Margot Black (running for Commissioner position 2)
Should policies be adopted to ensure every neighborhood in Portland welcomes more neighbors, through smaller, denser, lower-cost housing options like smallplexes, cottage clusters, and small-to-moderate-sized apartment complexes, via both the nonprofit and private markets?
Yes, everywhere. Some of the most charming housing in Portland is missing middle housing that wouldn’t be legal to build today because of zoning restrictions. Moreover, the zoning restrictions that have limited missing middle housing, and especially rental housing (of any size), are based in classist and racist exclusionary ideals that has caused and exacerbated the severe economic inequality that currently plagues Portland. Many of our neighborhoods were created explicitly to prevent non-homeowners and non-white people from residing in them. And the forces that continue to lobby forcefully against creating housing are those that have significantly benefited from our exclusionary zoning, or stand to benefit from it from the scarcity it creates.
Our population is only going to grow, especially as climate continues to push people to seek refuge from droughts in the SW (and other areas that are increasingly becoming unlivable) in the relatively temperate Pacific NW. As a person who loves numbers and mathematical modeling, it’s ridiculous to suggest that Portland could absorb this growth and continue its unhealthy relationship with single family housing, especially McMansions which pair small households with enough square footage to happily house several families, especially when we consider the impact of stacking.
My vision for Portland’s housing ecosystem is one in which people at every income level and background can live close-in, or whatever neighborhood they want or need to live in. Right now that is only possible for the most economically privileged, or the extremely lucky (which usually goes hand-in-hand with systemic privilege). Every neighborhood needs more small, dense, family friendly, and quality housing available, at every price point.
Should Portland expand transit-oriented development (allowing apartment complexes by-right within a short walk of all major transit lines) as a way to discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles and reduce our city’s carbon emissions?
Yes. When I was 19, my 6-month old daughter and I were no-cause evicted from a small apartment complex in SW Portland and didn’t have a car. The apartment complex was right off of Canyon road, and I could easily hop a bus or walk to my work waiting tables at Red Robin. Due to severe financial constraints and other barriers, the only place that I could move to was a new apartment complex in Hillsboro, within walking distance of the then-new MAX line. The only problem was that the MAX wasn’t yet operational, and the area otherwise had very spotty public transit that ran infrequently and didn’t go to or near most of the places I needed to get. I had to use tip money for taxis, which compromised my ability to pay for pretty much anything else I needed, and ultimately got fired after I was late to work more than 3 times.
I was able to find a new job quickly, but childcare required a 20-minute stoller-walk on dark rainy mornings along the side of a busy highway with no shoulder in one direction, and there was no way to efficiently (i.e. less than 2+ hours) get to my new job on public transit so I relied on taxis and rides from a coworker who fortunately had a daughter living in the same complex. As an impoverished single mother of a baby, living in the exurbs, riding a bike, walking, or catching a bus just weren’t realistic or available options, and I eventually tried to buy a car, which just led to other financial nightmares.
I share all this to say that easy access to reliable, efficient, and affordable public transit is imperative to the health of this city, the people in it, and the climate. Public transit should be free, expanded, and all our development should be transit oriented.
Should neighborhood associations have less, as much, or more power than other community organizations when it comes to questions of housing, such as whether new apartments or homeless shelters are permitted in a given neighborhood?
Less power. This is a really tricky question. “Neighborhood Associations” aren’t a well-defined monolith. Many of our NAs have absolutely been problematic—with great consequence—in their opposition to affordable housing, rental housing, historical preservation, homelessness, and density. But such opposition isn’t necessarily the will of the entire neighborhood, nor would it be if participants and decision makers were more informed and composed of a diverse representation of the neighborhood.
In general I’m very supportive of neighborhood based organizing, and I do think that NAs play an important role in the vitality of a neighborhood, and we should be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater in efforts to reorganize what role NAs play in decisions that affect their neighborhood. But when it comes to being inclusive of housing options and residents who have been historically excluded from certain neighborhoods, and decisions around that are based on an irrational fear of people who rent, have low-incomes, or don’t have homes, their power should be extremely limited. The decisions should be primarily informed by what is best for the city, and for making neighborhoods more diverse, inclusive, and representative of the city as a whole.
Should Portland dedicate less, as much, or more money to regulated affordable housing? (If you answered "more money," what funding mechanism(s) would you pursue to build this additional housing?)
More money. This is a tougher question now that we’re heading into possibly the greatest depression ever. In general, I’m a big fan of taxes on wealth, high incomes and luxury consumption, and would absolutely be willing to use the bully pulpit of the city’s lobby arm to be a vocal champion at the state of reforming our property tax structure and repealing the ban on a real estate transfer tax. Ultimately, I think it’s a city’s job to make sure that there is enough housing in the city for the people who live and work there. More generally, I think housing should be treated and regulated as a public utility, and if our housing is fully publicly owned then everyone should have a voucher ensuring that they do not pay more of their income in rent than will allow them to provide for their other basic needs. This is a long-game vision, which will possibly and hopefully be accelerated by the COVID crisis, but absolutely in conflict with housing as a vehicle for personal investment and wealth creation governed by the market.
