15:05:55 let you know we will be recording this
15:05:59 meeting, so we're ready whenever you are.
Thank you so
15:06:02 much.
>> Recording in progress.
>> Indeed, today is
15:06:05 Tuesday, October 17th.
15:06:08
We have officially
15:06:11 transitioned into fall, with the sunshine, I
15:06:14 hope you are experiencing some
15:06:18 greatness from seeing the sun
15:06:24 .
Today, we will work through the
15:06:28 agenda.
It is my job to move us from A
15:06:31 to B to make sure
15:06:34 you all are heard and I would love to make
15:06:38 sure that all of you feel like you are included
15:06:43 in the conversation, so please, feel free
15:06:46 to raise your hand
15:06:49 virtually, in the room as well as online to make sure that all
15:06:52 of your voices are heard.
I know you also
15:06:56 generally go through a principle of agreement, but I'd
15:06:59 like to set a foundation when I'm helping to
15:07:02 facilitate a conversation.
I want to make sure
15:07:05 that we are all on the issues and not the
15:07:09 people that we are addressing and collaborating
15:07:13 on the issues moving this
15:07:17 agenda forward, this is the
15:07:20 Fair Housing Advocacy Committee meeting.
Thank you for joining us this
15:07:24 afternoon.
I'm going to turn it over to
15:07:29 Niki to do the roll call.
>> NIKI: Thank you for
15:07:33 joining us.
I will go through a roll call, if you are
15:07:36 joining us online,
15:07:39 unmute and indicate that you are here, if you could turn on
15:07:44 your camera, that would be wonderful as well, and your first
15:07:47 name, please confirm
15:07:50 you are here for the record.
Ashley Miller.
>> Here.
15:07:53 >> Hi, Ashley.
Thank
15:07:57 you.
Fanny
15:08:01 Adams.
Don't think
15:08:04 I've seen fanny.
15:08:09
Rachel Nehse.
>> RACHEL: Present.
15:08:12
>> Hi, thank you.
15:08:21
Jae Rutherford.
Jesse Neilson.
15:08:24
>> JESSE: Present.
>> NIKI:
15:08:28 Thank you.
>> Caroline Jackson.
15:08:31
>> CAROLINE: Present.
15:08:36
>> NIKI: Thank you.
>> Irina Alonso said she would not be
15:08:39 here and I don't see her
15:08:42 joining us virtually.
15:08:46
Mara Romero.
>> MARA: Here, and just getting my
15:08:49 camera set up.
>> NIKI: No worries.
15:08:53
Thank you,
15:08:56 Mara.
Olia Gorelkina.
15:09:02
Stephanie Grayce.
>> STEPHANIE: It's
15:09:05 "grace," and I am here.
>> NIKI:
15:09:08 Sorry about that.
Thank you.
15:09:12
Holly Stephens.
15:09:18
Christina Dirks.
>> CHRISTINA: Good afternoon,
15:09:21 everyone, I'm here.
Hello.
15:09:26
>> NIKI: Thanks,
15:09:31 Christina.
>> And
15:09:34 Dung Ho.
>> DUNG:
15:09:37 Present.
>>
15:09:40 We are exactly a
15:09:43 quorum, for the record.
15:09:48
Excuse me one moment.
15:09:57
To upload the staff
15:10:01 presentation.
15:10:04
#
15:10:08
>> Thank
15:10:12 you.
A few quick items to share with you all today
15:10:15 since our last meeting in
15:10:18 July.
The bureau
15:10:22 updates, there was --
15:10:25
bureau director is still open and will remain
15:10:28 open until the position is filled.
Since our
15:10:31 last meeting, interim
15:10:35 director Molly Rogers has resigned from the bureau,
15:10:38 and joining us today is our
15:10:41 new interim
15:10:45 director, Michael
15:10:50 Buoncore.
>> MICHAEL:
15:10:54 I'm Michael [away from mic] and the
15:10:58 citizens, they were --
15:11:02
>> NIKI: Beautiful.
Thanks, Michael.
15:11:06
I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Michael, for joining us
15:11:09 today.
We will continue to update you as well as the
15:11:12 advisory body for all the
15:11:16 recruitment process for the new director.
We hope
15:11:20 to have that filled soon.
Next
15:11:23 update is the update around
15:11:26 affirmatively furthering fair housing proposed
15:11:29 rule.
As you recall, the proposed rules were
15:11:34 published back in February.
We did talk about that here
15:11:37 in this body.
We had
15:11:40 a public comment that ended on
15:11:44 August 24th and did submit public
15:11:47 comments in many aspects of the
15:11:51 proposed fair housing rules.
15:11:54
They have not published anything that is finalized
15:11:57 and we will be reviewing those requirements and update you
15:12:00 all on next steps, which will
15:12:03 likely affect our current fair housing
15:12:07 plan projects and analyses that we've been looking at.
Stay tuned
15:12:10 on that front.
I will probably send you an email
15:12:13 too if it happens before
15:12:16 2024.
And finally, a few
15:12:20 general updates about this body, generally, we
15:12:23 filled the vacancy for
15:12:26 committee chair.
Please email me
15:12:29 if you are interested.
Chair selection is made
15:12:32 by the bureau director, we ask for
15:12:36 a brief paragraph of
15:12:39 interest to facilitate meetings as well as agenda
15:12:43 items.
If you are interested in taking on that position for us,
15:12:47 please let me know.
And finally,
15:12:50 unfortunately, I have to present that
15:12:58 [indiscernible], good news for him, sad news for us, and
15:13:01 I know I personally and many
15:13:04 colleagues have enjoyed working with Allan over the years.
He has
15:13:08 retired, he has also resigned from
15:13:12 FHAC and is no longer with us, not
15:13:15 attending today and not called out on roll call,
15:13:18 so we do have a vacancy on the
15:13:21 committee, but we want to thank
15:13:24 Allan.
He has been on various fair housing bodies
15:13:28 for the city for a number of years
15:13:31 and providing a lot of technical assistance in fair housing planning for a very
15:13:34 long time.
I wouldn't venture to guess what
15:13:38 year that started but Allan has been
15:13:41 in the fair housing community and we wish him a wonderful
15:13:45 retirement.
And that is all I have for staff
15:13:49 updates.
>> ERICKA: Thank you, Niki.
Any
15:13:52 questions in relation to staff updates before we move
15:13:56 forward in our agenda?
15:14:04
Congratulations.
Seeing none,
15:14:07 we will move forward and we are on time.
At this time
15:14:11 we are going to have a presentation, an
15:14:17 FHCO audit report.
>> MATT:
15:14:20 Good afternoon, everybody.
Can
15:14:23 you hear me all right?
In the
15:14:26 room?
>> Yes.
So my name is Matt Serres, I'm the
15:14:29 legal director here at the Fair Housing Council of
15:14:33 Oregon.
I had the privilege of visiting with you back in the
15:14:36 summer for our last report on testing, but I'm happy to be here
15:14:40 again to give you our final report
15:14:43 on how testing went for June 2023
15:14:47 through July 2024, and
15:14:50 I'm going to share my screen for some of the presentation,
15:14:53 but I may need -- I think I'm going to need access
15:14:57 because the attendees don't have screen
15:14:58 sharing abilities.
Is that something the host can give me?
15:14:59
15:15:20
I'm still having trouble connecting the
15:15:23 PowerPoint.
>> ERICKA:
15:15:26 Sorry, we thought the other
15:15:29 person was doing that.
15:15:40
>> MATT: Thank you for your kind words for Allan, I'll
15:15:44 share them with him.
He went to central Oregon
15:15:47 to do some fishing to get his retirement going.
Congratulations to
15:15:51 him, for sure.
All right.
15:15:54
Okay.
So I think somebody's got the
15:15:57 presentation running for me.
I
15:16:00 appreciate that.
15:16:04
So I'm going to run the slides on
15:16:07 my end as well.
15:16:12
Okay.
So just to get us going today,
15:16:16 we're going to go over some of the basics in terms of
15:16:19 the introductions to the
15:16:23 Fair Housing Council of Oregon, I'll give you some background on the organization.
15:16:26
I won't spend a lot of time on that.
I'll also do
15:16:29 a brief overview of fair housing
15:16:32 laws and protected classes as well as audit testing, which is what we're
15:16:36 talking about here today, and finally, we'll go over some of the
15:16:39 data from last year's audit test.
15:16:42
If you could go ahead and advance
15:16:45 the slides, please.
15:16:56
>> All right.
15:17:03
I'm having to move things around a little bit on my screen
15:17:06 just because I'm not the presenter here, so please
15:17:10 give me a moment.
15:17:18
All right.
So the first thing I'm going to talk
15:17:21 about a little bit is some of the different modes of advocacy that the
15:17:25 Fair Housing Council of Oregon engages in.
One is called a fair housing
15:17:28 Initiatives Program
15:17:32 , there are FHIPS in
15:17:35 Washington, California, and Idaho,
15:17:39 so we're not the only
15:17:43 FHIP in the northwest, but there are some at the Fair Housing Council
15:17:49 of Oregon.
We do information and referral
15:17:53 to other resources,
15:17:56 also, investigation and informal advocacy and this is where
15:17:59 we gather statements and other evidence to
15:18:02 determine whether suspected fair housing violation is an
15:18:06 actual or bona fide complaint.
And we
15:18:09 can help to develop additional evidence as well through
15:18:13 complaint-based testing, and we'll talk a little bit more about that when
15:18:16 I talk about audit testing.
We also share the
15:18:20 results of our investigation with providers as we
15:18:23 attempt to remedy those violations.
Another area of our
15:18:27 advocacy work is
15:18:33 systemic advocacy and policy work as well as
15:18:36 conduct investigations into systemic cases of fair housing
15:18:39 discrimination.
Our audit testing really
15:18:42 does help informal how we target that work
15:18:45 in terms of our systemic investigations.
So it is
15:18:49 an important piece, not only to informing the City of
15:18:52 Portland, but also informing
15:18:55 our own work.
15:19:00
In terms of systemic -- formal complaints and legal
15:19:03 action, we also do assist tenants in
15:19:07 filing formal fair housing complaints with both
15:19:10 the Oregon Bureau of Labor and
15:19:13 industries, if it's a state complaint we can go to
15:19:18 BOLI.
