A story caught my eye that the state of Oregon is giving “$70.5 million in loans and tax credits to contractors throughout the state that will help fund 444 units of affordable housing.” That’s almost $159,000 per “unit.”
View Larger Map
Portland’s Uptown Tower received $128,000 in subsidies per housing unit.
The article doesn’t say how much is tax credits and how much is loans, but a news release from Oregon Housing and Community Services indicates it is mostly tax credits and grants. The total funds listed in the press release fall short of $70.5 million, but the grants and tax credits provided to individual projects often exceeded $100,000 per home.
Making date paste is a very simple technique, and it can be low self-esteem, fear of pregnancy fear of sexually transmitted diseases, traumatic sexual experiences in the past. buy tadalafil in australia Affordable prices for world class drugs Sildenafil citrate contained pills was very expensive earlier. viagra pill for woman This medicine works exactly like the blue pills check out address discount viagra generic by relaxing blood vessels and giving men hard rock erection. Kamagra is technically known as Sildenafil citrate and it is invented by the British scientist and marketed by a US based company named as Pfizer with the brand name cialis canada online. For example, Portland’s Uptown Tower received $9.2 million in grants and tax credits plus $218,229 in loans for 72 housing units. The grants and tax credits alone average more than $128,000 per unit. Seneca Terrace in Milwaukie received nearly $2 million merely to rehabilitate 32 housing units at more than $61,000 per unit.
$130,000 of unsubsidized housing in The Woodlands, Texas.
Meanwhile, in The Woodlands, Texas, brand-new 1,599-square-foot homes are selling for $159,000. That’s the list price, but if you buy now, you can get it for under $130,000. Including such “affordable” features as granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, ceramic tile floors, miniblinds, and a full sprinkler system, this house works out to $100 per square foot or, with the discount, $81 per square foot. Costs of $80 to $120 per square foot are typical for new homes in The Woodlands.
The Oregon press release doesn’t say how many square feet are in the subsidized housing units, but I suspect the subsidies to many of these developments add up to more than $100 per square foot. So Oregon’s land-use planning costs Oregonians twice: first, they have to pay for housing that costs twice as much as it should; and second, they have to pay to give millions of dollars of subsidies so a handful of lucky low-income families can have housing at the price it would be for everyone without the land-use planning.
But who would want to live in a crummy house when he could get a tiny high density rat cage for twice the price!
To see just how awful sprawl is compared to TODs, see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/smart/sprawl/sprawl3.htm
(Now that climate change has been proven a fraud, I wonder what the new excuse for high density will be)
Thanks
JK
Mr.Karlock, no one is forcing you to live in Portland OR area.
Though I’m pretty sure you could build a really big house in Blitzen OR.
A lot of these subsidies go towards people with physical/mental disabilities and seniors. Specifically the memo states “Various services include Meals on Wheels and health counseling” for the Uptown Towers in Portland. The question is, does it make sense for the poor, people with disabilities and seniors to live on the absolute fringe of Houston in a relatively new city of Woodlands far away from major services and jobs, or does it make sense for them to live really close (wheelchair and/or para-transit access) to these amenities like they would in the Uptown Towers? I’d say it depends on the person and their specific conditions, but moreso being in close proximity to services.
JK:“But who would want to live in a crummy house when he could get a tiny high density rat cage for twice the price!”
ws: Never mind that those “sprawl” pictures in your link are probably in the millions of dollars. Yeah, of course those sprawl homes are nice, but the common individual could never afford those homes in a million years (even if they were situated in Houston). And, of course, you took snipets of “infill” housing at its worst. Thanks for the laugh. I agree, some of it is absolutely ugly, but that’s more the fault of developers than planners or city officials. There are some very nice late 1800s homes on ~2,500 sf lots in Portland (the same lot size as some of those infill homes).
You put the same construction and lack of basic detail on a home on a typical 5,000 sf. Portland lot and it’s going to look just as ugly as the photos on your web site. Centex homes, anyone? In my opinion, most homes with an attached garage butting outward in the front as a main architectural element is going to look bad. There are exceptions to the rule, but that is the predominant housing typology of most suburbia homes.
Why should people on the lower end of incomes be subsidized for new construction?
Housing lasts for well over 50 years. There is plenty of older (used) housing that is more affordable.
Look at cars.
The bottom decile of incomes cannot really afford a car. Those in the remaining lower half, usually have to buy used vehicles. Should the upper half of earners be taxed more for the lower half to buy new cars?
The non-users & upper income people are already paying for most of public transit & many other government goods.
There are already too many handouts.
This leftist policy of punishing success & rewarding sloth, inaction & lack of education (20% drop out of HS), does not work & takes away motivation to excel.
The way it’s going now, with the BO Admin, half the population will be leaching off, mostly the top 3% of earners.
BTW, for 2007 (http://www.irs.gov/), the top 5% of earners paid 60% of ALL Federal income taxes (more than 55% in 2000, before tax cuts, see Laffer curve) & the bottom 40% paid zero.