(Photo from video. Watch it below)
This article was written by Tony Jordan, founder of Portlanders for Parking Reform. It originally appeared on his website on May 4th and has been re-published here with his permission.
————
Convenient parking is a problem in parts of Portland, Mayor Ted Wheeler conceded last week. But it’s a smaller problem than housing — and Wheeler says that when the two come in conflict, housing must be the priority.
The mayor’s words came at a Rose City Park Neighborhood meeting April 25th. Wheeler was asked by RCPNA board member Deborah Field what his plan was to “require developers to put in ample parking spaces” with new housing projects.
The mayor’s response was definitive:
“But I want to put a marker down. The debate: Parking vs. Housing? It’s really over. That piece of the conversation is over. When younger families or younger people say they want to locate here, the first thing they’re saying isn’t ‘Boy I wish I had another parking space, or had access to a parking space.” What they’re saying is, “I can’t afford to live in this city.” And, so, the city, meaning the debate that happened over the last three years actually made a choice, and the choice was affordability and housing over access to parking. I just want you to be aware that that is a real dynamic and is a real choice and it was made with full community involvement.”
The mayor told the crowd that, “parking adds significantly to the cost of affordable housing.”
Advertisement
(This is true for both market-rate and publicly backed homes, for the simple reason that urban space costs money. You can read more about the effect of excessive parking on housing prices here.)
He suggested that neighborhoods, like Rose City Park, which want to manage their parking supply should form parking districts similar to those in Northwest Portland and the Central Eastside Industrial District.
The Portland Bureau of Transportation has spent years working to develop a framework for neighborhoods to create parking permit zones and parking benefit districts, but the policy has yet to be voted on by Portland City Council. Wheeler said he wouldn’t suggest simply taking the plan from NW Portland and moving it to Rose City Park, seemingly a contradiction to Commissioner Saltzman’s position that NW Portland is conducting a pilot for other neighborhoods to follow.
The mayor’s comments can be read here or viewed below (starting at 35:30):
— Tony Jordan: @pdxshoupistas on Twitter
BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Is there any actual data on the affordability of the new apartments built with no parking?
I am troubled by the uninformed way that these issues are being debated here and elsewhere, and possibly at city hall. If the data – as opposed to cherry-picked anecdotes – showed that no-parking apartments were just as unaffordable as parking-available apartments, might that not be worth knowing?
Much of the debate seems to be unaware of how a market economy works. The price of a thing (an apartment, an iPhone, a bicycle) is barely related to the cost of the thing. Cost sets the floor for price. But demand sets the price. If demand for no-parking apartments is high, then those apartments will be expensive, regardless of whether parking is available. In today’s Portland, that is quite likely. Otherwise, the price of a new iPhone 7 would be $300.
Parking policy has knock-on effects that make whole classes of housing unbuildable. I’ll let the experts chime in but I think removing the parking brake from the local housing supply will make a material difference in the number of units, and assuming demand is finite, the affordability of Portland.
For practical purposes, we should consider demand infinite, at least until the economy tanks or prices reach equilibrium with other west coast cities.
“Much of the debate seems to be unaware of how a market economy works.”
In a market economy a 2% vacancy rate would be impossible. Could it be that your Econ 101 metaphor is a vast oversimplification?
It’s worse than an econ 101 metaphor, Soren. It’s a mid-semseter D- econ quiz metaphor:
“Cost sets the floor for price. But demand sets the price.”
“Cost sets the floor for price” — sure, in a market where there is a low barrier to entry, the price will approach the point of zero marginal profit. Housing is not a low-barrier sort of market. You need land, labor, and materials, which are all in scarce supply currently. Moreover, your land needs to be zoned so that you can legally build a profitable development.
You can sanity test this point by asking yourself the question: “Where in Portland can I buy a house for the cost of materials + labor to construct it?” If you’re not able to come up with an answer, the price hasn’t reached the cost floor.
“But demand sets the price.” — Yes, if the supply curve is static, demand sets the price. The entire point of advocating for eliminating parking minimums is to move the supply curve.
what if the parking minimums were below ground? Then there is no net loss of units.
Will someone please consider the molemen?
But building underground parking into an apartment building can double or triple the cost of the whole project.
Yes, a developer could still build the same number of units, but at a much higher cost per unit, and a much higher monthly rent required to cover the extra cost.
If the developer can charge the higher rent, he will, even with the lower development cost.
I think you misread the phrase you quoted, which was “cost sets the floor for price”.
This says that selling price of new housing won’t be below the cost of that housing.
I assume you agree with that. Developers generally don’t build to lose money.
Nowhere did I say anything about marginal profit going to zero. That’s a straw man you came up with.
Why do you say that?
The reason for the low vacancy rate and high rents is pretty simple.
Prior to 2007, new housing units were being built at the rate of about 15,000 units per year in the Portland metro area, while household growth was only about 5,000 to 14,000 per year. Portland was being overbuilt, and you might remember all the see-through buildings in South Waterfront and elsewhere. Rents were relatively low.
In 2007 the Great Recession started, bank financing for new apartments dried up, so new housing units collapsed to about 4,000 by 2009. Rents were still relatively low.
It took a long time for banks to work their way out of the financial crisis and resume lending, so new housing units didn’t get back to 10,000 until 2013. But household growth remained somewhat steady during the recession and has been climbing. Thus rents are high.
The above is how a market economy works. Things move in cycles, cycles aren’t necessarily coordinated, and prices move in response, both up and down.
What is happening right now?
New housing units are rising every year, but banks are still cautious after their near-death experience and construction labor is in very short supply, so new housing units are still not back to 2007 levels. Still, supply is rising. The rise in rents has slowed, if not reversed.
The problem is that the new supply is at the higher price levels. Lots of high-end (luxury) and mid-range apartments going up, not many low-end (affordable) apartments.
Makes sense. The demand for high-end is there, it is more profitable to build high-end than low-end, and bank financing is easier to get. So when a builder decides what to use his valuable parcel of land for, the easy decision is luxury or mid-range.
What the city needs to do is find ways to steer new some fraction of construction activity away from high-end to low-end. No-parking isn’t going to do it. A systematic program of financial incentives might do it. We could exempt affordable housing projects from system development charges, construction excise tax, permit fees, property taxes. At the same time we could raise those charges on luxury housing projects. We could allow affordable projects to have higher density, greater height and coverage limits. While maintaining limits on luxury projects. We could move affordable projects to the head of the permit processing queue. Let the luxury projects take longer to get through permitting.
Eventually we’d find the right formula to make it financially attractive to build affordable projects.