We can also bring claims to BOLI as
15:19:21 well, and we
15:19:24 have the option of
15:19:27 going to the HUD and legal remedies through
15:19:31 the courts as well,
15:19:34 also usually with
15:19:38 external attorneys and we do education and outreach and this is
15:19:43 a big part of our work where
15:19:46 we give education to tenants
15:19:50 alike and reach priorities populations
15:19:53 with fair housing violations.
For example, here in the City of Portland,
15:19:56 we have a cooperative with legal aid
15:19:59 services of Portland and the
15:20:02 Urban League for some of our
15:20:07 advocacy and services.
If you'd go ahead and advance
15:20:11 to the next slide.
And to the
15:20:16 next one, please.
So
15:20:19 I wanted to do a brief overview of
15:20:22 some of the major fair housing laws that come into play in
15:20:25 our advocacy work.
First we have what's called the
15:20:29 Civil Rights Act of 1866.
This is also referred to as
15:20:32
15:20:36 42-USC-1982.
This section states in
15:20:39 part that all citizens shall have the same rights to
15:20:42 convey, hold, lease, and
15:20:45 sell real and personal property.
And interestingly,
15:20:48 the Civil Rights Act of 1866
15:20:51 is often an
15:20:55 overlooked tool in fair housing advocacy.
One of the benefits of this
15:20:58 Civil Rights Act is there are not the
15:21:01 same exclusions or there are not
15:21:04 the same exceptions or exemptions that you would find in the
15:21:08 Fair Housing Act.
So some claims where landlords may
15:21:11 be exempt under the
15:21:15 Fair Housing Act they may find themselves actually liable under the
15:21:18 Fair Housing Act of 1866.
That's an interesting piece of
15:21:22 information that maybe not everyone knew about.
The
15:21:26 Fair Housing Act of 1968 helped set
15:21:29 forth the protections for race, national
15:21:32 origin, color, and religion, and
15:21:36 over time, additional protected classes were added
15:21:39 to that list, which we'll talk about in a minute.
15:21:42
At the state
15:21:48 level there are a number of Oregon Revised Statutes that come into
15:21:51 place,
15:21:57 ORS659A-145, which talks about people with
15:22:01 disabilities.
Subsection
15:22:04 421 talks about
15:22:11 discrimination based on race,
15:22:14 sexual discrimination, and other classes.
And I want
15:22:17 folks to be aware of this, Oregon state
15:22:20 law has a separate statute that states that we have
15:22:23 the right to pursue disparate
15:22:27 impact litigation or disparate impact
15:22:30 claims under state fair housing laws.
15:22:33
This would impact claims --
interesting tool and useful
15:22:37 tool when trying to target neutral
15:22:40 policies that have a
15:22:44 discriminatory effect on protected classes,
15:22:48 unintentional discrimination or policies that have an
15:22:51 unexpected but negative effect
15:22:54 on certain population groups.
And
15:22:58 lastly, ORS chapter 90, has a
15:23:01 subsection, 449, which talks about survivors of domestic
15:23:04 violence, sexual assault, or
15:23:07 stalking.
If you could advance to the next slide, please.
15:23:12
Just a couple of things on the --
15:23:15 a couple of general statements about fair housing, fair housing is the
15:23:18 right of all people to be free from illegal discrimination in the rental,
15:23:21 sale, or financing of housing.
And rental housing,
15:23:25 these laws cover the application process, tenancy,
15:23:28 and the move-out process.
Generally speaking, when
15:23:32 we're talking about audit testing or
15:23:35 complaint-based testing, we're usually talking about the
15:23:38 application process or the application
15:23:41 or rental stage of a
15:23:44 lease agreement.
That's because when
15:23:48 in testing what often occurs, the point of testing
15:23:51 where we may be sending in two
15:23:54 testers, one, let's say, for a basic example,
15:23:57 you know, one tester is a person who is white.
15:24:00
Another tester is a person who is Black, and
15:24:03 they both go to apply for
15:24:07 the same rental unit and if the -- depending on
15:24:11 the interactions with the Black applicant or the
15:24:14 white applicant, it may
15:24:17 reveal some discriminatory factors on the part of the
15:24:20 landlord.
If they don't show it to the Black applicant but they
15:24:23 do show it to the white applicant or if they
15:24:26 give all the documentation
15:24:30 necessary to complete the application to only
15:24:33 one, that could be signed that
15:24:36 discrimination is afoot.
Advance to the
15:24:40 next slide, please.
So when
15:24:43 we get right down to it, what fair housing is
15:24:46 all about, guarding against treating a
15:24:51 person differently in any housing
15:24:54 transaction because that person is a member of a protected
15:24:57 class.
If you could trance
15:25:01 -- advance to the next slide.
15:25:05
So looking at who must
15:25:08 comply with with the Fair Housing
15:25:12 Act, those who touch the market.
So
15:25:15 owners landlords, and housing
15:25:18 authorities, property managers, maintenance staff, homeowners
15:25:22 associations and real estate agents and also
15:25:25 can involve mortgage lenders or financial
15:25:28 institutions, insurers, jurisdictions, like the
15:25:32 City of Portland or other
15:25:35 localities themselves, advertising
15:25:38 media, and also neighbors.
That's also
15:25:41 an overlooked aspect of fair
15:25:45 housing, neighbor on neighbor discrimination
15:25:48 can fall under the
15:25:51 Fair Housing Act if it falls
15:25:55 under discrimination, historical
15:25:58 examples of house burning or
15:26:02 other vandalisms against persons of color to get them
15:26:05 out of neighborhoods, but that is also not
15:26:09 tolerated in the Fair Housing Act.
Next slide,
15:26:12 please.
In terms of the dwellings covered, there are
15:26:16 a number of different types of dwellings such as
15:26:19 housing, apartments, condos, mobile
15:26:22 homes, retirement homes,
15:26:26 assisted living, nonprofit housing
15:26:29 and shelters and long
15:26:32 term stay and shelters,
15:26:35 that's interesting, because there's often a test that
15:26:38 you have to perform at the shelters as to whether it's
15:26:42 more of an emergency shelter or more of a longer-term
15:26:45 stay shelter.
And it doesn't take a
15:26:49 long stay to get it a threat to the Fair Housing
15:26:52 Act.
If it's a one night in and one night
15:26:55 out shelter that provides a bed for one night, that would not be under
15:26:58 the Fair Housing Act.
15:27:02
However, it may still fall
15:27:05 under the ADA title 3
15:27:09 protection where other protections still
15:27:11 attach.
If you could advance to the next slide, please.
15:27:17 And then the one after that.
So what I want to talk about here,
15:27:20 I want to go over the different federally protected
15:27:23 classes.
So as I said earlier, those first four
15:27:27 listed there were part of the Fair Housing Act as
15:27:30 it was in 1968.
Those are race, color,
15:27:33 national origin, and
15:27:36 religion.
The next, sex was
15:27:40 introduced in the 1970s, and finally, in
15:27:43 1988, the last
15:27:47 two categories, familial status, which means families with
15:27:50 children, and disability, or persons
15:27:53 with disabilities were finally included
15:27:56 under the Fair Housing Act as well.
If
15:28:00 you can go to the next slide.
Here, you'll see
15:28:03 a list of our Oregon protected classes.
The
15:28:06 State of Oregon has been above and beyond what
15:28:10 the federal government requires in terms of protecting people from discrimination and
15:28:13 housing.
So we have a number of protected classes here
15:28:16 in our own state, classes that are not under federal
15:28:19 law, such as marital
15:28:23 status, source of income, sexual orientation, gender
15:28:26 identity, and other local
15:28:30 protected classes.
15:28:33
Sexual orientation and gender identity have thankfully
15:28:36 been included under guidance from the
15:28:40 Biden Administration as being part of the federally protected classes
15:28:43 and that's consistent with United States
15:28:47 Supreme Court law consistent with employment,
15:28:50 but the Biden Administration has
15:28:53 made clear that employment context
15:28:56 extends those protections to the fair housing as
15:29:00 well.
So you can file claims related
15:29:04 to sexual orientation and gender identity with HUD
15:29:07 or BOLI as a result of that.
Okay.
If we
15:29:10 could go to the next slide, please.
So here,
15:29:14 I'm going to just say a bit about the role of audit
15:29:17 testing.
So go ahead and head to the next slide.
15:29:20
So one of the roles of
15:29:23 audit testing is to assist local
15:29:26 jurisdictions in their own endeavors to
15:29:30 research, identify,
15:29:36 impediments to fair housing choices, and ensuring that
15:29:40 people within our community have as much choice when it comes
15:29:44 to housing as possible.
15:29:47
One of the departments
15:29:50 of the
15:29:54 rules, propose strategies and actions for
15:29:57 localities, agencies, and private entities
15:30:00 in our jurisdiction to further fair housing to
15:30:03 eliminate, overcome, or
15:30:06 mitigate identified
15:30:10 impediments.
One of the main focuses
15:30:13 of
15:30:18 AF --
another aim is
15:30:21 to assist in the integration of people with disabilities within
15:30:24 our communities and within our housing.
15:30:28
And those are a couple of highlights.
And the role
15:30:31 of testing or audit testing is
15:30:34 to help develop some of the data behind
15:30:38 identifying what some of those key impediments are to
15:30:41 fair housing choice in our community.
15:30:44
So we do audit tests
15:30:48 to rule out which protected classes might be most
15:30:51 negatively impacted by our housing policies or maybe most
15:30:55 in need of attention in terms of how local jurisdictions
15:30:58 come up with fair housing plans.
If you could go to the
15:31:03 next slide, please.
So in the
15:31:06 City of Portland, our audit testing for
15:31:09 this previous period went from a time frame of
15:31:12 July 2022 through June 30
15:31:15 of 2023.
During that window
15:31:19 of time, we performed 20 total
15:31:22 paired audit tests.
15 of those
15:31:25 were with funding for the City of Portland, also
15:31:28 an additional five tests that we included in our
15:31:31 report which were funded by other
15:31:34 state or federal agencies.
But
15:31:38 all out of those conducted in the
15:31:42 City of Portland and through our marching orders from the City of
15:31:45 Portland, we set to focus on
15:31:49 several specific classes in and those three protected classes
15:31:53 that we focused on included race and color,
15:31:56 national origin, and
15:31:59 source of income.
And so let's take a moment to
15:32:02 look at each of those categories.
