Portland, Oregon, which I visited as part of the Marshall Memorial Fellowship, impressed me with its progressive cultural, social and political environment. I was at first struck by its similarity to a Northern European city: many people bike; cafés and parks abound; streetcars and light rail run throughout; and the city is unambiguously ‘green’ (recycling bins on the street sport plenty of slots for different kinds of waste and many of the buildings we visited use low-energy heating and cooling and recycle their wastewater). But I was simultaneously struck by Portland’s distinctly American character, notably its spirit of innovation (it boasts a large number of high-tech start-ups alongside more established companies such as Nike, Adidas USA and Intel) but moreover the relationship between its people and their government.
During a visit of the Oregon Senate and House of Representatives in Salem, I was surprised to learn that state legislators work as politicians only part-time (in Oregon five months one year, one month the other) and only earn 10% of a judge’s salary. When entering the state capitol building, it also becomes apparent how accessible these legislators are: there are no security or access controls, meaning citizens can walk straight into their Representative’s or Senator’s office to raise issues. The combination of working citizens taking out time from their day job to work at the local legislature and their general accessibility struck me as most impressive and a refreshing contrast to the often cordoned-off politicians elected via party lists in other countries.
One can’t help wondering whether this proximity to the people is part of the reason why it seems that states have stepped up efforts to make progress while this is less possible at the federal level. At the same time, I was struck by the extent to which the removal of limits on campaign spending has filtered down to the local level: there are no limits on contributions or expenditures for election campaigns. Even if the federal Supreme Court were to impose a limit, a more liberal state constitution could provide a different regulation. This has resulted in a competitive state senate race costing about $1 million.
The second thing that struck me I discovered during meetings with Professor Patti Sakurai, of Oregon State University, and Jesse Beason, Executive Director of the housing NGO Proud Ground. Despite now being a very liberal and progressive city, Portland has a problematic history with immigration and integration. While the entire country was subject to legislation like the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 Immigration Act, Oregon outlawed African Americans from moving there in 1849. Even after such laws were repealed, discrimination continued through measures such as redlining and the proliferation of deeds of sale prohibiting the sale of houses to African Americans. Urban renewal projects further destroyed black communities by forcing inhabitants into the suburbs.
NGOs have tried to counter this trend and empower minorities by giving them access to property. One such example is Proud Ground, which takes applications from eligible individuals who meet certain criteria, including the ability to get a bank loan for a good part of the purchase price of a house (e.g. $90,000 of a total $130,000 needed). When Proud Ground finds a house that fits these criteria, they offer it to a client and, if he agrees, buy it with the client’s bank loan and the extra money the NGO gets from their sponsors. Next, they legally separate the land the house sits on – which the NGO takes ownership of – and the house itself, which the client takes ownership of. In the deed of the house, a limitation is set up preventing the client from selling the house at a higher price than he paid (except for some small modifications) – thereby ensuring an increasing supply of lower-cost housing.
In this way, it is not the local government but rather the non-profit or private sector that is relied upon to provide subsidized rental property, rent controls or cheap loans; the latter thereby becomes a major landowner in a city. In many European countries there would be an expectation for the government to tackle such issues, not least during times of economic downturn. In Portland NGOs have stepped up to the task.
It was striking to me and other fellows that in contrast to Europe, Portland’s citizens were more willing to entrust a private entity with such responsibility than its elected government – despite the impressively close connection between Portland’s government and its people.
George-Wilhelm Gallhofer, Councillor for EU-Enlargement and Western Balkans at the Austrian Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels, is a Spring 2013 European Marshall Memorial Fellow.
The post Progressive Portland’s Approach to Housing Highlights its American Character appeared first on German Marshall Fund Blog.