To do this, we’ll have to jettison some myths.
One is the myth that lower construction cost (e.g. no parking) means lower rental price. We’ve discussed that a lot. price > cost, price =/= cost.
Another is the myth that 2-unit to 4-unit buildings will naturally be more affordable. They won’t. The cost per unit of these is really high, because you’re using that expensive piece of land for only 2-4 units, instead of for 20-30 units. And again price > cost, price =/= cost. (So why are old duplex-fourplex units often affordable? Hint: because they are OLD.)
John,
Maybe you didn’t read my reply to you.
“What the city needs to do is find ways to steer new some fraction of construction activity away from high-end to low-end. No-parking isn’t going to do it. A systematic program of financial incentives might do it. ”
The city is doing exactly that. Look up the inclusionary housing mandate. Waiving parking is a prime incentive to build the affordable housing. The parking is expensive, that’s a fact.
“pretty simple”
Portland has had an apartment shortage for decades:
Moreover, a significant body of literature suggests that land use policies and play a major role in the engineered scarcity of affordable rental housing in cities:
http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/38-2harney-pdf.pdf
Extent of land zoned for high density residential is not the limiting factor.
Consider a 5,000 sq ft parcel can fit an apartment building with 29 housing units (800 sq ft = 2-3 bedrooms) in 6 stories. A city block on a corridor like, say, Division has about 22 parcels on either side, and all are zoned for such a building. 20 such blocks = 13,000 housing units. So essentially, a single 20 block stretch of any of Portland’s commercial corridors has enough developable and appropriately zoned land to house some 40,000 persons.
The city’s 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) showed that Portland has enough developable land, under then-current zoning, to build enough housing units to DOUBLE the population of the city. With new zoning (2035 Comprehensive Plan), the city can fit even more people.
The problem with the supply of affordable housing is not lack of land. It is that building market-rate and high-end housing is much, much more financially attractive.
Except, as I am sure you know John, you can’t build up to 6 stories on most of our corridors because that would be a “monstrosity” that would deprive people of solar access and create urban canyons, right?
The form factor you propose is pretty similar to the much derided and protested building on SE 34th and Hawthorne where the Monkey Puzzle tree was.
Are you going on record as supporting that intensity of development? If you truly support building 6 stories up and down our corridors with no parking then I don’t understand most of your other posts in this discussion, because they seem to be arguing against exactly that.
Even if you reduce his numbers by a third, his argument that there is sufficient buildable land still stands.
IT is mainly a giveaway to developers.
I see no difference in rents of parking vs no parking new buildings, so the developers just pocket the money they would have spent and the apartment owners just park their cars on the surrounding neighborhood streets.
I can agree with you and still think it’s good for affordability. All I’m saying is that in the long run we’ll have more units if we get comfortable without parking. Especially in the form of infill, multi-unit buildings that look like the ones that are all over our neighborhoods, but aren’t being built today in part due to parking policy.
As a renter, I would prefer to live in a city that does not determine rental housing policy based on personal anecdotes.
Tony’s piece explicitly references an article with multiple citations: http://www.sightline.org/2013/08/22/apartment-blockers/
There is also an academic literature suggesting that parking requirements increase per unit cost while reducing the total number of units. For example: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf.
Your links are just generic costs.
If you don’t like personal anecdotes, show me the cheap rents that have resulted from allowing builders to build apartments in Portland without parking….
Inclusionary housing mandate directly exchanges parking waivers for affordable units.
Inclusionary housing is subsidized, not affordable, housing.
Obviously, some people favor the government picking winners and losers, but I am not one of them. Every subsidized unit “saves” one low-income resident while simultaneously pushing one person out of town who does not meet your subsidy requirements. Why does the person making $39k/yr deserve to live here when the person making $41k/yr does not? Why are we willing to tax the citizenry to perpetuate this?
“If you don’t like personal anecdotes, show me the cheap rents that have resulted”
Do you understand what anecdote means?
I do, and you ignore every request from anyone on this site to ever provide evidence of any of your constant assertions.
Soren is apparently shielded from any kind of intellectual debate.
There are about 15 commenters who dominate the discussion.
I would think you would want more, not less, yet you continue to moderate reasonable posts from people who you disagree with.
Your website….
You should want more than 15 or so regulars….
you’re exactly right dwk.
I do want more people to join the discussion. That’s why I delete comments that I feel are mean or insulting or insensitive or rude or…
Thing is, the posts I delete have ZERO to do with whether I agree with them or not. It has everything to do with the tone and courtesy toward others. Please be nicer and everything you write will be published. Thanks!
as can be seen above, i make a point of posting links to studies/reviews that support my comments. an intellectual debate requires more than a strongly stated anecdotal opinion.
I’ve got a personal story about what that means.
Links that have nothing to do with the Portland Oregon scene/market.
Your constant “anecdotes’ about density, and house pricing for instance that has
no bearing at in the current market HERE.
Rather than framing it as parking increases costs why don’t we just say building parking decreases their profit. Because that’s what we’re really talking about.
I would say it doesn’t always even do that. Many buildings are built with more than the minimum amount of parking. Auto parking can be more easily converted to bike parking than can a storefront.
John,
Part of the reason the debate is “over” is because now any new apartment built with no parking will have affordable housing built in, or nearby. So the pro-parking talking points need to be updated to reflect that. If folks want mandated parking, they will have to oppose mandatory affordable housing, they are tied together.
In Sellwood, for example, there is a proposal (that might fail because of parking) to take three proposed projects which would have a combined 187 market rate apartments, 46 parking stalls and 0 affordable units and reconfigure it to be 210 total units, 170 market rate, 30 affordable to 60%MFI and 10 apartments at 80%MFI, there would be no parking.
That project pencils out, adds MORE housing, and adds affordable housing because there’s no parking. Each of those 46 stalls in the current configuration will cost 40-50K and take up valuable space. Beyond direct housing costs, each of those stalls would allow another car to crowd the street, pollute the air, and endanger pedestrians.
In the long run, we’ll have to see how the current crop of pre-inclusionary buildings turn out. It stands to reason that in 15 years an apartment in a building without parking should be cheaper than one with parking. After all, there are less capital expenses, one less luxury amenity, and they will have a higher overall profitability.
If we see reductions in parking demand due to autonomous vehicles, transit, and other modes, then that parking will be even more of an albatross and buildings with a lot of it will be saddled with the expenses, which will be passed on in the form of higher rents and less maintenance.
Finally, the city has goals about transportation and more parking in the central city (or close-in) undermines them.