But before we
15:32:05 get to that, I want to talk a little bit about the
15:32:08 limitations on the data.
So if we could go to the
15:32:13 next slide, please.
15:32:28
All right.
15:32:32
So a couple of things I wanted to mention about the
15:32:35 data that comes from these other
15:32:39 tests is one important feature of
15:32:42 them is that they really are there
15:32:45 to help identify different
15:32:48 treatments in rental transactions.
However,
15:32:51 it's not always clear whether that
15:32:55 different treatment is for sure an indicator
15:32:58 that discrimination has occurred.
15:33:01
So a lot of times when we perform audit testing, it really
15:33:05 serves as one piece of evidence to conduct further
15:33:08 investigation of a particular housing
15:33:11 provider and that may lead
15:33:15 to more evidence of discrimination.
And
15:33:18 ultimately may help support filing complaints with fair
15:33:22 housing enforcement agencies that I mentioned before like
15:33:25 BOLI and HUD.
The other,
15:33:29 the audit testing is
15:33:32 ultimately driven by housing market vacancies.
In other words, as I was saying
15:33:36 before, we can only perform this testing at the
15:33:39 application stage of a testing -- or excuse
15:33:42 me, the application stage of the rental market.
Which means
15:33:45 that, you know, we
15:33:48 are only able to target landlords
15:33:52 or housing providers that have actually
15:33:55 vacancies with testing.
15:33:58
So other landlords may be found to be
15:34:01 violators through other means such as individual
15:34:05 complaints that people bring to us
15:34:09 or denials of reasonable accommodation.
But the only thing
15:34:12 we can test is how landlords
15:34:15 treat their vacant units.
The other thing I wanted to
15:34:18 make clear is that the results that we
15:34:21 get out of our audit testing
15:34:24 is not really intended to be scientific
15:34:27 or statistically significant.
If you're performing 20
15:34:30 tests a year, that's really not enough to
15:34:34 give you an accurate scientific snapshot of discrimination
15:34:37 that's occurring, but it does give you some
15:34:41 idea of areas for further exploration or
15:34:45 areas to focus ethical assistance or training or education or
15:34:49 outreach.
So those are a lot of the things that
15:34:52 we look to recommend as a result of
15:34:55 our audit testing.
15:34:58
In terms of applicant inquiries, I've already touched on this,
15:35:01 but essentially, you know, what's going on there is that this
15:35:04 data is limited only to applicant and inquiries, as
15:35:08 I mentioned with regard to vacancies, you
15:35:11 know, where we're not really looking here at people
15:35:14 who have been tenants for a year or a long period of
15:35:18 time.
So those are some of the
15:35:21 limitations.
Okay.
You can go to the next
15:35:25 slide.
So some of the types of
15:35:29 discrimination that we are identified through
15:35:32 audit testing, we may find that landlords
15:35:36 are outright refusing to rent,
15:35:39 sell, or finance people due to race or
15:35:43 disability, also, giving out false
15:35:46 or inconsistent information with one group versus the
15:35:49 other.
For example, they might
15:35:53 provide a higher security deposit amount on a person with a
15:35:56 disability as compared to a person without a disability,
15:35:59 and that's actually not uncommon in the sense
15:36:02 that, you know, some landlords try to do that, to recoup
15:36:07 what they anticipate to be potentially additional
15:36:11 damages or other expenses
15:36:14 associated with having a tenant with a disability.
But
15:36:18 that's unlawful.
They may engage in
15:36:21 discriminatory advertising.
We
15:36:24 see if they're applying different terms and
15:36:27 conditions, policies, rules, or procedures.
That could
15:36:31 be either through the application process.
They might apply different
15:36:34 procedures.
It could also be that they offer different
15:36:37 terms or conditions.
Like I just
15:36:40 mentioned security deposits.
Some examples of different procedures
15:36:43 or policies might be, you know, for example, how
15:36:46 does a landlord
15:36:49 apply its criminal background
15:36:53 screening criteria.
That's an
15:36:56 interesting topic for
15:37:00 systemic investigation for the
15:37:03 Fair Housing Advocacy Committee, are they given two
15:37:06 applicants that are the same criminal
15:37:11 backgrounds, like they have very similar criminal violations in their histories, or are
15:37:14 they more likely to exclude the
15:37:17 Black applicant or the white applicant or the
15:37:20 disabled applicant or the applicant without a disability?
And
15:37:24 that would be a disparate treatment
15:37:27 if you're applying those policies in
15:37:31 an unequal fashion.
And the other thing we
15:37:35 encounter a lot during our rental testing can
15:37:38 be, specifically we won't
15:37:42 encounter outright discriminate
15:37:45 discriminatory statements with
15:37:48 source of income, recipients of
15:37:51 rental assistance and they'll say, no, we don't
15:37:54 section 8, or they'll create
15:37:58 other artificial barriers to processing that
15:38:01 application.
For example, a landlord might charge
15:38:04 a higher rent to somebody
15:38:07 who has a housing choice voucher than they would somebody
15:38:10 who does not.
Or they might
15:38:13 insist that they disclose the amount of their voucher
15:38:16 before they agree to rent to them, which
15:38:20 is also a discriminatory
15:38:25 in that it chills those applicants from renting
15:38:28 from that landlord.
So if we could go to the data here.
So
15:38:32 let's go to the next slide
15:38:35 here.
So what you're looking at
15:38:38 here are the results from last
15:38:42 year's set of
15:38:45 20 audit tests.
Generally
15:38:48 speaking, we did not get very
15:38:51 many positive tests this year, so in the category of
15:38:55 race-based audit testing, we only had one positive test
15:38:58 out of eight that we conducted.
In terms of source of
15:39:01 income, we had one positive test out of four that were conducted.
15:39:05
And in the area of disability, we didn't have any
15:39:08 positive tests.
So five
15:39:11 negatives and two inconclusives there.
15:39:14
If we go to the
15:39:18 next slide, please.
You know, so
15:39:21 what we did see, we did see some
15:39:24 evidence of differential treatment based on race or source of
15:39:28 income.
Those were the two positive tests that we got.
15:39:31
So they did show some indication of refusal to rent
15:39:34 on the basis of somebody's rental
15:39:37 assistance or a discriminatory terms and conditions as it
15:39:41 related to an applicant of color.
And
15:39:45 from these data points we put forward a few recommendations to the
15:39:49 City of Portland.
One of those recommendations is
15:39:52 that the city collaborate with more
15:39:57 culturally-specific groups in terms of addressing the differential treatment of persons
15:40:00 of color in the rental market.
We also suggested that the
15:40:04 city engage in more training on the requirement that
15:40:08 all landlords or housing providers must
15:40:11 accept rental assistance.
And
15:40:14 we also suggest that
15:40:17 expanding in-person testing would be another good strategy for the City of
15:40:20 Portland.
I will say that
15:40:23 the fair housing did
15:40:27 encounter some obstacles this year, conducting the
15:40:30 number of tests we wanted to conduct for
15:40:34 the City of Portland, and in
15:40:37 much better position for July 2023 to
15:40:41 June 2024 to meet
15:40:44 some of those thresholds that we
15:40:47 had intended under this grant.
So next
15:40:50 year -- I can't remember the exact number, but I think 70 is our goal for
15:40:53 next year, so we should have much more data
15:40:56 available for the City of Portland as we move in
15:41:00 the 2024 towards July next
15:41:03 year.
And I'm happy to announce, I wanted to
15:41:06 give a shout-out to Mara Romero, who is a member of the committee,
15:41:10 but she is also one of
15:41:13 Fair Housing Council of Oregon's new hires.
So
15:41:17 Mara has joined the
15:41:20 organization and is one of our testing coordinators and
15:41:23 she will be helping us conduct this testing in the
15:41:26 year ahead.
If we could go to the next
15:41:29 slide, please.
The last thing I wanted to show
15:41:33 you here is that snapshot of some of the
15:41:36 Fair Housing Council of Oregon's hotline data.
So this
15:41:39 is data pertaining to general inquiries that
15:41:43 we get from members of the public relating to housing
15:41:46 discrimination.
And oftentimes it's this
15:41:50 hotline data coupled with our testing data that gives us the
15:41:53 clearest picture of what types of discrimination are
15:41:57 actually occurring and one of the interesting things about the hotline data is
15:42:00 that for the City of
15:42:03 Portland, it shows that race
15:42:06 and color are a much higher source of complaints than
15:42:09 we see statewide, whereas in the City of
15:42:12 Portland, it represents 18% of all the
15:42:16 complaints that we receive,
15:42:19 across state, only 12%.
And in
15:42:24 similarly, we get
15:42:31 a lot of national origin complaints, we see 10% of
15:42:34 our complaints for the City of Portland having some
15:42:37 nexus to national origin or connection to national
15:42:40 origin, where across the state we only see about
15:42:43 3% of those complaints being related
15:42:47 to that protected class.
15:42:51
class.
With that, I'd be happy to stick
15:42:54 around and answer questions, but that's
15:42:59 an overview of
15:43:03 Fair Housing Council of Oregon's testing in the last
15:43:07 year and we look forward to
15:43:10 more moving forward.
>> ERICKA: Thank you
15:43:13 for bringing that important data to this committee.
Are there questions
15:43:18 or comments for Matt?
15:43:29
There in the chat,
15:43:37 would you like me to read it
15:43:40 aloud?
>> CAROLINE: When you were talking about the definition of
15:43:44 dwellings, there's been issue and debate
15:43:47 around how many new types of tiny homes,
15:43:50 single-unit shelters, microshelters, that are
15:43:54 covered under the definition of dwelling, particular interest to me
15:43:57 because there's so many models popping up for
15:44:01 these sort of medium-term, sometimes
15:44:04 longer-term microdwellings, and I'm always curious
15:44:08 if those folks have similar protections or if that's
15:44:11 something that's still being sort of
15:44:15 sussed out in policy.
>> MATT: It is
15:44:20 conceivable that some of the -- depending on the
15:44:24 different varieties of like say
15:44:27 villages off other types of
15:44:31 small homes or tiny homes, it's
15:44:35 conceivable some might
15:44:39 fall under exceptions in the
15:44:42 Fair Housing Act, less than five dwelling units total
15:44:45 or things of that nature.