When it comes to our current models for developing and preserving affordable and subsidized housing in Portland, and even market rate housing, I think there is a lot of work to be done to make that housing less expensive to produce, and less expensive to rent or buy. We know what many of the issues are that drive up costs, and have the tools at hand to address these issues, but seem to lack the political will to introduce needed reforms due to power of those who benefit from the status quo. I am the type of person who isn’t afraid to ask hard questions and push for creative, innovative, and bold solutions that will challenge entrenched interests.
Would you support a citywide moratorium on evictions during the three coldest months of the year, as Seattle recently adopted?
Yes. Our ongoing and unabating housing and homelessness crisis in Portland is in no small part due to the ease of the eviction process in Oregon. Evictions in Oregon are statutorily expedited civil court processes and are the fastest civil legal procedure behind getting a restraining order. Being $1 short on rent by the 13th of the month can lead to a tenant losing their housing with zero recourse beyond the mercy of the landlord. Eviction court in Multnomah county runs everyday, at 9AM, and has 20-40 people on the docket, everyday. Most of the defendants are from affordable or public housing, and are in court for non-payment of rent. Research shows that in general about 90% of landlords are represented in eviction court, and about 90% of tenants aren’t -- which dramatically impacts the outcome of the proceedings. About a ⅓ of the tenants will receive default judgements and automatically lose their housing because they didn’t show up in court -- perhaps because they were unaware of their court date, the necessity of being there, the sense of futility of showing up, or because they can’t afford to take time off work to get downtown for half a day. With the eviction on their record and imminent displacement, they will have difficulty finding stable housing for years to come.
I go to eviction court regularly with tenants, as a support person who knows the process and can help guide them through it and answer their questions. The courtroom is always filled with our most vulnerable residents who aren’t going to be any better off getting evicted during warmer months than in the winter. Obviously I would support a winter eviction moratoria, but we need extensive eviction reform for all forms of evictions so that they once again become a rare last resort process for the most serious and egregious of situations. We should not be tossing people into years of housing insecurity and homelessness simply because they were poor and couldn’t make rent regularly.
What we need more than moratoria limited to certain hardships, is a displacement impact report before any eviction is ever filed to ensure that our most vulnerable residents aren’t made more so, and housing to transition an evicted tenant into, instead of homelessness.
As Portland implements an anti-displacement plan, which policies from the Anti-Displacement PDX Coalition would you support? What additional anti-displacement policies do you support?
Require advance 90-day written notice to a tenant if the owner plans to sell, demolish, or redevelop their home.
Grant a “right to stay” to existing tenants; require landlords to rehouse tenants they displace in their neighborhoods at a rent comparable to what they had been paying, or by helping the tenants to purchase a unit with down-payment assistance.
Implement a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase policy that gives all current renters, and then the city, the first and second rights of refusal to purchase a property at fair-market value before it goes on the market.
Earmark Construction Excise Tax (CET) revenue from construction in single-dwelling zones as a source of subsidy for affordable units in single-dwelling zones.
Charge a fee for any redevelopment of a property in single-dwelling zones that does not include at least two units, unless prevented by site constraints and use the new revenue from this fee to subsidize regulated affordable units in the single-dwelling zones.
Property tax exemption for any regulated affordable units built on-site, for the duration of the affordability restriction.
We need stronger rent control to ensure that as neighborhoods redevelop and become more prosperous, the incumbent tenants aren’t rapidly priced out. Rent control is the only reason that the bay area and NYC still have low-income communities that have lived in their buildings and neighborhoods for years, or generations.
The ban on local rent control needs to be lifted so that Portland can craft its own policy and develop a rent board to regulate it. But the policy should include stronger rent control for areas identified as vulnerable to gentrification, and should not include a categorical exemption for new properties -- as this pits renters against developers, though perhaps those newer developments would have more flexibility to raise rents than older properties.
We also need higher relocation assistance in many situations, particularly for displacement related to redevelopment, and anytime a multi-family building is renovating or rehabbing to attract a higher income tenant than the incumbent tenants. This could be offset by providing replacement housing in the same neighborhood.
In general, we should have policies that strongly disincentivize displacement of incumbent tenants from their homes and neighborhood and that sufficiently mitigate the harm to those who are displaced. People who feel connected to their community, should be able to watch it change and grow without feeling unwanted or about to be ejected. It will take a variety of tools, but we also need to work on a wholesale paradigm shift that reimagines the social contract around housing, development, and who is a part of a community (i.e. not just homeowners).
What else should Portland pro-housing, pro-tenant community know about you & your candidacy?
I am a fierce, relentless, and aggressive (but civil!) advocate for tenants rights, especially security of tenure. My vision for Portland is one in which we have abundant housing for every type of household all over Portland, which will necessarily include density and more multifamily housing, and I feel strongly that our efforts need to orient toward decommodifying housing to make this a reality. However, I also recognize that this is not something that can be accomplished abruptly or on a short timeline (or ever without building the political movement to make it happen), and thus am very aware of what constraints we are working within right now and am sensitive to the fact that some of the regulations I’d favor could compromise our ability to build the housing we need if we’re relying on the private for-profit market to do it.
Black received an A overall from our scoring committee. See all scores and read about our process here.