While I appreciate this reply, I do take issue with this statement:
“Beyond direct housing costs, each of those stalls would allow another car to crowd the street, pollute the air, and endanger pedestrians.”
The existence of a parking stall in a development is NOT what “allows” another car to exist. There is no barrier to the car’s presence simply because there’s not an included parking space in the development. It may be a dis-incentive to ownership, but as has been pointed out in other comments, the existence (or illusion) of on-street parking will remain a draw in any area where a perceived abundance of “free” parking exists.
This is a good point and I think “invites” is a better word than allows.
I often ask people who are arguing in favor of parking requirements to imagine their neighborhood with 1:1 parking (or even 0.7:1) for all the new apartments. Would they want that excess traffic on their roads? Is that the future we want for the city?
Of course, with a 1:1 or .7:1 ratio of parking to housing, we’d have a lot less apartments in the neighborhood. I think for many people, that’s the desired outcome for opposing parking reforms, less room for people in their neighborhoods and more room for cars.
“It may be a dis-incentive to ownership, but as has been pointed out in other comments, the existence (or illusion) of on-street parking will remain a draw in any area where a perceived abundance of “free” parking exists.”
Isn’t this exactly the point? If many of those new residents own a car and park it on the street, the existence and/or illusion of abundant free parking goes away. The whole neighborhood will adapt. Maybe some folks decide it’s time to clear out their driveway or garage and park on their own property. Maybe some folks decide they have more vehicles than they really need.
Apologies for an anecdote, but my neighbor across the street parks 4 vehicles (3 on the street, 1 in driveway) for a 2-person household. It goes without saying we don’t have a parking scarcity. If we did, maybe he doesn’t bring his work truck home with him.
Of course not everyone will have these options, and even less can immediately adapt. But I think enough do, and it is the sort of problem that can resolve over time (having to park a few blocks away isn’t a crisis for most people, and those with physical limitations have means to address).
“But demand sets the price.” This is only half right. In a functioning market, the intersection of the supply curve with the demand curve shows the market clearing price (a.k.a. equilibrium price). You can try to change demand by frowning at tourists or whatever, but I doubt you’ll be very successful. If we can’t change demand, then the only way to lower the cost of rent is to increase supply.
Looking at the static system for “data” misses the point. Yes, people are spending everything they have and some they don’t to live in apartments in Portland. Whether or not a home has parking, landlords can charge rents that would be unheard of a decade ago. Whether a particular home with parking in this broken market goes for more than a home without has no bearing on the larger issue.
The problem is that the current market price for rent is not 5% of 10% away from what many people need, it is 30% to 50% away.
Increasing supply will over time slow the increase in average rent, maybe stabilize it, and may even bring it down a few percent. But when that average rent is around $1,700 for a 2-bedroom, that translates to maybe in a few years average rent will be $1,400 to $1,800? . . . Not really good enough, not for many Portlanders.
I make my living in the most capitalist part of the economy that there is, and have done for almost twenty years now. I’m very aware of how the free market economy works, and where it doesn’t work. A simple “Build, Baby, Build” approach is not going to produce affordable housing for low-income Portlanders. We need more focused city action.
I hate to bring it up, but I gotta ask if you are the John Liu who is spearheading the effort to create a historic district in Laurelhurst?
No doubt. I’m a strong advocate of tenant protections to help people currently struggling. I’m also for public housing, as much and as quickly as possible.
Nobody said “build baby build.” There are certain regulations that we’ve placed on the market that have an out-sized harmful impact. Requiring car storage is one of the major distortions that resulted in less supply than there should have been. I don’t understand why you’re defending parking minimums.
Hmm, how is it possible that 15,000 units were built in 2007, when parking was required?
“If demand for no-parking apartments is high, then those apartments will be expensive, regardless of whether parking is available. ”
The problem, John, is that there is no such thing as a no parking apartment.* What we have are apartments with an effectively unlimited supply of free on-street parking. It might not be as convenient as a covered space in your building, but at that price point, who can blame people for utilizing it? Applying classical economics to the parking situation in Portland neighborhoods leads you to the tragedy of the commons: if you give something desirable away for free, of course it is over consumed. We are a long way from anything resembling a rational market.
*Exception: in the few areas of town that have parking meters, on-street parking is generally not available for long-term car storage. But in the parts of town where this is an issue
How does building apartments with no parking alleviate that?
There is an abundance of empirical evidence out there that shows that parking drives up housing costs by (1) making development much more costly and (2) reduce the number of housing units built.
Even the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has released a study to show how parking drives up housing costs. To call the debate “informed” when you haven’t tried to make yourself informed only shows that you are not genuinely concerned about housing affordability.
It is clear that parking increases the cost of building a unit. But why do you assume that the cost of building a unit determines the rental price for that unit?
When marketing folks determine the price to charge for something, they don’t start with what it cost.
I think this has been explained elsewhere in the thread pretty sufficiently.
https://bikeportland.org/2017/05/09/auto-parking-or-affordable-housing-portland-mayor-says-debate-is-over-228023#comment-6800444
Why keep asking the same question?
A rational landlord will rent their units for as much as the market will pay, regardless of the cost of construction. It is not true that lower construction costs lead to lower rents. It just leads to higher profits.
I read this last month–it talks about how parking became part of city codes and the cost of it for users. Pretty interesting. Made me question how we allocate street parking. It seems to me that Portland is moving in progressive direction with regard to parking codes, but there is still a pain point as most people still use cars.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21720269-dont-let-people-park-free-how-not-create-traffic-jams-pollution-and-urban-sprawl?utm_source=nextdraft
I only wish he hadn’t phrased this part in this way: “When younger families or younger people say they want to locate here, the first thing they’re saying isn’t ‘Boy I wish I had another parking space, or had access to a parking space.” What they’re saying is, “I can’t afford to live in this city.” ”
I think this continues to create and us vs. them model and builds further resentment in long term Portland residents who feel slighted, perturbed, irritated (choose your verb) about the influx of new residents. The fact is that housing is not just unaffordable for people moving here from out of state or city, but it’s unaffordable for all of those long term residents too. The city is changing whether people like it or not and we need housing for people not cars.
I fixed it for the Mayor:
I agree with soren!
thanks, Tony, for the excellent piece, and the prompt which caused this strange confluence.
Wheeler is already failing. He’s seeing just how “ungovernable” Portland really is. Thanks Kitzhaber.
Not accurate.
There are about 16,000 housing units that were rushed into the permitting pipeline to beat the effective date of inclusionary zoning (IZ). The development industry doesn’t need to start building IZ units until 2020 or so.