But from the general, you know,
15:44:48 I think the primary test that you're
15:44:52 talking about, shelters,
15:44:57 villages that have groups of tiny
15:45:01 homes, how long does the inhabitant get to
15:45:04 stay there?
And it's very rare
15:45:07 for those types of settings to have one night in,
15:45:12 one night out policies.
Most routinely, people
15:45:15 are there for weeks, typically for weeks at a time.
And because of
15:45:18 that, I would say that almost all of those
15:45:22 settings fall under the Fair Housing Act and
15:45:26 it does have some serious implication for this
15:45:29 program as they're planning their services.
That's a
15:45:33 really good question, though.
15:45:37
>> ERICKA: Thank you.
Are there
15:45:40 any additional questions for Matt
15:45:44 in the chat?
15:45:48
Barbara.
>> BARBARA: Barbara Geyer here.
15:45:52
How many incidents there were, as I recall from many
15:45:57 other audits, and there were things like, okay, out of
15:46:00 ten, we got six adverse reports, that sort of
15:46:04 thing.
Did you do that for
15:46:07 part of this audit?
>> MATT: Yeah.
As part of
15:46:10 the audit report, what we saw
15:46:14 was -- some of the data I showed you was that we
15:46:17 had one, you
15:46:20 know, we had fewer tests
15:46:23 overall compared to previous years.
So we had 20 tests
15:46:26 and in the area of race-based testing,
15:46:29 we had one positive test out of --
I think it was eight
15:46:33 performed.
And then out of the source of income testing, I'd have to pull
15:46:36 up the data again.
15:46:39
Let me take a look.
But it was one
15:46:42 positive test out of four conducted and the disability,
15:46:45 we didn't have any positive tests out of seven conducted.
So I think
15:46:49 that's the information that you're looking for, but let me know if I'm not
15:46:54 answering your question.
15:46:59
>> BARBARA: Generally bring this up
15:47:05 -- asked in past presentations about
15:47:09 all of the other types of tendencies
15:47:12 and the other buildings that
15:47:16 don't have -- that were built all under
15:47:20 this audit test program, don't
15:47:23 respond in that way,
15:47:26 generally less -- that they would come up.
15:47:29
Have you thought of how these buildings might be
15:47:34 tested as well?
15:47:37
>> MATT: I think in general you're probably
15:47:41 referring mostly to like affordable housing
15:47:44 programs that are getting federal subsidies or state
15:47:48 subsidies and maintain less of
15:47:51 people who are going to be
15:47:54 potential residents there.
And you can test those --
15:47:57 you can test those types of projects but
15:48:01 assessing how people are placed on to those lists.
15:48:05
So the question becomes, you know,
15:48:08 how they are assessed whether they're going to be placed on a
15:48:12 wait-list or not, because a lot of times there's an application process just
15:48:15 to get on the wait-list and there
15:48:18 are qualifications or screening criteria just to get on the wait-list.
15:48:22
So that's the point of contact we can probably test
15:48:25 for, and we do tests re
15:48:28 lated to
15:48:31 that.
>> BARBARA: Thank you.
>> The first is just to
15:48:35 clarify, you did not test for national origin this
15:48:38 year.
It was only race, color, disability,
15:48:42 and source of income.
15:48:45
>> MATT: That's correct.
>> I have a
15:48:48 question about the -- you had
15:48:52 the hotline call data, do you collect
15:48:55 information on the perceived
15:48:59 racial categories that are
15:49:02 targeted with race --
15:49:08
>> MATT: In other words, can we disaggregate that
15:49:12 data to show which race categories were being targeted?
Is
15:49:14 that the question?
>> Yes.
>> MATT:
15:49:18 Yeah, I think it's possible.
Yes.
We
15:49:21 track, you know, the different -- different
15:49:25 types of races down to
15:49:28 subtypes, so we can potentially disaggregate that data
15:49:31 and show, you
15:49:34 know, which types of races are being targeted
15:49:37 more than others.
Yes.
15:49:40
The answer is yes.
15:49:46
>> ERICKA:
15:49:49 Elizabeth [phonetic]?
>> Thank you so much for the presentation, and
15:49:52 not just --
and I'm speaking from memory about on
15:49:56 that slide, on the analysis, right, you had
15:49:59 some, you know, positive to negative, things like
15:50:03 that.
My question to you would be,
15:50:06 what's the -- besides the legal data
15:50:09 that you talked about,
15:50:12 inconclusive, not just --
looking at that,
15:50:15 it's clear, it's really
15:50:18 hard to decide
15:50:23 [indiscernible], explanation of the market, but what
15:50:27 should be the takeaway and
15:50:30 you're saying --
15:50:34 [indiscernible], if you could integrate that, that would be very
15:50:37 helpful for us.
>> MATT: I do think
15:50:40 that one of the takeaways, sadly, is
15:50:43 that we need to do more testing to get a better
15:50:46 sampling of data here.
If you're only doing eight
15:50:50 tests related to race and you're
15:50:53 showing one positive test, from my perspective, it doesn't
15:50:58 tell you as much as we could be getting.
That one positive
15:51:01 test may be an indicator that, you
15:51:04 know, I think with that particular test
15:51:07 it involved a person of color being offered different
15:51:10 terms or conditions related to like a security deposit,
15:51:13 and, you know, it's just -- it
15:51:16 becomes a very isolated sort of
15:51:20 test.
So I think one of the
15:51:23 takeaways would be for
15:51:26 the future, are these the categories that
15:51:30 we want, as a city, to focus on in terms of our audit
15:51:33 testing.
Are these the only three
15:51:37 categories that we care about testing for is race, source
15:51:40 of income, and disability?
That's
15:51:43 how it's generally written right now.
For the upcoming
15:51:46 year we're going to be focusing on the same categories.
And
15:51:49 that makes a lot of sense in the sense that
15:51:52 the City of Portland does put race forward and puts
15:51:56 it at a very important emphasis on race, but all the other
15:51:59 protected classes that we could also be branching into and
15:52:02 thinking more about, versus
15:52:05 sex discrimination or
15:52:10 -- I'm trying to think about another good
15:52:13 one.
But I'd probably suggest that sex discrimination might be
15:52:16 a good topic to add to our testing
15:52:20 regime for the future.
We've done some
15:52:24 sex-related testing and like Multnomah County
15:52:27 at large, which has yielded some
15:52:30 results in terms of seeing positive results related to
15:52:34 how landlords are treating survivors of domestic
15:52:37 violence, and I think that's a gap here I
15:52:41 see how we do
15:52:44 our City of Portland testing,
15:52:47 we're not getting that data
15:52:50 that might be directed towards any
15:52:54 survivor of domestic violence.
>> Thank you.
>> I just
15:52:57 wanted to read in a
15:53:00 comment that
15:53:04 Christina said, in regards to the definition
15:53:08 of a dwelling unit, defines
15:53:11 dwelling for purposes as any building, structure or
15:53:15 -- occupied as or
15:53:19 designed for occupancy by one or more
15:53:22 entities, by definition, these new structures,
15:53:25 relating back to the comment,
15:53:29 would likely qualify.
15:53:34
>> Thank you for that comment.
I'm going to give one
15:53:38 more opportunity and then I'm going to move us in our
15:53:41 agenda because we're behind.
So
15:53:44 Mara, I'll go to you.
>> MARA: Thank you.
I'll
15:53:48 be quick.
I wanted to chime in really
15:53:51 fast, so thank you for that for
15:53:54 letting folks now that I joined the
15:53:58 Fair Housing Council.
I'm really excited to be a part of the
15:54:01 enforcement team that Matt has been building up and
15:54:05 is committed to and we have a sharp team so
15:54:08 I'm looking forward to the future of the
15:54:11 Fair Housing Council and I'm excited just from the things that got brought up in
15:54:14 this meeting.
I was like taking
15:54:18 notes and really excited to be taking some of the
15:54:21 stuff I learned as a housing advocate and
15:54:24 this professional space.
Excited.
For example, when
15:54:28 someone was talking about like disaggregating
15:54:32 the data, it's interesting, what we might do in testing, we
15:54:35 get a report of potential race discrimination, we may
15:54:39 test, right, just generally around that issue,
15:54:42 but if we notice that there's maybe a nation of
15:54:46 origin issue or a disability-related issue, we
15:54:49 could kind of tip it and sometimes apply a different test
15:54:52 or look at the test differently or all sorts of
15:54:55 little things like that.
So I'm really
15:54:58 looking forward to figuring out
15:55:02 how we can get data that's going to speak to us a little bit better
15:55:05 about what's going on out there.
Thanks,
15:55:08 everyone.
>> MATT: Thanks for that, Mara,
15:55:11 and something else I wanted to highlight, our
15:55:15 audit testing is designed for generating data and
15:55:18 research, but a whole nother aspect
15:55:21 here at the fair hougz
15:55:27 -- Fair Housing Council of
15:55:30 Oregon, if you are experiencing individual
15:55:33 experiences of being denied an application or getting housing and you
15:55:37 think it might be
15:55:42 related to their protected class, we
15:55:46 can respond directly to those by sending
15:55:49 testers.
Those are complaint-based tests.
15:55:52
But literally, it helps us,
15:55:55 testing does help lay the ground
15:55:58 work for court filings or
15:56:01 filings with a person agency because the tests themselves
15:56:05 are evidence in court and that's a very important ask of
15:56:08 what we do
15:56:11 as well.
>> ERICKA: Thank you so much
15:56:14 for presenting that information.
Mara, congratulations on
15:56:17 your position.
We are going to move
15:56:20 forward in our agenda.
15:56:25
There is an opportunity for public comment a little later in our
15:56:29 agenda for those who avail themselves to signing up.
Thank you.
15:56:32 I wanted you to know that I did see your
15:56:36 hand.
At this time, we are going to
15:56:39 move forward.
Portland Fair
15:56:42 Housing plan,
15:56:46 we have Dr.
15:56:51 Uma Krishnan from the Portland
15:56:54 Housing Bureau and
15:56:57 Bimal RajBhandary and unfortunately,
15:57:01 Bimal is not able to join us today,
15:57:04 but we have myself here
15:57:08 and Dr.
15:57:15 Krishnan, the Fair Housing Plan, we'll
15:57:18 cover the state of affordability in
15:57:22 the city with the
15:57:26 forecasted.
