That sounded like a very smug and polite, "Fuck you, we're all making way too much money off of all this, so try to get a better job and buy an over priced house."

Sam reminds me of a plantation master circa 1850. "Shut the fuck up, we'll take care of you".

Thank you, white master.

Affordable housing is not something to joke about...Seems like everyone I know including myself, who work a entry level job (restaurant industry, retail, office etc.)-or students working part time- Making enough money for the basics, and a maybe a little more, keep getting screwed year after year with increasing rent. If something doesn't happen soon Im going to be living in God Damned Gresham.

So:

Sho Dozono claims he is Down with the working man and is going to "encourage" developers to build affordable homes for families. (which doesn't address the question at all)

Kyle Burris believes "renting is not part of the human experience" He's going to somehow "seize" property from owners, and sell them to the renters? Thats fucking realistic. He also implies that no one wants to rent. Thats not true. I move around a LOT and renting is a very good option for me.

I can't even argue with what he's saying because it's such a joke.

Sam Adams is the only one who actually addressed the question at hand.

There really does need to be a lot more discussion and action to keep rent affordable. I don't know what I can do personally. Maybe getting involved with CAT?

It would make somewhat of a difference if we could "lift the prohibition for local inclusionary zoning policies that can require a percentage of all new housing development to include permanently affordable units"

If that means what i think it does, every apartment complex (maybe every sort of rental, including houses broken into apartments?) Would have to have a few units at an affordable rate, based on income. At least that would increase the number of units available...

I need to read into this more....

Yes, I will wave my wand, and seize the properties with the ancient mystical art of eminent domain.

Seriously, I don't think you've really thought this through. When I implement this plan on buildings with multiple residents, I'd be selling it back to them on a co-op basis. You'd be just as free to enter into or exit from any co-op as you are now when you rent. The only difference is that the co-op would be non-profit, and there for much cheaper.

Also, I would only be doing this with building where the residents wanted me to. If you really want to waste your money making someone else rich, I'm sure you'd still be able to find a place to do it.

Wow! It's amazing the different interpretations people can have of the same written word.

I did not read the original posting or article by Kyle Burris and don't know who he is, but I do understand a few things as a property manager and affordable housing advocate.

This is an extremely important issue. People have ALWAYS rented and always will and we must keep a viable, affordable housing stock close-in to Portland proper. It sounds like Kyle is converting apartments into condos, which I'm finding is a very disturbing trend.

I would love it if someone from the Mercury did some real invesigative reporting and researched this subject. In the past two years I have witnessed the loss of hundreds of affordable, privately owned apartment units on the northern peninsula, especially in St. Johns. This is very bad.

So Kyle says "When I implement this plan on buildings with multiple residents, I'd be selling it back to them on a co-op basis. You'd be just as free to enter into or exit from any co-op as you are now when you rent."
He also says "I would only be doing this with building where the residents wanted me to."

Let's examine that. And again, I will reiterate that I haven't fully read Kyle's entire plan, so forgive me if there's something I'm not getting here.

If Kyle is only converting building where the resident's are in 100% agreement, then great. But it doesn't sound like that will always be the case if he had to stress that "You'd be just as free to enter into or exit from any co-op as you are now when you rent."

This shows a lack of understanding on a number of levels, if I'm understand what he's saying. First, many people are not "free" to go live where ever they choose if they want to stay close to family, work, church, and life in general that does not exist for them in Gresham! Second, does Kyle understand how many moderate to low income people will NEVER get a bank loan to buy into his groovy coop condo project? Third, if you really care how people live, don't convert their affordable building into condos. Each time this is done, we loose affordable housing stock.

I overheard a girl talking on her cell phone just yesterday while riding on the #75 down N. Lombard (that's on the penisula -St. Johns area for those who don't know). She was saying how the only affordable apartments she could find were around there, but they go so quick. And if she didn't find something she would have to move way out to far SE or "fucking Gresham."

This is really bad. The loss of these affordable units hurts us as a city. We need our workers to be able to live close to where they work. When people have to move far away to afford and apartment, this destroys family ties, community, neighborhoods.

There's some utopian group who just bought a 12-unit affordable housing complex on N. Killingsworth and they're going to tear it down so they can build an "intentional community." Pardon me while I go puke at the hypocrisy and contradiction of this. These oblivious liberals are going to take away great housing from people who really need it so they can create their ecologically friendly, probably vegetarian community, and while they're careing about the earth and the animals, they're displacing people.

This is a real problem and one that will not be solved easily. We need to work with our pols like Sam Adams to come up with a solution. But the solution is definitely not converting more apartment units because many, many people can not buy into this.

OK. My bad. I read as far as Sam Adams and missed the rest in my haste to get in my two cents.

However, I still say that Mr. Burris doesn't understand some fundamental realities. Since human beings created cities, renting has, in fact, been a fundamental part of the human experience -- and a necessary one. We could, I suppose, get all philosophical about this and discuss the whole concept of private ownership of natural resources, such as land, but we need to live in the now, as Garth would say. People NEED to rent. And sometimes renting makes more sense for a person than buying, in the context of how it's done today, in the now.

Ok, Jan, I've been trying to keep the wonk to a minimum around these parts, but if you want to get some real debattin' going on, I'm all for it.

First, I want to be clear; I'm not talking about turning apartments into condos. When I sell the building back to the renter co-op, it will still be a single piece of property. Only, instead of being owned by the land loard, it will be owned by the co-op.

Secondly, there would be no banks involved. After sezing the property, the city will be the one selling it to the people, setting up a system where the renters would be able to pay the city back at what ever rate their rent was before the seizure. After the co-op buys back the building, they would then only be responsible for paying off the property tax. A much cheaper situation.

And I'm not just talking about doing this to a few building here and there, I'm talking about covering the whole city. A fundamental paradigm shift in how our housing system works.

The transitional period may be a little rough, admittedly. But the end result will make our city a vastly better place to live. The cost of living will drop substantially, people wouldn’t have to work as much, and corporate businesses that previously relied on underpaying desperate people to work crappy jobs would suddenly find them selves having to work a lot harder to attract new employees.

Nothing but good can ultimately come of this.

Keep in mind that candidate for City Council Ed Garren supports Rent Stabilization. Garren said, "Such a law does not need to create draconian measures for property owners, but it can reduce the speculation driven "market values" and other rationale for ongoing arbitrary rent increases which are becoming increasingly difficult for most people to pay."
Visit this blog for more on this and related topics:
http://portlandgentro.typepad.com/portland_gentrification_a/
Vote for Garren for City Council#3