IZ only applies to projects of 20 or more units. (code 33.245)
Under city rules, regardless of IZ, parking is not required for developments up to 30 units that are within 500 feet of transit streets or 1500 feet of transit centers. (code 33.266)
In other words, a no-parking apartment building up to 30 units on a transit street can be built without a single affordable unit for the next 2 years or so, and a no-parking apartment building up to 20 units on a transit street can be built without a single affordable unit at any time.
John,
I agree that it’s unfortunate we are going to allow those 30 unit apartments to be built without affordable housing. It’s more unfortunate that a 31 unit apartment filed before Feb 1 will require 6 parking spaces and no affordable units.
The context of the discussion is about what is in our future. We can look at the past policy and how it has harmed us (some parking congestion, yes, but more importantly, less and more expensive housing), but the permits filed are under code that no longer exists.
Many of those projects will never be built and will need to refile under IZ. Hopefully the city will work to make projects, like the ones in Sellwood, happen and we’ll see some permanently affordable units in desirable neighborhoods.
I am hopeful that IZ will produce a meaningful number of affordable units starting in 2020. Meaningful = thousands, not dozens.
There is an outside chance that we could see more IZ units in 2019, because some 2035 Comp Plan go into effect by then that could make IZ units more attractive to developers (increased height limits etc).
However, the financing environment is likely to become less favorable before then, as interest rates rise. That will create an additional obstacle to affordable housing development. And that is why I think the city needs to take action to increase the financial attractiveness for affordable housing, relative to luxury housing.
Incidentally, please note that IZ may also create affordable housing that is not in so-called ‘desirable’ areas. The IZ rules permit the affordable units to be off-site (the so-called “remote option”). The project can be in one neighborhood, and the required affordable housing units can be in a different neighborhood.
As IZ requires a percentage of total units to be affordable, then if we want to see 1000s of affordable units we need to see many times that in total units. Parking requirements lead to less units being built, that is, so far, not in dispute in this discussion. Therefore, if you want IZ to provide affordable units, don’t ask for more required parking!
The city may very well need additional incentives, but removing current incentives isn’t really practical, is it?
Finally, in regards to off site: “receiving site must be within a one-half mile radius of sending site, or in an area of equal or higher Combined Opportunity Map score.” Also, an off-site location is, in some ways, desirable as it requires a 60% MFI affordability rather than an 80%.
What’s the evidence that parking requirements lead to fewer units being built? In 2007, when new housing units were being built at the rate of 15,000 per year, parking was required.
There is some evidence just by looking at the difference of what was built prior to the new parking requirements and what was built after https://pdxshoupistas.com/did-portland-city-council-suppress-housing-supply/ I did a more extensive survey of permits etc and found that prior to 2013 the most common configuration was for 45 or so units, afterwards, exactly 30.
One only needs to do a thought experiment to understand why parking leads to less housing. Given a plot of land with a certain by-right height and massing a developer will, generally, build as many units as they can to maximize their return on investment. If they are required to build parking, they will likely build fewer units. The parking will take up some space and/or height which will take away from space that could be apartments. The parking will probably not provide a return on investment, since a structured parking stall costs an amortized average of $220/month but rarely can they be rented for that amount, so it will lower the profitability which will lead to some housing projects not being built.
Is this really in dispute? Do you really think that requiring on-site structured parking in the middle of a city has no effect on the number of housing units that might be built?
It sounds like you are arguing that an apartment without a parking space will be cheaper. It will still be maximized for what someone is willing to pay.
Thanks, Tony, for your thoughtful responses and bringing lots of data into the discussion.
There’s a huge amount of evidence that parking requirements constrain supply and drive up costs. There are local data demonstrating that. Anyone who’s talked to a developer of any significant size will hear something like the developers said at the Portland Parking Summit last year, roughly: “the first thing we figure out is whether we can make the project pencil with parking” and “about half of the projects we look at we don’t move forward with because of the costs of parking.”
There’s also the 2013 Urban Land Institute’s survey of people involved in housing that found parking requirements were the most-cited barrier to developing housing.
“The research team convened round table discussions in five cities—Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco—to explore the issue of cost. Additional interviews were held with an array of practitioners, developers, financiers, and policy makers in five additional markets: Boston, Houston, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Seattle. In total, these discussions allowed the research team to engage with more than 100 key stakeholders representing weak and strong markets, different population sizes and geographies, and a range of political and policy environments….
“Parking minimums were the most frequently cited barrier over the course of our research.
In addition to the hard costs associated with parking construction, dedication of large amounts of land for parking reduces the number of affordable units that can be built and drives up per-unit costs. Developers can still accommodate greater density by incorporating structured parking, but such projects have significantly higher construction costs than those that comprise surface parking. Recent research supports the assertion that the removal of parking restrictions can increase affordability.”
http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Bending-the-Cost-Curve-on-Affordable-Rental-Development.pdf
And if you still doubt whether included parking drives up prices, do a little survey of comparable apartments in any neighborhood of town.
Look at the Opportunity Score map. The Pearl has the same “Opportunity Score” as MLK/Killingsworth. Hence you can build a 100% luxury apartment building in the Pearl and put the required affordable units “remote” in North Portland. The “remote” units don’t even have to be in a new building.
First off, that’s cherry picking the most extreme scenario. In the only project to ask for assistance on this, so far, the off-site units are being put in a new building a few blocks away.
Second, what’s wrong with that area? The combined opportunity score looks for places that have economic opportunity and access to transit/etc. I am sure someone would rather live at MLK and Killingsworth in a 60% MFI apartment than have to relocate to Gresham!
The Opportunity Score map defines zones that are very large and encompass neighborhoods with very different land values.
Map is here
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/622880
Pearl values are far higher than NE Sandy past Hollywood or north MLK values, but they are in the same zone; Inner SE Hawthorne values are far higher than North Portland or 122nd values, but same zone; etc.
It will make sense to locate the main project in the high-value location and make it 100% market-rate apartments, while locating the “remote option” affordable units in the low-value location where 60% MFI or 80% MFI rents might actually be pretty close to market-rate (80% MFI rent is about $1,200/mo, which isn’t necessarily all that cheap at 122nd). It may also make sense to “designate an existing building” at the low-value location for the remote affordable units, rather than actually building new affordable units.
All of these are available options under the IZ rules.
My point is that the IZ rules are written in a way that is quite favorable to developers. It is very early in IZ, we won’t know for some years how IZ development will actually turn out. But if one is hoping that IZ will necessarily result in a lot of new affordable units in so-called desirable areas with high land value, then you’d want to think about all the ways IZ would allow other outcomes.