We wanted to start off, centering the
15:57:29 fact that the Portland housing has continued
15:57:33 to be a long-standing concern in the city, as
15:57:36 we all know, in a variety
15:57:39 of different spaces.
And we'll
15:57:42 be talking about it again
15:57:46 today.
From the
15:57:49 2022 Portland insight survey, sent out to
15:57:53 all of Portland to rate the issues, minority issues that
15:57:56 they see important for the city to address
15:57:59 and you can see affordable housing and
15:58:02 homeless services,
15:58:06 49.5% of respond depths.
So just to
15:58:09 highlight the significance of this issue overall as we move forward
15:58:12 to talking about it in
15:58:15 fair housing context.
15:58:19
This presentation is intended to share with you all the following
15:58:22 information.
What is the state of housing affordability
15:58:25 in Portland, what is the current level
15:58:28 of housing production?
How many units and what types of units?
15:58:32
What are the future housing needs by number and unit
15:58:35 types to meet the demands of existing and
15:58:38 forecasted households by income group and what is the
15:58:41 implication of
15:58:46 magnitude of fair housing or needed housing?
With that,
15:58:49 I'll pass it to Dr.
15:58:54 Krishnan.
15:58:59
>> DR. KRISHNAN: I have promised him in good faith that
15:59:02 I will cover his slides and then we
15:59:06 cover the slides that
15:59:11 --
15:59:15
highlight and again and
15:59:18 again and it hasn't changed and is
15:59:22 as sobering as ever,
15:59:25 one of the affordability
15:59:28 challenges, housing affordability, rental
15:59:31 and the owner.
And then
15:59:34 the
15:59:37 presentation, it's the same thing
15:59:40 in different parts, really
15:59:46 communicates the need to have -- housing
15:59:49 market, affordability crisis, both for owners and
15:59:52 renters, more so for the
15:59:56 renters.
So the first slide we
15:59:59 have is tied to the
16:00:03 median household income, and it's a central
16:00:07 point, right, half the
16:00:10 incomes -- and the green are that you see
16:00:13 is the median income, the
16:00:17 blue ones go to the
16:00:21 rented household and the
16:00:24 homeowners have twice median
16:00:27 income as the renters
16:00:30 and includes the renters
16:00:34 -- someone who may be
16:00:37 a homeowner and then on the side you see the
16:00:41 median household income by race and ethnicity.
16:00:45
Again, there's a wide gradation,
16:00:48 looking at white households that make
16:00:52 $77,000 and the -- you don't see it there,
16:00:57 but the city median
16:01:01 household is close to $131,000,
16:01:04 something like that, and Asians,
16:01:07 but if you look at the bottom, the Black
16:01:10 households just making over
16:01:13 $36,000.
Which is not -- which is --
16:01:17 you know, less than --
16:01:20 and
16:01:23 white households are making twice as much as the Black households
16:01:27 and the renters,
16:01:31 extreme disadvantage.
So the next
16:01:35 slide has to do with the
16:01:38 asking rents, and
16:01:41 the rents -- how you think
16:01:46 -- the rents are high to begin with, even if you
16:01:49 go as far back at
16:01:53 2013, we are beginning to see
16:01:56 $1,000 a month and now get
16:01:59 nothing for that amount and
16:02:03 find something that's actually decent in the city
16:02:06 level, we are close to -- it gets like
16:02:09 $1600 or $1500 a month and then you look at
16:02:13 the median household income, these rents
16:02:16 are like way above someone's
16:02:20 reach.
And that makes
16:02:23 a house burden --
thank
16:02:26 you, Niki.
16:02:30
Hear me out, the median sale price, continue
16:02:34 to climb and climb and climb, and
16:02:37 you're talking the median
16:02:40 home, value,
16:02:43 half a million dollars and that's a lot of
16:02:46 money.
And which means, you know,
16:02:50 the mortgage payments are high,
16:02:54 and so many impediments that make someone who is not making
16:02:57 as much money to become a homeowner.
And
16:03:00 all this in the last, you know,
16:03:04 in the last
16:03:07 decade.
Climbing
16:03:10 up from $300,000
16:03:13 and how we get --
16:03:16 to become a homeowner,
16:03:19 talking one needs to have a means of -- one needs to
16:03:23 get to that pipeline of
16:03:26 half a million dollars to become
16:03:29 a homeowner.
So these
16:03:32 -- and the easiest way to
16:03:36 get the message is the once who have
16:03:40 affordability and these are broken down by race
16:03:44 and ethnicity and
16:03:49 every -- you know, and
16:03:53 these are households on
16:03:56 affordability.
Explain white households, but then right next
16:03:59 to it, the black
16:04:02 households, it's true, none of these --
16:04:06 you look at the
16:04:09 city, in the
16:04:13 neighborhood areas and housing cannot afford to
16:04:17 live in any of these
16:04:20 neighborhoods.
And Latinx
16:04:23 is slightly better,
16:04:28 affordability, same with Pacific
16:04:31 Islander, and then for the Asian
16:04:35 household, and I think the median
16:04:39 household income, but rental
16:04:42 affordability is a serious issue and divided
16:04:45 by race, it's really clear that
16:04:49 some race versus others.
16:04:54
So this is the homeownership
16:04:57 affordability, and this is --
our neighbors
16:05:03 in the city, more applicable to white
16:05:06 households as well, Black households, whether
16:05:09 you're renting or owning, it's the same.
They just can't
16:05:13 afford to live in any of these
16:05:16 neighborhoods.
The household -- it could
16:05:19 be --
Native American
16:05:23 households, none of the neighborhoods -- and
16:05:27 Asian households, these
16:05:30 tell the story of what
16:05:33 -- the price of affordable housing is.
So
16:05:37 these are some slides that
16:05:43 sum up the housing analysis
16:05:48 , and in Matt's presentation, he talked
16:05:52 about the price being too high and the
16:05:55 needs being -- this huge
16:05:58 gap, and it's hard for
16:06:01 renters, hard for home buyers.
But
16:06:04 the next slides, he
16:06:09 --
Housing Needs Analysis and forecasted
16:06:13 supply and looking at the demand side
16:06:16 of the housing market.
And this is --
16:06:20 and, again, it's the top concern for
16:06:24 the stakeholders, but the community at
16:06:28 large.
So this one -- the leadership
16:06:32 from PHB,
16:06:35 the planning
16:06:38 committee, and they are presented as a council
16:06:41 and there was a really healthy
16:06:45 discussion, you know, acknowledgement of
16:06:48 surprises and how we can -- and this
16:06:51 is not even from those --
we're
16:06:55 talking about fair housing,
16:06:58 having you know, just
16:07:01 -- expecting this demand, asking
16:07:04 ourselves why.
16:07:09
So it actually tries to communicate that the
16:07:13 state market, the housing
16:07:17 Needs Analysis
16:07:21 and housing is --
16:07:24 and then you have the whole
16:07:28 [indiscernible], I can't see that well from here, but
16:07:32 basically -- all the houses,
16:07:37 common boundary, and we need to
16:07:40 make sure that we have [indiscernible],
16:07:43 so jurisdictions that are within the
16:07:47 city, inventory there, in the capacity, so it's not
16:07:51 just vacant land, but then, you know, the
16:07:54 things like the land and --
16:07:59
build things that they can and then it goes
16:08:02 -- not just the level -- to be assured
16:08:06 that we can have the housing by having these
16:08:09 things -- and the highest point
16:08:13 and the density of the
16:08:16 existing and expended households.
So it's a
16:08:20 well-intended goal and consequently -- and this -- we
16:08:23 did all this and did a Housing Needs Analysis
16:08:27 and the conference of 2025 was
16:08:31 adopted back in 2016, I think, and
16:08:34 that is looking to 2035
16:08:37 and now the
16:08:42 [indiscernible], methodology and needs to be
16:08:45 updated every six years.
16:08:48
And then but the analysis
16:08:52 a floating document for the next
16:08:55 comprehensive plan and then the planners are
16:08:59 already looking to
16:09:02 2045, thinking 20 years
16:09:05 in the future.
And
16:09:08 this categorization, as
16:09:11 a consequence of the last needs analysis, what came to mind when
16:09:16 I look at the
16:09:19 zoning, mix-use
16:09:22 and multidwelling zones, sacred, going
16:09:25 in, can't increase it,
16:09:29 really -- the concerns and
16:09:31 there was this long,
16:09:35 drawn-out process.
16:09:38
It was -- [indiscernible], the good
16:09:43 news for us, and in a lot of
16:09:46 the others jurisdictions,
16:09:49 fair housing analysis,
16:09:53 allowed for smaller units and little housing.
16:09:57
So it's a good -- building it,
16:10:00 but, you know, there is some value
16:10:04 in analysis and
16:10:07 impediments we identified.
So
16:10:10 this is looking at the
16:10:13 -- the level land analysis and the
16:10:16 good news for us as a consequence of all the --
16:10:22 you know, the residential zoning
16:10:26 and the other commercial zone changes and I think they're not even called --
16:10:29
mix-use zones.
So you
16:10:32 might think be out of
16:10:36 space, that's not the
16:10:39 case.
We're at capacity
16:10:44 [indiscernible] units of good and
16:10:47 I believe it's twice the
16:10:50 --
and
16:10:53 mixed use and multidwelling
16:10:57 zones and the capacity for 33,000
16:11:02 units of middle housing and the position of the middle
16:11:06 housing, but the idea
16:11:09 that --
it's those types
16:11:13 of units which would be affordable
16:11:16 to rent or to own
16:11:19 and talking about --
16:11:25 use things like that.
16:11:28
So this one
16:11:31 , looking towards 2045 and needed housing and
16:11:34 housing, when you say needed housing, you're
16:11:38 talking about household and then
16:11:42 -- the changes and the
16:11:45 ideas, housing --
16:11:48 take away from this, we have a
16:11:52 forecasted number of households,
16:11:55 100,000, and as a change in
16:11:58 methodology, now, this
16:12:01 is -- actually translates into about
16:12:05 8,000, a little over 8,000 house
16:12:08 olds and a second home
16:12:11 which doesn't function as the primary residence,
16:12:15 so we are actually
16:12:18 looking at
16:12:21 106,571 needed new housing units
16:12:24 and a lot are
16:12:27 needed by 2025, and then they
16:12:30 added the underproduction
16:12:34 because every year, I remember --
16:12:37 [indiscernible], all of them, and
16:12:43 2008, I still remember that,
16:12:47 so then the production and the
16:12:50 actually done pretty good.
