Yes, we need housing. But Metro must make a better case for bond: Editorial

The Orchards at Orenco affordable housing development opened in 2015.(Randy L. Rasmussen for The Oregonian/ )


There was no real mystery surrounding the Metro Council's vote Thursday on whether to put an affordable housing bond measure on the November ballot. The regional government had been telegraphing for months its interest in spearheading a tri-county funding initiative for housing.

Thursday's heartfelt testimony about families struggling under double-digit rent hikes and students hopscotching from school to school with each change of address, only ensured its unanimity. For the Metro Council, saying "yes" to a referral was the easy part.

The agency shouldn't assume, however, that the question will be so easy for voters, even those keenly aware of the acute shortage of housing. There are plenty of reasons to question whether entrusting $652.8 million to Metro, an agency with no discernible expertise in affordable housing and a spotty record on accountability, is the wisest solution. The bond would fund between 2,400 and 3,900 units, depending on a separate ballot measure seeking to loosen constitutional restrictions on bond spending, in a region that's tens of thousands of units short.

The need is massive and undeniable. The goals are worthy and compassionate. But Metro cannot rest its case on that alone. In the five months before the election, Metro must also prove the wisdom of its strategy, its ability to execute the plan and its trustworthiness in guarding taxpayers' interests to persuade voters to make the 30-year commitment Metro is asking of them.

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Mark Katches and John Maher.



Among the questions that Metro should address:

Is this the best use of taxpayer dollars to help the most people? In Thursday's meeting, a housing advocate testified that families are waiting for years for units to come available in existing affordable-housing complexes. Under the most optimistic scenario, Metro assumes the bond would fund roughly 1,755 units in Multnomah County, 1,326 in Washington County and 819 in Clackamas County, with many reserved for the lowest income families. But with the need far outstripping the bond's best estimates, how will those small additions change circumstances for the vast majority of renters?

Metro and its local governments need to explain why this use of taxpayers' dollars is better than alternatives, such as providing developer incentives, tax abatements, rent vouchers or other relief. While Metro's ability to tax the tri-county area helps spread the burden, the tax rate of 24 cents per $1,000 in assessed value - or about $60 annually for a home assessed at $250,000 - comes on top of numerous other bonds and local option levies for schools, local governments and Metro itself.

How will Metro ensure that its housing goals are met?

The goal of affordable housing isn't new. The Metro Council set "fair share" targets in 1997 for cities and counties on how many units of affordable housing they should develop to help keep an adequate supply around the region. But amid sustained resistance, with some cities failing to even incorporate such goals into their planning, Metro pulled back and dropped reporting requirements in 2007.

The promise of money from Metro may help cities rediscover their commitment to affordable housing. But Metro must explain how it will ensure that such development occurs equitably throughout the region, in neighborhoods where families can access quality schools, parks and transit.

What specifically will administrative expenses cover?

The bond measure is promising taxpayers that no more than 5 percent of the proceeds will be used for administrative expenses. This would seem reassuring, because Metro is recognizing that the bulk of this new tax money should go straight to housing. But it also highlights the fact that Metro's involvement means adding a new layer of bureaucracy. While Metro will be the conduit for the money, the agency plans to rely on the region's counties, cities and housing nonprofits to carry out much of the work.

Metro can help assuage any concerns by laying out in detail what administrative expenses, new staffing or additional costs at Metro and elsewhere that these tax dollars will support. It should also affirm its unwavering commitment to the 5 percent cap. That could help tamp down cynicism from voters as a result of the Portland City Council's recent decision to eliminate an administrative cap on collecting the arts tax that had been promised to voters.

Why should voters trust Metro?

Finally, Metro leaders need to show voters why they can be trusted. In the past decade, the regional government has given reason to question both its candor with voters and its management of the millions of taxpayer dollars it receives.

In 2008, voters passed a Metro bond measure for zoo improvements. Confusing campaign information led many to believe that some of the proceeds would be used for an off-site elephant sanctuary. But two years ago, Metro announced it would not build a reserve. Then, in 2013, Metro asked voters to approve an operating levy to restore and maintain natural areas purchased with bonds passed in 1995 and 2006 - even though the 2006 bond specifically stated the proceeds would be used to "restore" areas being purchased.

And in 2016, the Metro auditor released a critical report identifying the lax manner in which Metro manages its capital project planning. Among other alarming findings, the report cites "ad hoc" management, instances where processes were ignored, spending on projects that didn't match budgets and sloppy record-keeping.

The good news is that Metro has plenty of time to put those concerns to rest. It simply needs to recognize the responsibility to do so.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board