Japon yolcunun ne yaptığını ve neden yaptığını anlayan sikiş tecrübeli sikici taksici japon kızın yanına gelir ve onu sikerek porno japonyaya ışınlar tam 10 saatlik bir yolculuk sonrasında dinlenmek için hd porno yatağa geçerek iç çamaşırıyla uykuya geçen üvey annesinin yanında kıvrılan genç sikiş dantelli ve çekici iç çamaşırı olan kalçalara sahip üvey annesinin götüne porno kaldırdığı sikini sürtmeye başar genç adam kendisini dershane zamanlarından sikiş beri tanıyan ve ablalık yan iki seksi kadınla birlikte zamanını değerlendirmektedir hd porno onlara her misafirliğe geldiğinde utancından pek hareket edemeyerek çekingen tavırlar sergiler

Opinion: To solve affordable housing problem increase supply

Ultimately addressing housing affordability will depend on a market-based solution.

In early 2016 Portland experienced some of the highest levels of rent inflation of any market in the U.S.  According to real estate analytics firm Zillow, average rents in Portland increased almost 15% between the second quarter of 2015 and the second quarter of 2016.

The rapid escalation in rents is a real crisis for many households, and has fueled widespread calls for actions to limit rents, prohibit no-cause evictions and require developers to build subsidized housing.

The City of Portland has taken some important steps to address the affordability problem, notably dedicating as much as 40% of the money from tax increment financing in its urban renewal zones to pay for affordable housing. And in November, Portland voters passed a $258 million bond measure that will help subsidize the construction and renovation of thousands more units of affordable housing.

But these measures will take time to address the problem. And more importantly, it’s never been the case that the public sector has been able to build enough low and moderate income housing to meet the demand.

Ultimately addressing housing affordability will depend on a market-based solution. As a result, understanding the market factors behind rising rents is key to solving this problem.

It's tempting to caricature rising rents as a kind of morality play, the result of a sudden up-tick in greed by landlords and developers. But the truth is the underlying problem has everything to do with supply and demand.

In short, what we’ve seen in Portland — and in cities across the country — is a sharply growing demand for urban living. More and more Americans, especially well-educated young adults, are moving to diverse, interesting walkable urban neighborhoods, and pushing up the demand for housing in these locations.

And a key problem is that there’s what economists call a “temporal mismatch” between this demand and housing supply. While demand can change rapidly, it takes time—typically years—to design, permit, build and lease new apartments. Until supply catches up, more demand produces higher rents.

The good news is that supply is responding to demand. There’s been a dramatic increase in housing construction in Portland, especially in the close-in urban neighborhoods that have become so popular. After hitting a low of less than 1,000 units permitted in 2010, the city issued permits for 4,500 units last year, more than 80 percent of them multi-family structures.

Already, the growth of inventory is having an effect on rental increases. Again, according to Zillow, rental price inflation in Portland fell to 3 percent year over year in November of 2016.

And more relief is likely on the way. Developers have filed building permits to construct nearly 25,000 more apartments in the Portland area, according to the local Barry Apartment Report that tracks these data. As these units are built, they’ll alleviate the shortages that have driven up rents. The same scenario has played out in other real estate markets where the economic cycle is running ahead of Portland. There's a growing body of evidence that as more housing gets built, rent inflation moderates, and rents even decline.

Nationally, Axiometrics sees a slow down in rental growth, with actual declines in some markets. In Houston, New York and the San Francisco Bay, growing inventories have produced "negative rent growth." Last month the Chicago Tribune reported that while rents were up about 2.3% citywide, they were down about 0.3% inside "The Loop."  

The New York Times even floated the notion that 2017 will be "The Year of the Renter" as growing supply takes the edge of rent increases in New York.

Whether this market-driven solution will actually play out, however, depends critically on public policy. Unfortunately, the City of Portland in December enacted a new inclusionary housing requirement that forces developers to set aside 10% to 20% of newly constructed apartments for low and moderate income families.

Forcing developers to include discounted apartments in new buildings will drive up their costs, and will make some new projects financially infeasible. Investors will likely take their funds to other markets with better returns. Once the big backlog of permits filed to beat the deadline for the new requirement is exhausted, the supply of new rental housing in Portland is likely to slow to a trickle, with predictable effects on rents.

Now moves are afoot in the Oregon Legislature to repeal the state’s ban on rent control. While it is a politically appealing tactic, rent control treats the symptom and does nothing to address the underlying problem. The historical evidence shows that rent control inevitably shrinks the supply of rental housing, and tends to lock households into rent-controlled units. It's the reason that nearly all economists oppose rent control policies.

Rising rents are a real problem. But solving this problem requires realizing that rents are rising not because of some epidemic of greed, but because more people want to live here than we have space for. Unless we increase housing supply, especially by building more apartments in urban neighborhoods where people want to live, the rental problem won’t go away, it will only metastasize.

Joe Cortright is an economist and principal of Impresa Consulting.

1 comment

  • BB
    BB Tuesday, 28 February 2017 07:37 Comment Link

    I completely disagree. Developers and "the market" will never lower rents (or come close to lowering rents) to what is considered affordable housing rental rates. I have been a renter for 25+ years and through all the recessions, my rent was never lowered, increased yes, but never lowered. Current rents may have plateaued, albeit 15% higher than market, but have modestly dropped 3%, which is still 12% higher than two years ago. True affordable housing is for those making at or below 60% of MFI (today's 80% MFI is what market rents were less than two years ago). Using 50% to 60% MFI HUD MFI rents for the Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro MSA this would equate to rents for a studio $642 to $771, one bedroom of $688 to $825 and two bedroom of $825 to $990. Please let it be known that developers never lower rents but only offer concessions. Added fees remain or even increase such as pet rent, abbreviated lease terms, parking, storage, utilities, and the list goes on. So please reconsider what you have written as the increased supply will only assist those high income earners with the ability to move around and get the best concession deal. This is no deal for affordable housing advocates as concessions will never equate or decrease to HUD MFI rent levels. Also, developers will not stop building. They will find creative ways and locations and loopholes to continue building units. Oregon is unique. The Portland MSA's urban growth boundary is more to blame (the cause) with rising rents and land values. The inclusionary housing requirement will help alleviate the burden of the UGB and allow for affordable units to be constructed in the desirable close-in neighborhoods rather than creating discriminatory geographic housing practices of forcing low income earners to live outside of the city and commute. Mixed-use and mixed-income buildings are the path forward. Developers, public entities and financial institutions need to forge a partnership with this new reality.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.