Metro Area Candidates Diagnosed With Housing Herd Mentality

Imagine your doctors publicly diagnosing coughs, allergies, fevers, colds, flus and Covid-19 all as colds. Their singular remedy for what they have referred to as colds is drink lots of liquids, take two aspirin, get some rest and you will soon be better. Would you trust your health care to these people?

Despite the fact that they know the difference between Public Housing*1 and Affordable Housing*2 the Metro area candidates and elected officials persist in their denial that Public Housing*1 exists and conflate the mutually exclusive definitions of Public Housing*1 and Affordable Housing*2 into the politically convenient term Affordable Housing*2. (see Episode 1 Recap below) Their singular remedy for what they have referred to as the Affordable Housing problem is MORE. And not just MORE but MORE targeted, UNLIMITED Neighborhood Concentration of Public Housing which allows governments to force up to 100% Public Housing households into the neighborhoods of their choosing.

Just shouting “MORE” is NOT a defensible Public Housing policy. That’s the disturbing takeaway from the Metro Area candidates' reactionary, status quo Public Housing Policy choices.

All of the Metro Area Candidates*3 accept the same Public Housing status quo polices as those who are already in office. (See Episode Recaps 1-6 below) Why? The answer is, Herd Mentality, mob mentality and pack mentality, also lesser known as gang mentality, describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis.

Herd mentality, combined with self-inflicted ignorance, laziness, fear, NIMBISM and economic segregation define the mind set of ALL Metro area candidates and all elected officials within Metro’s political catchment. There is nothing progressive about these Metro area candidates and elected officials’ Public Housing Policy. Their positions are reactionary. The evidence is in the recaps below.

We need a different framework to discuss and decide matters of Public Housing policy in the public arena. First, we need to understand that government is in the Public Housing*1 business NOT the Affordable Housing*2 business. Second, we must demand that everyone involved in these matters use language correctly.*1,*2 Third, we need Public Housing maps and common sets of data. These tools will be available sometime shortly after the general election on November 3rd.

The most concerning political issue for Metro area citizens is the blight of homelessness. It is a visible and daily dramatic reminder of multiple governments’ failures. The homeless are at the lower end of the Public Housing qualified continuum i.e. households with <=80% of median family income. Pubic Housing policy must include the homeless as an integral part of the overall discussion and decision making not as a segregated population.

Vote AGAINST all measures that involve new property taxes. The result will be more homeless. The institutions asking for more of your property tax dollars are well meaning but myopic.They are solely focused on their own parochial interests. They do not see nor care about the big picture. Higher property taxes means more stress on low-income households, more evictions and more homeless.

For the first time since I voted in Portland in 1975 I will not vote for a Library bond. Despite the fact that I love the library and believe that it is the best bang for the public buck I can NOT in good conscience ignore the negative effects on our community.

Dear Reader/Voter: The inevitable upcoming dramatic revenue shortfall on our local and state governments will demand greater attention to cost effectiveness in our Public Housing policy decisions. Equitable distribution of Public Housing expenditures and locations among neighborhoods and counties must be the guiding principle.

Stay away from crowds especially indoors. Wear a mask. Practice social distancing. Stay safe. Keep others safe.

Richard Ellmyer

North Portland

Author of more stories on the politics, players and policies of Public Housing in Oregon over the last nineteen years than all other journalists and elected officials combined.

Author of The Ellmyer Report, a newsletter that informs, educates and influences on public policy. Occasionally distributed to more than a quarter of million readers in Oregon and beyond. Facebook, Portland Politics Plus . Opinion contributor to Patch.com news.

*1

PUBLIC HOUSING i.e. a class of housing defined as, Means Test (<=80%MFI) + Government Subsidy (any government any type) + rental agreement.

*2

AFFORDABLE HOUSING is a mathematical construct defined as, Rent/Mortgage + Insurance + Taxes + Utilities <=30% Household Income.

*3

Thomas Anderson, Metro 3

Gerritt Rosenthal, Metro 3

Mary Nolan, Metro 5

Chris Smith, Metro 5

Nafisa Fai, Washington 1

Jeffery Hindley, Washington 1

Ken Humberston, Clackamas 4

Mark Shull, Clackamas 4

Ted Wheeler, Portland Mayor

Sarah Iannarone, Portland Mayor

Chloe Eudaly, Portland 4

Mingus Mapps, Portland 4

Lasey Beaty, Beaverton Mayor

Denny Doyle, Beaverton Mayor

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show - Episodes 1 - 6 RECAP

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 6 RECAP

Do you support a graduated surtax on property within a neighborhood with 0 to 5% Public Housing households where those taxes would be dedicated to creating Public Housing in neighborhoods with less than 5% Public Housing households?

As expected, all of the above indicated their acceptance of the following position:

NO. I do NOT support a graduated surtax on property within a neighborhood with 0 to 5% Public Housing households where those taxes would be dedicated to establishing Public Housing in neighborhoods with less than 5% Public Housing households. I am not inclined to face the wrath of voters in those privileged neighborhoods.

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 5 RECAP

Do you support a rebate of all new property taxes to households that quality for Public Housing i.e. <=80% MFI?

As expected, all of the above indicated their acceptance of the following position:

NO. I do NOT support a rebate of all new property taxes to households that quality for Public Housing i.e. <=80% MFI. It is unfortunate but unavoidable that every time property taxes are increased some, if not many, of those renters and homeowners who are on fixed or low-income are forced to move or become homeless.

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 4 RECAP

Have you demonstrated your support for SAFMR by telling the Public Housing Authorities of Multnomah, Washington and/or Clackamas counties that you support SAFMR and you would like their opinion on how SAFMR would enhance Equitable Distribution of Public Housing?

As expected, all of the above indicated their acceptance of the following position:

NO. I do NOT support the SAFMR program NOR Equitable Distribution of Public Housing in Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties. My policy preference has been and continues to be the current status quo policy of Targeted, Unlimited Neighborhood Concentration of Public Housing which allows government to load the neighborhoods of its choosing with up to 100% Public Housing.

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 3 RECAP

Will you publicly acknowledge that Parity of Public Housing Households among Metro counties is the touchstone by which all related policy and spending decisions must be measured before the November general election on November 3, 2020?

As expected, all of the above indicated their acceptance of the following position:

NO. I do not accept the Metro voters' decision to recognize Public Housing as a regional issue so Metro has no obligation to articulate or defend any regional Public Housing policy involving location, funding or spending. I support the status quo disproportionate distribution of Public Housing households within Metro based on NIMBY and economic segregationist values.

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 2 RECAP

Are you taking immediate action to STOP and ABANDON the hard-walled homeless camp project on private property at 8005 N. Richmond Ave?

As expected, all of the above indicated their acceptance of the following position:

NO. I support the current status quo policy of Targeted, Unlimited Neighborhood Concentration of Public Housing which allows government to load the neighborhoods of its choosing with up to 100% Public Housing. I also support the current status quo policy of denying the establishment of goals which would aim public policy and funding toward of a minimum of 5% and a maximum of 15% Public Housing households per neighborhood in Portland and Multnomah county.

Metro Area Candidates Public Housing Reality Show Episode 1 RECAP

When you speak or write about households whose current access to housing involved meeting the following criteria i.e. Means Test (<=80%MFI) + Government Subsidy (any government any type) + Rental Agreement, what words do you use?

I haven’t given it much thought. The easiest position for me to take is to support the status quo which conflates the mutually exclusive definitions of PUBLIC HOUSING with AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Since everyone supports the idea of Affordable Housing but there is considerable controversy over Public Housing it’s politically convenient to avoid defending the facts and obfuscate the truth.