Because even the "pro housing people" get stuck in the “will this make the most money?” and forget the most important question - “does this meet a public need?”

Public and social housing work differently than private development. They don’t need to maximize profit and the rents are set based on what people can actually afford. We have to change our mindset and really think:

"BUT NO ONE WILL BUILD HERE!" Calm down.. Developers build where there’s demand, infrastructure, and public investment. Portland still has all three. If the only housing that is built is high-end market-rate, that’s a policy choice.

Renters make less, on average, than homeowners. We need renter AMI data, not just overall AMI, to see who’s actually being cost-burdened and by how much. If affordability is based on the wrong income numbers, rents end up way too high.

But KNOWING the actual AMI of renters (not just the region) would give us a way clearer picture of who’s being cost-burdened. Bc I can tell you, renters AMI is def lower generally than the current AMI we see. Calling something affordable doesn’t mean shit if people are spending 50% income on rent.

And I know some people will be like "That'll never work" or get all bent out of shape and tell me that no one will build or whatever fuck profit mindset you got...

Thank you @councilormorillo.bsky.social - council is inherently political - and Ryan is ridiculously dense with his “can’t we just be pleasant and get along” trope.

Only

Salt Lake City, Raleigh and Portland, OR, each posted monthly declines of -0.6%

Oh… dear

It may be some months.

Sure, let’s build more missing middle housing and magically watch average rents drop overnight… meanwhile, Portland’s eviction rates keep climbing, totally in sync with our ‘housing solutions'

and evictions displace about 1,000 folks a month

new density isn't a silver bullet like you first replied