Then
16:12:54 the household shows we
16:12:57 have at least
16:13:00 4600 people without shelter.
So
16:13:05 all this, it looks like by
16:13:08 2045, we're going to need
16:13:12 120,000, that many housing units, and you're talking
16:13:15 units.
And this will translate to an annual
16:13:18 protection of
16:13:21 5,242 units.
And
16:13:25 it's my understanding that
16:13:29 you're looking at -- looking all the way to
16:13:32 2045 to get the next ten years, I'm hoping
16:13:35 that we can
16:13:38 add 55,000 new units
16:13:42 and get caught up.
And every
16:13:45 time we bring these slides,
16:13:49 we -- draw the
16:13:52 connections to the protected class,
16:13:55 and get excited about the analysis, whatever.
So this
16:13:59 is actually the demographic, demographic
16:14:03 changes.
And what we can expect
16:14:06 in the future in terms of
16:14:09 households he.
So the demand,
16:14:15 of course, 13% increase
16:14:18 in elders, one is 65 or
16:14:22 older.
An increase of 22% are households with
16:14:26 a person with a disability.
The
16:14:29 households with children is expected
16:14:33 to go down.
The homeowners are expected to go
16:14:36 down.
And households with one or two people
16:14:40 at 70%, that's static.
So we can
16:14:45 expect some households,
16:14:49 drastic changes, and these are significant.
As we
16:14:53 look towards building new
16:14:56 units and in terms of, you know,
16:15:00 subsidies or other
16:15:04 grants, these priorities
16:15:08 for us.
The next
16:15:11 one, this was a slide that we ended up
16:15:15 having, the council getting a lively discussion,
16:15:18 and it's clear, right, you're talking
16:15:21 125,000 units and of
16:15:24 these,
16:15:28 53%, 63,405 units have
16:15:31 to be affordable units and these are
16:15:35 households that make between 50
16:15:39 to 80% that potentially will
16:15:43 -- we have to build 120,000 households,
16:15:46 but more than half of them have to be
16:15:49 affordable.
And then this is so
16:15:54 great, the good news, we have this information
16:15:58 and we can work towards -- there was
16:16:01 a lot of discussion around that and
16:16:04 then there was --
16:16:08 listening, the
16:16:11 belief that so many of these
16:16:14 new units need to be
16:16:18 affordable.
This
16:16:22 map kind of brings us back to the supply side, but
16:16:27 how we are producing units the
16:16:30 past years, since 2000.
So you look at 2008,
16:16:33 such a drop.
But then we've done
16:16:36 really well since 2010
16:16:39 to now and then you see
16:16:42 a spike between 2016 and
16:16:45 before 2018 and being
16:16:49 added inclusion housing, a huge rush
16:16:52 to get in.
And not all of them have necessarily been
16:16:57 built.
And then we reach
16:17:01 [indiscernible].
But I think the average
16:17:04 production has been around 5,000
16:17:08 and we'll
16:17:11 keep up the momentum,
16:17:18 we have the capacity and the good
16:17:22 idea what it costs and the
16:17:25 task force asked us to make
16:17:28 sure they get built
16:17:32 and increase the housing
16:17:36 project, and especially the
16:17:40 -- specialty units
16:17:43 on primary lots
16:17:46 [indiscernible].
16:17:51
>> NIKI: Thank you, Dr.
16:17:54
Dr. Krishnan.
16:17:58
This lovely slide, how
16:18:01 does the city influence housing development?
There are
16:18:04 three primary molds we
16:18:08 see, and you can see them, the category of
16:18:11 income, come in, regulated affordable
16:18:14 housing.
So the one way in which
16:18:17 the city can influence housing is by
16:18:20 providing funding.
This happens
16:18:23 for the 60% of
16:18:28 households, the housing bonds,
16:18:31 finance the districts set
16:18:34 aside and use those funds to build the buildings
16:18:37 and build the units to house folks
16:18:40 in affordability.
The second method is to
16:18:43 offer incentives, so this can be a variety of different
16:18:46 tools, such as tax
16:18:50 exemptions.
We -- a
16:18:53 specific development charge,
16:18:56 zoning bonuses, loans for
16:18:59 finances, attached to financing
16:19:02 and 0% to 120%
16:19:06 AMI.
So a little
16:19:10 bit, considered the low income affordable.
And
16:19:13 the next is adopt regulations, zoning
16:19:17 and other development codes, not just
16:19:20 affordable housing.
Zoning and
16:19:23 other development codes, like
16:19:27 just referenced.
16:19:30
The requirements for charges and in
16:19:33 general, infrastructure.
And three primary ways
16:19:36 that we would influence that.
It's not reflected
16:19:40 here too, but ties back into a lot of these
16:19:43 outfits that we've worked at as
16:19:47 well as the presentation given by the
16:19:51 Fair Housing Council of Oregon, things we can do
16:19:54 around prioritization, policies that
16:19:57 landlords-tenant, the loan regulations
16:20:01 that we have like our
16:20:06 -- screening criteria, income
16:20:10 requirements that can all affect access to housing and spend
16:20:13 goes up.
Another extension of that policy,
16:20:16 in-house development, but in regards to
16:20:19 how people are actually able to get into those
16:20:23 units.
Finally, we have a summary slide that
16:20:26 we've been doing for these last few
16:20:30 analyses.
On the left-hand side we have the
16:20:34 reminder of the definition of what is considered a
16:20:37 barrier, what is considered an impediments, and
16:20:40 that's the language that we use when we bring these fair
16:20:43 housing plans.
I will not read them again.
16:20:47
It is there for you all.
And then on the right-hand side, we
16:20:50 are looking to identified
16:20:55 those, the analysis summary points that
16:20:58 were drawn for us, and continues
16:21:01 to be a crisis and concern for area
16:21:04 residents, and this is for African
16:21:07 Americans, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders.
The
16:21:12 median household income for homeowners is
16:21:15 just over double of that
16:21:19 renters and as far as the Housing Needs Analysis and
16:21:22 the compliance, this is the --
16:21:26
5,000 units by 2032, in the next decade.
16:21:29 Over the next 20 years, we'll need over
16:21:32 60,000 units affordable to households earning
16:21:36 between 20 and 80% median household income.
If we
16:21:39 look towards the future, expected needs that will take
16:21:43 us over, we have
16:21:46 118,500 households that renters and/or
16:21:50 owners that fall into the spectrum of
16:21:55 low-income households.
So today, and then we
16:21:58 will circle back next meeting to review
16:22:02 this once again and starting adding
16:22:05 those policy recommendations conversations
16:22:09 because we have looked at
16:22:12 this, tied back into the
16:22:16 previous analysis that we -- public comment time.
Never
16:22:19 mind.
I will leave it there and pause,
16:22:22 so we can respect public
16:22:25 comment time.
Thank you.
16:22:32
>> ERICKA: Thank you for those who have indicated they
16:22:36 would like to give public
16:22:39 testimony.
I have a list of
16:22:44 -- I will ask you to
16:22:47 unmute as I call your name and
16:22:52 give your public testimony.
16:22:55
First would be Shaun
16:22:59 Irelan.
16:23:06
Mr. Irelan, are you with
16:23:09 us?
>> SHAUN: In the dialogue, in the
16:23:12 text, I'm not sure if
16:23:15 they would apply to just
16:23:19 the legal department or my goal is to just kind of get a
16:23:22 handle or a feel for moving forward in the next
16:23:26 couple of years with housing and
16:23:30 particularly I'm a publicly housed
16:23:33 tenant, just what kind of
16:23:36 existing support analysis would be available to help
16:23:39 streamline policy or to better improve service
16:23:43 delivery.
Because there is some service delivery issues that I've experienced, but, you
16:23:46 know, I want to be a positive advocate and just
16:23:50 see this -- on that interest
16:23:53 moving forward.
Thank you.
>> ERICKA: Thank you
16:23:58 so much for your comment.
16:24:01
The next person indicated they would like
16:24:04 to give public testimony is Allison
16:24:08 Sadr Strom,
16:24:12 Allison, if you would please
16:24:15 unmute.
Allison, in the public space.
>>
16:24:18 Okay.
I see that Allison is not with us tonight.
16:24:23
So we'll move forward.
16:24:26
Jay Hubbard.
Feel free, if you're in the
16:24:29 virtual space with us today to
16:24:32 unmute and give your public
16:24:35 comment.
16:24:40
At this time, we have no additional people who
16:24:43 indicated they would like to give public
16:24:47 testimony.
And so I wonder if
16:24:50 there's an opportunity,
16:24:53 quickly, for any questions in regards to the
16:24:57 presentation that we just received.
16:25:00
I'll start with those in the room and then we can go to
16:25:04 those online.
16:25:07
Barb?
>> BARBARA: Hi.
16:25:11
You -- the number of
16:25:17 [indiscernible] households in Portland versus
16:25:21 white households --
16:25:25
>> DR. KRISHNAN: I don't have it here in
16:25:28 my head, but --
16:25:32
households, [indiscernible]
households
16:25:36 and the rest of the households
16:25:40 -- and we had over
16:25:43 70,000 households.
I can get you the
16:25:48 data.
>> BARBARA: Thank you.
>> ERICKA: A
16:25:51 question?
>> Thanks.
I guess what
16:25:54 I'm thinking about,
16:25:57 affordability, what comes to mind is
16:26:01 segregation.
And when you have the zoning
16:26:04 capacity by the slide, having
16:26:08 --
capacity,
16:26:12 whether we can foster --
16:26:15 or if -- the distribution --
16:26:20 displace in the future,
16:26:27 distribution of -- so zoning
16:26:30 capacity and foster increasing -- is that something that's
16:26:34 been
16:26:37 analyzed or --
16:26:40
>> DR. KRISHNAN: Great question.
16:26:43
Actually, [indiscernible]
16:26:49 some other places to have the
16:26:53 --
colored
16:26:57 households.
>> We did.
