The young people who have moved to Portlandia like to eat out a lot, and as a result the Portland has more restaurants per capita than all but five other metropolitan areas in the country. However, the cost of eating out is rising because inexpensive restaurants are getting pushed out by more expensive ones that can afford to pay the rising rents required to stay in Portland.
This is just one more symptom of Portland’s growing affordability problem. In May, median home sale prices in the Portland area exceeded $350,000 for the first time. This is 4.8 times median family incomes, the worst Portland has yet seen. While sale prices might not perfectly reflect the entire housing market, they are probably pretty close, as Zillow estimates that the median value of Portland-area homes in April was $325,000.
Inexpensive restaurants aren’t the only thing that gets pushed out by rising land prices. Residents of a mobile home park in Northeast Portland are facing eviction as the owner wants to sell the land to a developer who will no doubt build dense, but much-more expensive, housing on the site. The residents are trying to raise $2 million to buy the park themselves, but this seems unlikely. At least four other mobile-home parks are also facing sale and redevelopment.
Mobile homes are cheap housing, and normally they occupy cheap land at or beyond the urban fringe. But since such land is off limits under Oregon land-use laws, few if any new parks are being created while old ones are disappearing. This is a completely predictable consequence of Portland’s urban-growth boundary.
Growth-boundary advocate Joe Cartright claims that “affordability is about growing up, not out.” He is simply wrong. Numerous urban areas in the country have “grown up,” dramatically increasing their population densities, in the last few decades, and most of these are also counted among the nation’s least affordable urban areas. Between 1990 and 2010, San Francisco-Oakland-Concord-Livermore densities increased by 27 percent; San Jose by 37 percent; Portland by 17 percent. Meanwhile, the densities of affordable urban areas such as Atlanta and Dallas-Ft. Worth declined.
As the chart below shows, density and unaffordability go hand in hand. On average, an increased density of 1,000 people per square mile is associated with a 0.64 higher value-to-income ratio. The correlation coefficient is 0.53, suggesting that density plays a greater role than most other factors in determining affordability.
This compares the ratio of median home values to median family incomes with population densities in 382 urbanized areas in the 2010 census.
Of course, Portland officials are ignoring these facts. They hope to stuff 260,000 more people in the city of Portland over the next 20 years by building more multifamily homes in single-family neighborhoods and more high-rise towers in and near the downtown area. To move all these people around, the city plans to build more streetcar lines–just the ticket if your goal is immobility, as streetcars have the lowest capacity of just about any form of transit and reduce the capacity of the streets they are on as well.
Meanwhile, Portlanders are talking about spending $100 million on a “homeless campus” that would shelter 1,400 people. That’s more than $70,000 per person or $280,000 for a family of four, which is far more than a four-bedroom house typically costs in cities that don’t have urban-growth boundaries. High housing prices aren’t the only causes of homelessness, but to the extent that they are, the region would do better to make housing affordable for everyone rather than provide huge subsidies for a few. That’s just one more economic reality that the city’s leaders are ignoring.