Metro regional government is posing a legitimate question for local leaders and tri-county voters to consider: Should a portion of the homeless services tax dollars that counties spend on rent assistance, temporary shelter and other programs go to affordable housing construction as well?
Certainly, the connection makes sense, considering that homelessness stems from a lack of housing. The need is also clear: Funding from Metro’s 2018 affordable housing bond is nearly exhausted, and developers are highly unlikely to build such low-income housing without a subsidy. And the money appears to be there: The Supportive Housing Services tax, created by a 2020 ballot measure, has generated far more than the $250 million a year that the three Portland-area counties were expected to receive. For the fiscal year ending June 30, the tax is projected to bring in $357 million in revenue and will continue to generate $75 million to $95 million more than expected in future years.
People are also reading…
The problem, however, is that what should be a simple question is evolving into a more complicated turf war among governmental agencies.
Metro officials have convened a stakeholder group to explore a possible ballot measure to redirect some of the homeless services dollars from counties to Metro for financing affordable housing construction. In its favor, Metro points to its management of the 2018 bond, which delivered more units than the measure promised to build. But the proposal comes across as self-serving – with the housing bond tapering down, that program’s administrative costs are poised to soon require Metro general fund dollars – as well as reflective of Metro’s continuing mission creep.
In response, Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas County leaders are laying claim to all the homeless services dollars – even as their spending has fallen far short of what they’ve been allocated, as The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Shane Dixon Kavanaugh reported. In a joint letter, the three county chairs disputed the “myth” of such excess money, saying that dollars have still been committed to critical programs even if they have not yet been spent. But slow progress, particularly in Multnomah County, and the mismatch between available funding and results on the ground undermine faith in their management as well.
There may well be an appropriate, narrow measure to put on the November ballot. But before doing so, the stakeholder group should explore some key issues.
Confirm the limits of the homeless services measure: At last week’s stakeholder meeting, one attendee questioned Metro’s assertion that money from the homeless services tax cannot currently be used for affordable housing construction. A public legal opinion would help answer this question and potentially avoid having to go to the ballot.
Consider which entity is best for funding affordable housing construction: As the agency responsible for administering the 2018 affordable housing bond, Metro added housing staff, established relationships with housing partners and succeeded in delivering units geographically spread across the tri-county region. But counties are also equipped to handle such work. They are already pouring homeless services money into day centers, temporary shelters and other capital projects. They also have access to housing bureaus and entities that specialize in affordable housing development and management. If the need is for more units and to more closely coordinate services with available housing, the stakeholder group should consider whether it makes sense to add this tool to counties’ portfolio rather than vest responsibility with Metro.
Don’t rush to change the 2030 expiration date: The homeless services tax, assessed on higher-income tri-county residents and businesses with at least $5 million in sales, is set to expire in 2030 if voters don’t approve a renewal. While Metro Chief Operating Officer Marissa Madrigal emphasized in a recent stakeholder group meeting the potential harm to homelessness efforts if the tax expires, the reality is there is plenty of time before that occurs—even if a renewal doesn’t come until the 2028 election cycle. The 2030 expiration date should not be the reason to put a half-baked measure on the November ballot.
Keep governmental baggage to a minimum: The problems Multnomah County has had in rolling out an effective strategy to address homelessness are well documented, from severely falling short in meeting housing goals to long delays in rolling out promised programs. While the county appears to be solidifying its strategy, residents’ frustration remains high. Metro, too, needs to improve some of its processes for administering the affordable housing bond and overseeing counties’ use of the homeless services tax, recent Metro audits noted. The affordable housing bond audit also called out the need for Metro to find a new source of funding to cover administration costs. Before proceeding with a ballot measure, the governmental agencies involved should ensure that their baggage or funding issues do not hurt voter support for renewing, extending or changing the ballot measure.
Keep talks going: Credit Metro for starting this necessary conversation. We need government at all levels to work collaboratively on how they can more efficiently use taxpayer dollars to address a multitude of needs. This is not just good governance, but an urgent need as the cost of living in the Portland metro area continues to climb.