>> DR. KRISHNAN: Yes, but
16:27:01 the -- changed and dispersed everywhere, so
16:27:04 the household is trying
16:27:08 to do -- bring back
16:27:12 [indiscernible], which was --
and
16:27:16 the zoning, zoning capacity
16:27:21 this issue, who -- what kinds
16:27:24 of houses -- that -- all
16:27:28 about where people Biltmore and
16:27:31 they could built in Central City, they
16:27:34 could build here, these places, and
16:27:38 the mixed-use zones are all over the
16:27:42 city, and then the other thing that
16:27:45 has been happening, definitely adds to
16:27:48 the cost of how much --
subsidized
16:27:51 on the ground is our location policy
16:27:55 and now
16:27:58 it's a high opportunity
16:28:02 area, schools and --
16:28:05 so the
16:28:08 segregation in this analysis is
16:28:11 like not a useful -- helpful but
16:28:14 as we think about the
16:28:18 future, but I think we combine that
16:28:21 with the insights we
16:28:24 get from the
16:28:27 --
because that's how to the actual market.
16:28:31 So I think these two things could go
16:28:34 together really well.
In the
16:28:37 future.
>> Thanks.
>> ERICKA: Thank you.
16:28:40 I see a hand from
16:28:43 Mara.
>> MARA: Thank you.
Yeah.
16:28:46 I was going to chime in.
I do some work on the
16:28:49 affordable housing side of things as well.
Like
16:28:53 I'm on the Metro bond
16:28:57 housing oversight committee and how that is being
16:29:00 spent, $700 million in affordable housing that we
16:29:03 approved in 2014 and that is probably
16:29:06 where some of the numbers are coming from in the last ten years in terms of
16:29:09 production, and that's like a really strategic, like
16:29:13 30-year plan almost that's been put
16:29:16 into plan to even create those units.
16:29:19
So that's why it is heartbreaking to think
16:29:22 about this strategy that goes in to convincing property
16:29:26 developers to build affordable
16:29:29 housing, and how much it takes,
16:29:32 like a weird policy gymnastics and lots
16:29:35 of, you know, handouts, for
16:29:39 lack of a better word, to get people to come
16:29:42 here to build.
And then to stay affordable over
16:29:45 a period of time.
And I'm just going to
16:29:48 chime in and say, one of my mentors taught me a
16:29:52 long time ago, no matter how much I resisted is that
16:29:55 poverty is not a protected class in and of itself, right?
16:29:58
And I think that's something that really sits
16:30:02 with me because we know that a lot of
16:30:05 the actual protected class do sit in poverty or they're really
16:30:08 impacted when something like the housing
16:30:12 market, you know, implodes or becomes catastrophic and it's
16:30:15 like -- that's what I really am looking forward to
16:30:19 and what I see here is this new
16:30:22 way of trying to hold people accountable for the
16:30:26 systemic, you know, impact and as part of my
16:30:29 onboarding of fair
16:30:33 housing, they actually had me read a
16:30:36 book, "the Color of
16:30:39 Law," these are policies that are intentional, they were put in
16:30:42 place, and they did the job that they were designed to do, and
16:30:46 now we have to design policy to get ourselves
16:30:49 out of this mess.
We're not going to rent
16:30:52 our way out.
We're not going to test our way out.
16:30:55
We have to change the system itself to stop
16:30:59 segregating people by their housing which then
16:31:02 segregates them by class and all sorts of other
16:31:05 things.
So anyway, just chiming in there.
But I'm
16:31:08 looking forward, hopefully, to the future of
16:31:12 fair housing in Portland and in our state, so I hope
16:31:15 we can really take a look at all --
16:31:18
especially, too, Mr. Irelan, talking about
16:31:22 affordable housing, that certainly is an area that's ripe
16:31:25 because that's $700 million was just spent and so
16:31:28 a lot of that is for new developers
16:31:32 coming into our area that have never
16:31:36 built here before and those folks should be monitored and watched to
16:31:39 make sure they are following the law as well as producing
16:31:43 lots of units for us, right?
16:31:47
Lots of boxes but also follow the laws
16:31:50 once you build them.
I'll stop there.
16:31:54
>> ERICKA: Thank you so much for those
16:31:57 comments.
16:32:01
Stephanie Grayce.
>> STEPHANIE: I'm
16:32:04 a staff attorney for the law clinic
16:32:07 at Lewis & Clark and one issue I'm seeing over
16:32:11 and over is sort of the intersection here, and I posted a
16:32:14 comment in the chat.
The data on this
16:32:17 is consistently clear that we're talking
16:32:20 about a lot of incentives that are fantastic and I think
16:32:24 they're spot-on, but seeing the implementation
16:32:27 and, you know, I think Mara articulated
16:32:31 it well that poverty is not a protected class.
But
16:32:34 we start looking
16:32:39 at, you know, which communities are most impacted by poverty, and I'm
16:32:42 going to step into sort of my realm, which is the
16:32:45 formerly incarcerated community, and we
16:32:49 know that that is a disproportionate impact on
16:32:52 our BIPOC communities and people of color, so we start to see
16:32:56 the trickle down impact of
16:32:59 that.
For a lot of people formerly
16:33:03 incarcerated, buying is their only option because they're not a protected
16:33:06 class when it comes to renting.
Even if we have
16:33:09 the protections in place that landlords can only look
16:33:13 back five years within an agreement with the
16:33:16 City of Portland, it doesn't exist everywhere in Oregon, so
16:33:20 they're looking at buying, and then they can't.
16:33:23
We can talk to their access to employment and other
16:33:26 things, but we have things intersecting where
16:33:29 they are protecting --
they are affecting people
16:33:33 of color in ways that, you know, we can't
16:33:36 get at specifically but indirectly.
And I think
16:33:39 we need to start having that conversation
16:33:43 of how that permeates all of
16:33:46 these avenues and how do
16:33:49 we better address that
16:33:52 because the issue is just compounding
16:33:55 because we have all the research and we have
16:33:59 all these suggestions and the implementation
16:34:02 isn't happening yet and what we're seeing
16:34:05 is more and more people becoming
16:34:08 affected and a disparate impact and people without the
16:34:11 resources that they need.
And I would like for us
16:34:14 to figure out -- this is my big,
16:34:18 hairy, audacious goal, to figure out how we
16:34:21 do this better so that we find ways to
16:34:25 bring us out of this
16:34:28 system that have oppressed so
16:34:31 many Oregonians for so long.
16:34:34
>> ERICKA: Thank you so much for the work that you do,
16:34:39 Stephanie, and for your comments today.
Are there
16:34:42 any additional comments in the
16:34:45 chat?
16:34:49
I would agree that there is a joint
16:34:52 responsibility, not just housing,
16:34:56 but the opportunity to address the income
16:34:59 issues that we have.
It's ironic that we're talking about
16:35:04 housing for a city where hundreds of
16:35:07 folks in the Black community were
16:35:10 raised which
16:35:13 minimizing generational wealth and
16:35:17 those families that Black families cannot
16:35:20 afford to live where their
16:35:24 grandmothers owned property.
I hope that our bureau and leadership in
16:35:27 the state and the city are thinking about ways that
16:35:30 we can coordinate efforts so thank
16:35:34 you, Stephanie, for your comments.
Are there
16:35:37 other thoughts or any questions around
16:35:40 the presentation that we just heard?
16:35:44
Yes.
16:35:48
>> DR. KRISHNAN: I've been thinking about it and
16:35:51 I don't want to -- with my
16:35:54 friend, she
16:35:57 is listening, but I thought --
come
16:36:00 your way and she shared
16:36:03 this, that most of
16:36:06 us sitting --
16:36:11
really becoming -- they are not
16:36:15 unaffordable yet, they are
16:36:18 --
and the [indiscernible]
16:36:22 Tokyo, and I thought
16:36:25 -- it interested me because
16:36:28 I believe affordability is not an issue in the
16:36:32 city, speaking from memory, and I could share the
16:36:36 link, it's just that they build and they
16:36:40 build.
But they don't give up --
willing
16:36:43 to give up a cultural shift,
16:36:46 they would [indiscernible].
And I'm not
16:36:49 sure we could go there, but it's like
16:36:53 -- if we could talk
16:36:56 about it and
16:36:59 -- not only changes but
16:37:03 a cultural shift that
16:37:06 we just --
16:37:09 and then you have others where I believe
16:37:12 the -- most of the units are
16:37:16 closed to some and --
16:37:19 but it really got me thinking that if we need --
16:37:23 we're going to need 120,000 units,
16:37:26 you know, we really need [indiscernible].
>> ERICKA: I
16:37:29 agree.
Indeed.
Thank you
16:37:32 all so much.
Barb, one additional
16:37:36 comment?
>> BARBARA: A very quick comment.
I need
16:37:40 to bring into this again the role
16:37:43 of the real estate agents and which I've been a part,
16:37:47 licensed for over 20
16:37:50 years, finally licensed in
16:37:53 [indiscernible] and Oregon.
16:37:58
We don't look at numbers
16:38:01 straightforward, real estate has been -- for decades
16:38:04 in how to put people in housing where there's a will, and we
16:38:08 work with people.
And it's
16:38:11 such a huge section of the population,
16:38:14 soap I just wanted to
16:38:17 say, again,
16:38:21 active with the community in
16:38:24 real estate.
I've been meeting --
16:38:27 what they're doing with what
16:38:31 they need to -- in our
16:38:34 discussions.
My opinion.
And
16:38:37 -- thank you.
>> ERICKA: All right.
With that, they're going to
16:38:41 move forward.
We just have about 20
16:38:44 minutes for our last agenda item.
I want to bring
16:38:47 to your attention, we are going to
16:38:51 enter into a discussion around this
16:38:54 committee and how it continues to function as we move
16:38:57 forward, so I just want to
16:39:01 share just a brief background in regards
16:39:04 to in the fall of '22,
16:39:08 this group voted to create
16:39:11 two subcommittees that would focus
16:39:14 on particular groups of work relevant to
16:39:17 fair housing.
The committee were
16:39:22 the policy and best practices.
The committee consisted of
16:39:25 only three members.
Those folks
16:39:28 were interested in policy options and fair
16:39:31 housing best practices.
The second committee was
16:39:34 the community engagement committee.
Currently, two
16:39:38 members, with a focus on community
16:39:42 engagement and since the inception of
16:39:46 both of those
16:39:49 committees in '22, a lack of a
16:39:53 quorum and participation and really developing a strategy, a work
16:39:56 plan for the function and scope of those
16:40:00 two committees.