By the way, living car-free may be a little bit harder at 122nd than in the Pearl.
“meaningful number of affordable units”
the bulk of our affordable housing shortage is at <30% MFI and IZ does little to address this shortage.
"as interest rates rise"
?g=dFvM
Not sure what your chart is supposed to show?
In response to the Great Recession, central banks drove interest rates to never-before-seen lows. The Federal Reserve then started buying trillions of dollars of treasury, agency, and other bonds to drive rates down further. The ECB pushed overnight rates to negative. For the past few years, debt has been cheaper than it has ever been in U.S. history. That’s ending. The Fed is raising short term rates and will start selling (or allowing to mature, without replacing) its trillions of bonds to raise long term rates.
If we have another recession in the next couple of years, then rates may not rise too much from here. But then building will stop anyway. Otherwise, yes, rates are going up.
i’m intensely skeptical that we are exiting the ongoing global liquidity trap. and i’m even more skeptical when someone who might benefit from higher interest rates makes these claims (as was done for japan for decades).
Why do you think higher or lower rates makes any difference to me? Is that your belief?
your absolutism about the trajectory of rats.
All signs are that interest rates will increase. That’s not exactly a controversial position.
tea leaves? cast bones?
If the economy continues picking up steam, rates will rise accordingly. It’s not like they have a lot of room to move down.
Economy will have to improve before rates go up much.
What’s more important, publicly subsidized parking or Vision Zero?
Effectively one-way streets, not being able to see ongoing traffic until you’re in the roadway, and incessant circling for parking are creating unsafe roads for all users. It certainly sounds like Wheeler is doubling down on unsafe streets.
If you can’t afford to store you car, you can’t afford your car.
Apparently you have never been east of 82nd where a third of Portland’s residents live and where parking has never been an issue except near light rail stations on weekdays. The norm there of off-street parking results in higher traffic speeds and far more deaths from pedestrians getting hit by cars.
The nice thing about all the parked cars in inner Portland is that all those cars circling around looking for parking are slowing all the other cars down, often to a crawl. Yes, your view is obstructed, forcing you to slow down further and move much more cautiously. Remember, getting hit by a fast car is nearly always fatal for non-car victims, but is often survivable if the car is moving less than 20 mph. So if you are in favor of Vision Zero (0 deaths, nothing about injuries), you should be an active campaigner for city-subsidized on-street parking, even to the point of banning off-street options.
I bet if we put our heads together, we could think of something other than cheap on-street parking to control vehicle speeds. Maybe even something more environment-friendly.
Random piles of gravel with a few PDX Transformation cones here and there, like the city has started street repairs and everything is “in progress”. Drivers are hard-wired to avoid anything in bright orange and hate gravel on their tires. Add some blue blinky lights at night, as if the police are doing a sting. “Accidentally” drop a pail of bright neon orange paint at a busy intersection at 2:30 am on a Tuesday, say at Stark & 122nd. The possibilities are endless.
Great to hear the mayor acknowledge the trade-off between affordable housing and parking, and that it has been studied and policy set accordingly.
I haven’t heard much about EQUITY in the parking discussions. Why is it that car-owners have access to a public resource – the street – in the form of free/low-cost parking, and non-car-owners don’t? I haven’t owned a car in more than 20 years, but I would love to have a 10 x 20 space to store my crap on the street [not really].
This speaks to the idea that we really need to price this public-storage-for-private-benefit [parking] at a market rate.
Something fundamental around equity here … would appreciate some lawyers chewing on the idea.
There’s the abuse of street parking in neighborhoods, where some people will park a heap, and not move it for weeks. Probably similar solution in Portland, but in Beaverton, the way the city handles that problem, based in some part on citizen complaints, I expect, is that the city plasters a big red warning on the vehicle’s windshield, giving the owner a limited time, a week or so, to get it moved…if not, it’s tow time.
I don’t think that street parking that people don’t have to directly pay for, is necessarily a bad thing. On a case by case basis, sometimes measures need to be taken to counter abuse…like on streets in the neighborhood around the Timber’s soccer stadium, for example. Downtown needs paid parking of course, and parts of town where there lots of shopping, dining and employment tend to need it.
Generally quiet neighborhoods some distance, say a half mile or so from major destinations, maybe shouldn’t need it. Residents and their friends and guests ought to be able to park on the street out front of their house, without the hassle of plugging the meter, or having permits. The city constantly looking to use street parking as a gold mine, gets to be excessive.
Free is just the wrong price for parking — anywhere in the city IMO. Because if the user doesn’t pay, everyone else pays in some fashion: all the externalities associated with car use — congestion, noise, pollution, crashes, etc. Paying doesn’t need to be a hassle either — residential parking, for instance, can be paid as an annual fee for permit.
Parking, especially on the residential level, is not one of the major externalities of auto reliance. I’d prefer to structure increased fees to encourage vehicles to remain parked rather than used.
Car owners already pay to park our cars via taxes. Car owners pay for the streets that YOU use via taxes. There is no free parking in the USA. There is no free anything. Someone pays. Follow the money.
Cute, but not correct.
“Car owners already pay to park our cars via taxes.”
what taxes are you thinking of – property taxes? Well except that those without cars also pay those, so it isn’t nearly as direct as you suggest, and the costs that private motor vehicles exact on society are in this case not borne by the owners/drivers of said vehicles but by all of us who pay property taxes. Or did you have some other tax in mind?
“Car owners pay for the streets that YOU use via taxes.”
Hahaha. That is a good one. Not even close. The only TAXES I know of that car owners pay are gas taxes, and we all know that these don’t even come close to covering the car-related direct costs (and we won’t even talk about the myriad indirect costs). I recommend VTPI’s Whose Roads? It should clear up the misconceptions that are piling up here. http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
“There is no free parking in the USA.”
Well perhaps you will appreciate—your misunderstandings above notwithstanding—that the (auto) parking situation here in the USA is not (typically) priced, so it is essentially free. The fact that Someone has paid, is paying, will continue to pay to provide the free-parking-to-the-guy-in-the-car doesn’t mean that someone is the same guy. He may have paid some amount toward the parking through the taxes and fees, but that is not the same thing as parity, full cost accounting, internalization of costs.
“There is no free anything. Someone pays. Follow the money.”
You are right about that, but only if you scale it up to the society. Individuals enjoy lots of free stuff, that others paid for.
Thanks, 9watts. Most drivers (and I am one, occasionally) don’t realize just how heavily subsidized driving is.
