabilities must be submitted to Ms. Hammond before end of the comment period.

Oregon Housing and Community Services and Oregon Economic Development Department programs are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner, consistent with Equal Opportunity Employment Opportunities, Affirmative Action, and Fair Housing requirements.

Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) will be applying for a waiver to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). The waiver will allow OHCS to use additional funds from the LIEAP to be used for weatherization.

OHCS has been successful in receiving the waiver in past years. This year, approval of the waiver will make it possible to weatherization an additional 460 homes of low-income Oregonians.

A public hearing to solicit comments on the waiver will take place from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at the office of OHCS in Room 124B (click here for location address and driving directions). If there are no comments to be made by 10:30 a.m., the hearing will close.

We will continue to take written comments until 5:00 p.m on May 31, 2005. Bring your comments to OHCS (click here for location address and driving directions) or send your comments to our mailing address:

Jack Hruska

OHCS

PO Box 14508

Salem OR 97309-0409

Click here to view waiver.

For additional information, please contact:

Jack Hruska

503.963.2283