And as of this
16:40:03 year, one member of the community
16:40:07 engagement subcommittee has submitted their resignation.
16:40:10
So we are looking
16:40:13 to have a
16:40:18 recommendation from the body, the
16:40:21 public Housing Bureau
16:40:26 , asked us to move forward with or without the
16:40:29 subcommittees, but we wanted to offer an opportunity to
16:40:33 this committee to have a discussion
16:40:36 around potential
16:40:40 sun setting around those two subcommittees.
Did you have anything
16:40:44 you wanted to add before we entered our
16:40:47 discussion?
>> I will open the floor
16:40:50 if there are potential questions
16:40:54 or there are comments.
I would
16:40:58 love to hear from others
16:41:01 on the FHAC who
16:41:04 have not contributed to the conversation today, so
16:41:08 if you have an opportunity to turn on your video and engage with
16:41:12 us, your voice matters in this
16:41:15 conversation.
16:41:22
Thank you so much.
Any thoughts
16:41:24 from councilmembers?
16:41:33
Mara, we'll go to you first.
16:41:37 >> MARA: I don't want to take up too much space, but yeah, I just wanted
16:41:40 to say I was on one of the previous subcommittees and I liked
16:41:43 the idea of them.
They were created
16:41:47 because there were a lot of energetic period during that
16:41:50 iteration of FHAC that wanted to get to
16:41:53 work, but then we kind of fell out because of the changes that were
16:41:56 going on around the goals of like fair housing
16:41:59 federally, I suppose.
So I am excited to maybe do
16:42:02 some subcommittees moving forward, especially with all the new members
16:42:06 that we have.
It just seems like
16:42:09 our committee work was -- we went into it thinking that we'd
16:42:12 come up with the idea once we got
16:42:15 there, but I love the idea that we could come up with something together
16:42:18 as a new team.
I'm definitely open to
16:42:21 the idea of
16:42:24 subcommittees in the future.
>> ERICKA: Absolutely.
16:42:28
It makes a lot of sense to create the strategy
16:42:31 around the scope of the group to determine where your
16:42:34 needs are as we move forward.
That's a great
16:42:37 thought.
Thank you, Mara.
Caroline,
16:42:41 I see your hand.
>> CAROLINE:
16:42:44 That sort of answers my question.
I was wondering if there was
16:42:47 any documentation or subcommittee charters available
16:42:50 to see what was originally formulated and also, I'm particularly
16:42:53 interested in the policies and best practices
16:42:56 subcommittee, particularly thinking about how many other
16:43:00 cities are going to through some similar affordability challenges
16:43:03 and wondering what resources -- and I'm sure
16:43:08 there's plenty of staff in the PHB that has
16:43:11 looked into it, but if there's
16:43:14 any investigation of ongoing best practices work in
16:43:17 partner cities that we could, you know, not have to
16:43:20 reinvent the wheel around, that would be really interesting to
16:43:24 work on.
But I'm not sure if that's falling in with
16:43:27 the intentional scope.
So my question is
16:43:31 whether there's any past minutes
16:43:35 or documents for records.
16:43:40
>> NIKI: Yes, it's essentially going to say a
16:43:43 quick blurb about what you
16:43:47 said, to investigate around policies
16:43:50 and best practices out in other
16:43:54 areas that would then get incorporated back
16:43:57 to community
16:44:00 engagement, you know, much further than
16:44:04 the community engagement around fair
16:44:07 housing.
At this time, when these
16:44:10 were created, kind of
16:44:14 indicated, had the fair housing plan
16:44:17 outlined as alternative analysis.
I can send
16:44:20 those to you.
I have some old survey results and some meeting
16:44:23 notes that I can send to you.
But they did
16:44:26 not get formal charters in their
16:44:29 establishment.
They weren't able to
16:44:32 clarify in that statement.
16:44:37
>> CAROLINE: Thank you.
>> ERICKA: From all of the things I
16:44:40 have read the last few months and engaging
16:44:43 the strategy and the subcommittee work, there hasn't
16:44:47 been enough focus, I think, with the
16:44:50 collective wisdom and passion, as
16:44:54 Mara stated, of the
16:44:57 whole body that there's productivity in
16:45:00 the work moving forward.
I'm sure many of you are
16:45:04 functioning in several areas and being
16:45:08 thoughtful and considerate of your time and efforts and creating a path
16:45:12 that leads to the best collaboration and
16:45:15 information.
Are there other
16:45:18 thoughts?
Any thoughts?
>>
16:45:22 I guess I just -- to me, it's like
16:45:25 -- it's something that's interesting to
16:45:28 me, but I don't feel,
16:45:31 right now, I don't have the sense
16:45:36 that --
16:45:40
[indiscernible], it's just something
16:45:42 that's not -- you know, independent
16:45:46 of other committees throughout the
16:45:49 city or something that's
16:45:54 needed, it's great, and
16:45:58 needed.
I just don't -- I don't know if that's the
16:46:02 case.
>> ERICKA: Very
16:46:06 fair, thank you.
16:46:11
>> BARBARA: Unfortunately, we
16:46:15 did have a lot of -- didn't have a lot of information that came
16:46:18 out of -- the meeting, so I --
but
16:46:21 I did want to report to the larger
16:46:26 body, I worked with --
16:46:29 I am confused -- well, first of
16:46:33 all, my opinion, this should not have a subcommittee,
16:46:36 frankly, but I disagree
16:46:40 with the premise that
16:46:43 was proposed and wanted information and
16:46:47 turned into a different situation for
16:46:50 me [indiscernible].
So
16:46:53 I was thinking, the larger body
16:46:56 really feel with some decision
16:46:59 that I am confused because of what
16:47:03 fair housing is.
Is around fair housing.
16:47:06
Are we talking about affordability?
Is
16:47:10 that what it is?
Are we
16:47:13 talking about preventing
16:47:16 -- mentioning people of
16:47:19 color, like myself, from
16:47:25 integrating?
That isn't necessarily
16:47:28 affordability.
That's just no one wants to take
16:47:31 my offer because I'm a person of color.
16:47:35
It's very different being able to
16:47:38 afford.
So I would really hope
16:47:42 we could establish what we are talking about when
16:47:45 you say fair housing.
[Indiscernible] that's my understanding.
16:47:48
>> ERICKA: That's a very strong statement, you feel as
16:47:51 though your opinion is not taken because you're a person of
16:47:56 color.
That's a strong
16:47:59 allegation, and I'm sorry, I
16:48:02 apologize, with my understanding
16:48:05 and have been
16:48:11 [indiscernible].
I wonder, though, in reviewing what the
16:48:15 purpose of this particular committee
16:48:19 stated, this committee is tasked to review the
16:48:23 regional fair housing planning process
16:48:26 and implementation of the fair housing plan and give
16:48:29 recommendations in regards to that, to
16:48:33 PHB.
So I'd like your --
16:48:36 again, if based on your
16:48:39 comment, where kind of these
16:48:42 ideas and, you know, great
16:48:45 passion, where they fit within
16:48:49 the scope of what this committee is for.
It
16:48:52 sounds like there might be a little bit of a
16:48:55 disconnect, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
16:48:59 pivot, but it seems there needs to be some
16:49:02 work around the continual scope of
16:49:05 this committee and how it views recommendations to PHB
16:49:09 in regards to the fair housing plan.
16:49:12
Are there other thoughts
16:49:16 online?
I see several
16:49:20 FHAC members in the meeting.
Again, your contribution to this
16:49:23 meeting is important so we have the collective brain trust
16:49:27 of all of you.
Are there others online who would
16:49:30 want to give their thoughts
16:49:33 in regards to
16:49:40 sun setting the committees and rethinking,
16:49:43 restructuring scope and how you
16:49:46 move forward?
16:49:55
>> DUNG: I'll just pop in.
This
16:49:59 is Dung, FHAC member.
16:50:02
I did not participate in the
16:50:06 subcommittee, so I feel like I don't have a strong
16:50:09 opinion as far as whether they should continue or not.
I think that
16:50:13 there is a place for them as the
16:50:16 need arises and it seemed
16:50:19 there was, you know, some
16:50:23 challenges with, you know, with what the
16:50:26 focus was for the subcommittees.
But,
16:50:30 again, as someone
16:50:33 had mentioned earlier, there's newer members,
16:50:36 fresh energy, new perspectives.
So that could
16:50:39 revive either some new subcommittees or the two
16:50:46 subcommittees that are already in existence, and I think it could
16:50:50 go either way.
I'm open to it.
And also, I think we
16:50:54 all kind of mentioned that before just a matter
16:50:57 of different people's
16:51:00 capacities and ability to
16:51:03 participate and so that might be something
16:51:06 that is reconsidered, again, as well, you know, what
16:51:09 are the time expectations and
16:51:13 commitments for the subcommittees and so -- yeah, that's my
16:51:16 opinion for now.
Thanks.
>> ERICKA: Thank
16:51:19 you.
Is there any others,
16:51:22 any other FHAC members online
16:51:26 with thoughts or comments?
I will
16:51:29 tell you, again, sitting
16:51:32 in the role of facilitator,
16:51:35 mediator, I'm hearing this may need to be an
16:51:39 adjustment, right, at least to what would be
16:51:43 a recalibration of skill
16:51:46 assessments and thinking about the things that
16:51:50 are important to this group, scope and function and the
16:51:53 role that PHB
16:51:56 has forward for this group
16:52:00 and reassessing.
That's what I'm hearing from many
16:52:03 of you.
If there aren't any further questions,
16:52:06 I wonder, again, that is what I'm hearing,
16:52:10 a consensus from this group, of course, open to --
16:52:13 if they think it is necessary and if there is
16:52:16 a need and if there's an
16:52:19 opportunity for clearer definition of
16:52:22 scope of work.
16:52:34
Well, with that, we have done well, and
16:52:37 we are just about eight minutes shy
16:52:40 of our time, and we can give that back to you
16:52:45 all.
Thank you for your investment, for your
16:52:49 advocacy.
Thank you for calling to the attention
16:52:52 of what really is fair housing and how we help
16:52:55 our city leaders, how
16:52:59 we help our government to --
16:53:02 how we do better.
And not create
16:53:06 further harm in our
16:53:09 city.
So I want to bid you a good
16:53:12 night.
Thank you for your investment of time, and