If we banned on street parking in, say, Richmond, what costs would we really save? I am not at all convinced that existing on street parking costs anything… If anything it slows traffic speeds and serves a positive function.
9 you are incorrect.
Yes, car owners already pay for on-street parking. 99% of all home owners are car owners. So you have not heard of license fees, smog test fees, parts recycling fees? All taxes that car owners pay.
On this statement: “You are right about that, but only if you scale it up to the society.” That’s reality. There are no “freebies”. Someone pays or else it doesn’t exist.
Notwithstanding your confusion, I would agree to pay for parking, say $5/month for a 10% reduction in property taxes. Bring it on.
Funny. Your statements here are chock full of misconceptions.
“99% of all home owners are car owners”
Have you looked at the census? I have.
Here where I live (inner SE) the number is 94%. In other parts the number is considerably lower. And why are we excluding renters?
What constitutes home owners? I know a married couple that are home owners and they own three vehicles.
94% are car owners of how many cars?
“94% are car owners of how many cars?”
I have no idea.
The question we were discussing wasn’t the total number of cars but the statistical relationship between the set of car owners and the total human population. My Ideologue was suggesting they were the same and I am adamant that the two are not the same; that a strategy, investment, priority that favors those in cars is no ipso facto of benefit to everyone, and may in fact represent a measurable disbenefit.
Mr. Idealogue, not My Idealogue. Sorry about that.
Right, a 1:1 ratio would be the worst!
We really seem to be talking past each other. I wasn’t/am not advocating for or criticizing a particular ratio; I was objecting to asserting that the ratio was 99% when it is quite clearly not. If you were among the 6% of homeowners (in the census tracts I know well) who do not own a car, or knew of this subpopulation, wouldn’t you likely be inclined to register this fact, point out Mr. FME’s error?
I see what your saying. The distribution of benefits received by car owners aren’t evenly distributed among the entire population even if the ratio is 1:1.
That may be true but is not what I was saying.
I am interested in the fact that the ratio is pointedly not 1:1, and all that follows from that, including the possibility (very real in my view) that the ratio is headed in the other direction; that a growing share of people are jettisoning the car whether because they don’t like it or are seeing the writing on the wall, recognize that the days of the auto are numbered. 2000 census -> 2010 census showed an increase (small but measurable) away from car ownership, again in the census tracts I track.
I’d have to do research, but my gut feeling is this isn’t true. Millennials love their cars just as much of the baby boomers, its just they can’t afford them as easily. The trend I notice here in Portland — young people move here with low experience and thus work low wage jobs. They bike all over, but as their income goes up, they eventually purchase a vehicle. I include myself in this category. My household has a 1:1 ratio. I want to get it down to .5:l, but we’ll always keep a car. Not to drive around the city but to get out to the mountains. That’s how most of my weekend warrior friends feel as well. Portland is chalk full of this type of user group.
“my gut feeling is this isn’t true.”
here’s where I would start: http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/millennials-motion
I’m reliably 5 years ahead of the mainstream. So expect cargo bikes on network soaps as normality in 2-3 years. And the same timeframe for when the drive-car-only-to-take-the-dog-to-the-mountains crew realizes they are wasting money and time, and could rent a fancy clean car for every weekend getaway and still save money. Rarely go to the gas station, never do maintenance, etc.
I live that life with two kids, and I consider it a luxury not to deal with the downsides of car ownership. Wait a handful of years and the people who own cars full time will look like the people who aren’t using smart phones today…
I’m surprised you’re still hanging out here with us throwbacks.
You might be ahead of me. I’ve been able to set my clock by this five years thing for a while though.
No, see, just in the last five minutes you added an initial to your name. Always ahead…;-)
I crunched the numbers on renting for the weekends, it’s just too expensive in comparison to owning an older car. To go out of town every weekend and have to rent, you’re going to spend 300-500 dollars plus gas. I spend nowhere near that. Plus, you can’t put racks and such on rentals.
“To go out of town every weekend…”
Fortunately not everyone feels entitled to this sort of schedule. Sounds exhausting to me.
We all have different priorities. I drove to Utah last weekend, that trip would have cost us hundred of dollars to rent. And we do it ever year so…
“I drove to Utah last weekend”
My point here is that if you start from the point of having a car, relying on it automatically, reflexively, and can afford all the gas you need, then it is no great surprise that you might find yourself in Utah… But what we need to start coming to grips with is the looming end to this kind of fossil fuel binge. We need to realize that this is nuts, must come to an end.
I suppose we could have ridden our bikes but it would have been a 20 day round trip. Could have flown, and then rented a car but the greenhouse gass emissions would have been off the charts.
I suppose you don’t travel any where outside of 50 mile radius from your home?
Matt S. That’s fine if you want to have a cheap car that you drive out of town every weekend. Eventually the externalized costs of that convenience will, hopefully, be paid by you as well. Parking is one of those costs and someday you might be paying 50/month for the convenience. That still might be economical for you to keep your car and drive every weekend, and that’s fine, good on you. But for a lot of people, most of them in fact, the cost is going to tip pretty quickly to a place where it’s more economical to rent a car for longer trips.
That’s good for everyone. We waste less space on car storage, we can build more housing, we make progress on climate change, and you have a easier time parking and less traffic. Win-win-win-win!
It’s funny that people tell me ALL the time “not everyone can ride a bike” or “all cars aren’t going away” and then they resort to arguments that assume that literally everyone in Portland needs a car to go skiing EVERY weekend.
“I suppose you don’t travel any where outside of 50 mile radius from your home?”
Of course I do. In fact my commute this morning was >60 miles. I take the bus or train if it is too far to bike. The Wave to the Coast. Amtrak to California. Once you jettison the car you discover two things – the alternatives, how to make them work, and that you don’t actually need to go to Utah every weekend.
“All” is too encompassing. We don’t go out every weekend, but our activity definitely ticks up during the nicer weather. And more often than not, we car pool with friends. Have you been to the mountain during a good snow weekend, it’s crazy up there! Or hiked dog mountain when the weather is nice! There are plenty of people who work m-f and bike commute and then take their cars out on the weekend. This is what I do. I looked up the price of a car to rent and it’s not too expensive, about 80 bucks for a three day weekend. But if you did that twice a month during the summer months, you’re still looking at close to 200 dollars. So I don’t know if that’s expensive or not. It’s more than what I pay on my car since it’s paid for. I’m not sure what it would be to do Zipcar.
“Have you been to the mountain during a good snow weekend, it’s crazy up there! Or hiked dog mountain when the weather is nice!”
Are you kidding? I’d much rather sit on my back porch and enjoy the nice weather from there.
