Seth Woolley (running for Commissioner position 4)

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. I think our city government has done a lackluster job in creating the regulatory and market conditions necessary to push efficient, affordable housing through middle-income housing. I've been highly disappointed in the RIP process because it has mostly legalized things that will move the needle very slowly, if at all because it hasn't gone far enough to ensure the market will actually build the kinds of properties in question. The map is also very sparse, and doesn't cover all the areas it should. It hasn't had enough protections to ensure housing rebuilt is long term affordable, and it hasn't figured out how to work together with the more reactionary neighbors and neighborhood organizations. The city has definitely learned how to galvanize opposition and has lost credibility.

I'd also push to eliminate public and private parking and single occupancy vehicle subsidies. With more available space we could build housing on, even if it is also on wheels (tiny homes for example as a transition), we could help reduce the land cost problem for housing.

I think the government could buy land and own the land and let developers build property to sell to owners who would own the built property and build equity of the built property. The good incentives of home ownership exist when the housing is owned, but not so much when it's just urban land, which is getting more expensive. We could also exempt the land portion of taxes from the housing owner. When they sell, they would sell the house, but not the land. This would also ensure the city had control over what got developed on the land much more than it can now. There are many ways to create public-private partnerships with naturally sound incentives. Private systems (Pround Ground) only have so many resources, so these types of systems should be scaled up.

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. I'm a huge fan of transit-oriented development. I've lived in Silicon Valley right above a light rail stop and across the street from my employer. I didn't have to own a car at the time, and I spent seven years without a valid license. I've spent a few months in San Francisco, and when I've traveled to Seoul or London, I've seen how efficient public transit can be.

When I travel, I always try to use every form of transit, and I've worked on deploying transit systems in Egypt and Mexico where no public transit existed. I really want to see a reduction in subsidies for cars and inefficient modes of transit, to have people make the more rational choices in how to move and how and where to live.

If we make systemic changes to the market with smart regulations and in many cases deregulation, we can make the economy more rational and opportunities that organically developed in other cities will happen here.

But at the same time, the market isn't moving fast enough to help stave off the climate crisis, so we need to not just eliminate subsidies against what we want. We should redirect them into what we do want to see, which is homes where people will make the right choices for the environment without feeling like it's a cost burden to them.

There is a lot of work we need to do.

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. I think there are a number of things neighborhood associations do well as volunteer organizations. That is addressing local urgent issues such as polluters and public safety (traffic issues, for example). Associations have failed to be as democratic as they could be. The city is largely ignoring its responsibility to hold them accountable, and it's acting in a punitive way rather than in a constructive way.

I'd strengthen them when they are doing good. But at the same time, they are entitled with reviews of certain things that they really should not be reviewing because the policies should be decided regionally.

We need to dig deep into how we can change that. Further, the kind of power they have is mostly to put brakes on projects that they don't like for not so appropriate reasons. We need to ensure that if it makes sense for them to have input, it should be moved earlier in the process so it can happen in parallel with other reviews, making democracy not a deterrent to projects that could benefit the public interest.

I also think we could do a lot to satisfy district level interests by changes to how the city seeks such input in a much more technically distributed fashion and by direct engagement with neighbors, rather than through an indirect organization of volunteers. If such a system were developed, it would be less likely for a few small affluent interests to be so influential on things that the whole community might have a different view on.

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. I do like what has happened with recent taxes regarding both housing and the upcoming tax for homeless services and support. I do like doing regional and state level, broad taxation to ensure companies can't flee over a border if they can avoid being community partners for ensuring affordable housing. I also prefer levies over bonds, but for fully publicly owned housing or cases where we're shooting for urgent work that pays dividends if it happens earlier rather than gradually, I would be willing to use bonding capacity. I want to consider any ways I can to capture money from unaffordable housing to redirect it into affordable housing. While unaffordable housing development does contribute some to reducing pressure on cheaper forms of housing, it's not full, and we should study the numbers to see if there are good arguments to taxing parts of the luxury housing process. Many changes I'd like to see are preempted by the state, and we should lobby to overturn those when we see them, by studying the issues and making reports, and potentially even having city leaders invite signatures on state level ballot measures.

For example, I want to make our property tax system more like a land value tax, gradually. And city leaders should be willing to say enough is enough on unfair taxation that we currently have that pushes displacement and penalizes housing development.

We could do more with our systems development charges to make them more incorporative of the need to build more housing.