My first six years in Portland was car free, I know how to travel long distances with a bike. I’ve done Amtrak, the bus, I’ve toured for vacations instead of driving. We don’t go to Utah every weekend, just once a year to visit family. We do travel a lot to the Gorge, Bend, Mt. Hood, Coast. We could do the train or bus, but when you factor two tickets and restricted times, it’s just too inconvenient. Plus, you can’t fit a tandem bike on a bus.
You can if it’s a Bike Friday!
Matt S. we’re getting somewhere now.
It doesn’t matter if you, or any other particular individual, gives up your car.
It does matter if on a city-wide scale, many people give up their cars.
The policy I am promoting is to pass the social and environmental costs of driving out of town for the weekend directly onto the people who are choosing that convenience. This is done best with higher registration costs, gas taxes, parking fees, and tolls.
Quickly the cost of owning an old car to drive on the weekend will come more into balance with renting a car to drive on the weekend. Even better, demand for public transportation options will increase, so bus service to places like Dog Mountain, or Mt. Hood, or the coast, will become more reliable and cheaper.
Your personal situation is your own, keep your car, but hopefully you won’t object too much to paying the true cost of ownership.
I imagine if fees increase on personal vehicles that there will be a proportional increase on rentals as well. I can absolutely live without a car, my partner cannot. She needs one for work, in fact she gets a monthly stipend. I plan on getting rid of my car soon. I owned the car before I met her. I look forward to being a one car family. I understand the principles of externalized costs, and would gladly pay more when it gets to that point.
This has been a civilized and informative exchange. Car-free living is not very easy in Portland and the economic advantage is questionable, as Matt S. explained very well. My own family has been car-free in Portland since moving here a year ago. Previously, we lived in Budapest, Hungary, and it was much easier there. The city transit service was awesome and long-distance options were plentiful and affordable. In winter, we could catch a high-speed train to Austria for ski trips. During summer weekends, there were train departures every 20-30 minutes to the nearest lake resorts. You could get anywhere you wanted in Hungary or surrounding countries by train, or, for very small destinations, by bus (coach). Living without a car was not our sacrifice for Mother Earth — it was a pleasure and it penciled out. I agree 100 percent that transport choices are mainly about economics — people aren’t going to give up their cars in big numbers out of altruistic reasons. The city needs to set policy to encourage them — through levies on car use, and investments in sustainable alternatives.
I park a quite drivable heap (1980’s “cute ute” that is no longer cute) on the street. It is driven every couple of weeks. The truck taking up the parking pad is driven far less often. I don’t pay for that piece of real estate any more or less than any other Portland resident but I somehow have more right to use it than they do?
Eventually I’ll have to buy an underpriced permit, sort of an institutionalized tragedy of the commons.
“Why is it that car-owners have access to a public resource – the street – in the form of free/low-cost parking, and non-car-owners don’t?”
Amen to that! We’ve also been car-free for 20 years, and not feeling much love from the city (or neighbors) for our trouble. Like you, I have little use for a “10 x 20 space to store my crap”. What would be useful is some improved transit service to make our car-lessness more manageable. Let the city charge market price for all its street parking and plow those revenues into sustainable transport alternatives. Car-free families need some carrots along with the sticks.
The solution is simple: Get a cheap crappy old cube van. Park it on the street and store your stuff in it. I know people who do this. They have looked at the price of a commercial storage unit and realized a van is far cheaper.
There’ve been umpteen car break-ins (and thefts) in our neighborhood this week.
And no thief ever breaks into a garage or storage shed? There is a theft risk no matter how I store my stuff. But those who store it in a van get free storage space from the city.
Greg, how about lower property taxes for those who can prove they don’t use or park a car on their street — an incentive of enough value — just a thought.
AND, anyone is free to park their non-car vehicle on the street: motorcycle, bicycle, etc. Would I recommend it? No, but it’s allowed.
It is equitable because it is a public good. You don’t have to use it, but you can – just like everyone else.
Hit “Post” too quickly.
Can you not park your bike for free? How is that not storing your private property in the public space?
Store your crap like in a little storage shed, a pile of wood chips/soil, or a boat or camper parked near your house? I say go for it! Everyone else does.
What about Metro’s plans for the giant new parking structure by the Oregon Convention Center?
I like parking on the street in front of my home. It is the best spot for loading mountain bikes. For the yearly sting of a ridiculous property tax it is a very mild, but
beneficial salve as well.
I love having a driveway and a garage! Always have a place to park 🙂
Since we have no car, we use our driveway for tableaus!
😉
What about discouraging the parking as a help to discourage car use to save the planet?
Making residential parking more expensive might deter a few people from owning cars, but wouldn’t deter those that do own them from using them. A carbon tax would be the best way to protect our atmosphere.
What if there was a policy in place where if you could prove that you didn’t own a car, you then could purchase a subsided Trimet pass?
Or it could be like in Salt Lake, UT. We paid eight bucks an hour for parking in the downtown area. The three hours really added up. Not sure if the price caps out.
The cheap pass for no car is a great idea. I can think of some complexities in administering it, but it seems worth pursuing.
Yes. I agree w/ Greg. More carrot! Sheesh!
I understand the no parking argument. But it seems like there needs to be a way to assure that the savings will actually go to affordable housing. As it stands it can either go to the developer or the tenant (or some mix of that). If the market will allow it (by externalizing parking costs on the surrounding neighborhood or on the convenience to the tenant, for example), then it won’t result in cheaper housing. For housing right now, it’s a sellers market with the costs easily pushed to the buyer/tenant and then the neighborhood.
Maybe, some sort of strictly enforced neighborhood parking pass where current residents get a free pass but not new tenants. Maybe, if you didn’t want your space, you could auction it off to the highest bidder.
Unaffordable housing, unaffordable health insurance – the common denominator is over regulation by government.
In the case of healthcare, how do you distinguish over regulation from under regulation from regulating the wrong things?
HK,
Because the nation is divided on what insurance should look like I’d recommend:
> Keep Obama-care as-is for those who want it, except no individual mandate.
> Allow insurers to offer any free-market plans (from bare bones to Cadillac) they want including catastrophic plans for people of any age. No part of the premiums for these policies can be used to subsidize any other policy. Buy across state lines, medical providers required to post costs of procedures on the internet, and give total cost estimate before service is provided.
> Set rules for what happens to people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it and end up with catastrophic medical costs. Ditto for poor people with no insurance. In no case shall the premiums for the free market policies be affected by these rules.
For example:
Here’s the plan I want for myself in order to get the costs to dirt cheap level:
Buy it like life insurance – premium is determined by deductible, max annual payout, and percentage of charges covered after deductible – all those adjustable. Sign up only once, at any time, but plan does not pay for pre-existing for 90 days from signup. Automatically renews annually if you want to keep it. Only covers medically necessary care after I meet the deductible. Does not pay for physicals, routine office visits, mental health care, addiction treatment, tattoo removal, parts enlargement, gender change, etc – only stuff that is medically necessary due to illness, disease, accident, trauma, etc. I’d also prefer that it include a living will where you state what happens if the costs exceed a set amount that I choose – although I’ve never heard of that in any policy.
Whatcha think?
Mandates keep young people in the system, without it, people don’t sign up. I’m living proof of that. New job starts in a few weeks. Also. If we have to pay for routine check ups, etc. don’t you think people will go without ins and just pay the office visit? It’s crazy, the only time I’m medically covered is when I’m in my car. 50 bucks a month.
Mandates drive the premiums up. If you are forced to buy something, the seller can set the price at any level. That’s exactly what the ACA has done.
And you think removing this, all of a sudden ins companies are going to lower costs. I doubt it. High risk pools with high deductibles.
When I was 33 in the early 1990s I had a plan thru Blue Cross Blue Shield of Washington and Alaska. It was a catastrophic coverage only plan. Cost me $20 per month for a non-smoker; smokers paid more. I could enroll in a plan any day of the year and never had to sign up again – it automatically renewed annually. It did not cover pre-existing conditions for 90 days – I thought that was fair enough. That’s how it was before Ocare!
What does an Ocare plan for a person age 33 cost today? First, you can’t buy one unless you had a “qualifying event” because enrollment has closed! Second, you can’t buy one at all because Ocare doesn’t allow catastrophic plans for anyone over, I believe age 30! So, what is the cheapest Ocare plan for a 33 year old if you did just have a qualifying event? Anyone know? I can’t even check it without giving a bunch of personal data in an online form!
My friend purchased her health care on the exchange market, she’s 33. Cost her $120 after subsidy. Super high deductible, effeciively catastrophic insurance.
Tough to compare your numbers from 25 years ago. Everything was cheaper back then.
The nation is not as divided as you think; nonetheless, I repeat my question: how do you know that Obamacare over regulated the insurance market, and that removing that regulation will improve it? We already tried that, and it didn’t work very well. What has changed?
Under my plan everyone gets what they want.
Insurance was much cheaper before Ocare. Ocare mandates drove costs thru the roof to the point where some markets have few if any insurers willing to offer plans. It was designed to fail as indicated by Mr. Gruber – one of the main architects of Ocare.
My plan allows Ocare to stay as-is. Some will choose to use it. Mostly it will be used by those with pre-existing expensive conditions and by low income folks who want subsidies. Yes, it will be a welfare program – that’s OK with me as long as I don’t have to participate in it other than paying income taxes.
I don’t want subsidies. I want a plan, for me, at age 59, with a $100/month or less premium. It may have a $5K or $10K deductible and have a max annual payout of $50K after deductible. That is far preferable than a $500 premium for an Ocare policy which has unlimited payout, covers all sorts of things that are not medical care, etc.
Under your plan, costs are borne by the sick if they’re not shared across all of society, the way insurance programs are supposed to work. But I’m not going to debate you.
The argument about insurance is following a predictable path, and there is only one endpoint, which is universal coverage. It’s coming, and the Republicans are playing their role in making it happen.
My plan keeps Ocare as-is except for no individual mandate. Should also get rid of the employer mandate – it’s costing a lot of people a full time job. Ocare is a welfare program for many who are on it. I have no problem with that if that’s what they want. I don’t want welfare. I want a dirt cheap plan that is nothing other than financial ruin insurance. Should cost me in the ballpark of $100/month – at age 60.
I never had access to health care before Obamacare
My plan keeps Ocare for those who want it. You may be one of them. I have no problem with that. I had health care my entire adult life UNTIL Ocare came along – now I have none. Can’t afford a plan without subsidies which are welfare and I don’t want welfare.
Ocare cost millions of people a full-time job due to the employer mandate. Now those folks either have no job or have one or more full-time jobs. If I could afford an Ocare policy it would cover maternity care, part enlargement, tattoo removal, gender change, weight loss treatment, mental health, addiction treatment, etc, etc, etc. Those are regulations in Ocare – I will never need those things – that’s why the policies are too expensive – due directly to mandates by Ocare.
That’s all fine – let those who want Ocare have it. Pay for it out of general taxes. Let the rest of us buy a dirt cheap free market plan with no mandates the way we could before Ocare.
The R plan is welfare for insurers via tax credits – same as Ocare is via subsidies.
Today people who get insurance through employers get tax credits because they pay for premiums with before tax dollars. The R plan gives tax credits for those who don’t get insurance from their employer. It is welfare but I think it’s better than Ocare, except they also have mandates so it will, as you say probably be another failure. The government cannot help us on health care – same as they can’t help with much else – the government is the problem, not the solution.
I meant to say: Now those folks either have no job or have one or more PART-time jobs.
Is Obamacare why the unemployment rate is so high?
Mental health care isn’t necessary? Are you serious? Obviously you’ve never experienced any serious mental illness, nor has anyone in your life.
If you might need it, pay for it. That will add a little to your premium. It usually isn’t expensive like surgery, etc. Should not cost you a lot. I’m old enough to know I won’t need it, and if I do, I’ll have to pay the hourly fee.
Everyone might need it.
Someone very close to me thought he was old enough to know he wouldn’t need it, then in his 40s he was hit with a serious suicidal depression requiring weeks of inpatient care. That’s a potential financial catastrophe for almost any family. Medical insurance that doesn’t cover things like that doesn’t meet the fundamental purpose of insurance, which is to spread the cost of catastrophic losses in a particular category across lots of people, so everyone pays a little instead of a few people a lot.
Also, much health insurance is bought through employers, which greatly limits the choices employees have. Health insurance was not a well-operating free market before the ACA, and still isn’t, but I think the ACA, though imperfect, is a clear improvement in the regulatory regime.
What odd logic. If someone tells you an outcome is highly probable, you automatically assume that outcome must be in his financial self-interest?
(My employment or income does not depend on interest rates. I’m not in the lending business.)
I’m not an economics expert but common sense tells me that until there is affordable housing for those living near or below the poverty line the homeless problem is going to continue to escalate.
They will have trouble affording anything, depending on how little income they have. They could move to a lower cost area and that might help their housing problem if they can make about the same income in the new location.