Ultimately, I'd like to see enough public ownership of housing that we would never have to be concerned about where to direct people when they lack housing, as they may have difficulty participating in the private housing market anyways. But the private market is also really important. I'm in favor of inclusionary zoning, and giving regulatory bonuses for affordable housing. While we're often at the whim of an international market for housing, if we build up resiliency in our housing systems long before these boom-bust cycles make them crises, that will help us get through the cycles.

Would you support a citywide moratorium on evictions during the three coldest months of the year, as Seattle recently adopted?

Yes. I think in our local climate, it's not wise to push people out when it's most difficult, and it's best to force regulations market wide rather than to hope that landlords will be good. For fairness, we should be in favor of sophisticated regulation that covers everybody rather than try to make smaller changes. Each change requires political capital and with our improved systems (campaign limits, public funding, etc.) should mean that our not so good elected officials will be less likely to push back with all sorts of loopholes since they won't be in office anymore in the first place. I think we should seek Metro-wide regulations when we make these moves, but it we can't do that, the city does need to lead by acting first.

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.

If we had enough data (see below) I'd want to make some sensible stabilization policies that don't discriminate between those who already reside and those who haven't been living in Portland, like many rent control schemes do. I've see newer tenants pay many times more than a neighbor with the same amenities due to rent control in San Francisco, where the neighbor was a retired Yale law professor who could afford to live anywhere. Portland is very white already and many immigrants are not, so when we talk about anti-displacement for equity reasons we need to consider that some coming here are displaced from elsewhere and we don't want to perpetuate that. Also many displaced here may have been displaced just outside the city and want to come back in. Without specific work to address that right to return and not just stay, the policies may create different forms of injustice. These are complex issues that require systemic understanding in order to craft broad and effective policies.

I think the city has often tried to make policy in the dark, and to improve that I'd push for much more data collection on the kind of units occupied, what amenities they have, and how much is being paid with breakdowns for all sorts of costs that may or may not be included in rent. With collected information regarding tenants. we could actually identify what causes displacement by data analysis. We can see if some landlords are overcharging or unreasonably raising rents. I would want rent raises to be sent to the city in advance for review with guidance from the city to explain where their old and new rents are compared to other entities in the city. The information could be sent to the tenants as well to ensure they know what their options are. I believe information and data drive the best policies, and I'd want to put a significant investment in tracking this kind of data so we can craft policies that finely balance the need to both protect tenants and to ensure a healthy development market that provides and supports housing. This isn't exactly a new idea, but it should be a primary focus.

What else should Portland pro-housing, pro-tenant community know about you & your candidacy?

I'm a very data driven person and I don't like making policy without data, so I will do whatever I can to ensure data becomes available where it is missing.

I also am very pro democracy and I appreciate that cities are becoming more and more tenant-occupied.

I'd also like to see everybody have access to ownership of their own housing for the same reason I'm in favor of people owning the means of their own production. The means of their own shelter is the same thing. Public owned or Private owned are both best to me. While tenants do pay rent to another owner, I want to ensure that because it is a necessary human need, that it is efficiently but definitely regulated to maximize access and fairness. I've been both a tenant and a homeowner and for a while I was both while I worked in Silicon Valley, making me a landlord and tenant at the same time. I've seen both sides and want to ensure all sides are treated fairly.

I'm also an environmentalist who wants to push faster to get ahead of climate change, and our build environment is currently not ideal for that. A very holistic approach to where we gradually reconfigure our cities while not leaving anybody behind is an extremely difficult problem and will require a lot of help, and no single person will be the source of every solution. So we need to ensure we are able to empower those willing to act to be able to act, and support activists in both public non-profits and in the business world to contribute where they can contribute best. I support building up rather than out, and ensuring we are very protective of areas outside our urban growth boundary. I believe there is enough land inside our boundary if we have smart infill policies, and if we fail to implement those policies we will have no choice but to build out. That's the last thing I want to see, so we have to recognize that single family housing needs to get much more diverse. I live in one, since I was able to buy when it was affordable, but we need to be able to welcome more density. Stop Demolishing Portland publicly chastised me for owning a house after I confronted them on the environmental need for infill when I was asked to help them on the lead abatement issue. I don't fear telling people what I think even when it's not exactly what they want to hear. But I will work my hardest not to disrespect them for their view because I believe with discussion and understanding better policies do come forth.

Woolley received a B overall from our scoring committee. See all scores and read about our process here.