What Do Dan Ryan And Loretta Smith Know About Public Housing?

Just below personal and public heath, Public Housing is at the top of the political agenda. It is very difficult if not impossible to have a fact based conversation leading to a defensible public policy decision among all concerned parties when there is not a common understanding and usage of the language about the subject at hand.

It will certainly be of interest to voters to know Portland city council candidates Dan Ryan And Loretta Smith’s answers to the most fundamental question relating to Public Housing upon which all of their dialogue with colleagues and constituents will be based.

The Oregon Housing and Community Services department and other county housing authorities have identified approximately 107,385 Public Housing households connected to Public Housing Authorities and related agencies in the state of Oregon. All of these households meet the following criteria: PUBLIC HOUSING i.e. a class of housing defined as, Means Test (<=80%MFI) + Government Subsidy (any government any type) + Rental Agreement.

There is no publicly available evidence that any of these 107,385 Public Housing households are currently occupied by households that meet the following criteria: AFFORDABLE HOUSING is a mathematical construct defined as, Rent/Mortgage + Insurance + Taxes + Utilities <=30% Household Income.

Government is in the Public Housing business NOT the Affordable Housing business.

Public Housing is only affordable to households with X% of MFI and UP. Never down.

Previous research has revealed that most Public Housing is NOT Affordable Housing.

So the most basic question related to Public Housing policy is this: When you speak or write about households whose current access to housing involved meeting the following criteria i.e. Means Test (<=80%MFI) + Government Subsidy (any government any type) + Rental Agreement, what words do you use?

Dan Ryan

I haven’t given it much thought. The easiest position for me to take is to support the status quo which conflates the mutually exclusive definitions of PUBLIC HOUSING with AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Since everyone supports the idea of Affordable Housing but there is considerable controversy over Public Housing it’s politically convenient to avoid defending the facts and obfuscate the truth.

Loretta Smith

I haven’t given it much thought. The easiest position for me to take is to support the status quo which conflates the mutually exclusive definitions of PUBLIC HOUSING with AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Since everyone supports the idea of Affordable Housing but there is considerable controversy over Public Housing it’s politically convenient to avoid defending the facts and obfuscate the truth.

Dear Reader/Voter, are you impressed?

Neither race, nor skin color, nor sexual orientation, nor age, nor gender gives a candidate for public office a pass to embrace self-inflicted ignorance, deny location as a critical component of Public Housing policy and use language to obscure rather than enlighten all for personal political convenience.

Stay away from crowds especially indoors. Wear a mask. Practice social distancing. Stay safe. Keep others safe.

Richard Ellmyer

North Portland

Author of more stories on the politics, players and policies of Public Housing in Oregon over the last eighteen years than all other journalists and elected officials combined.

Author of The Ellmyer Report, a newsletter that informs, educates and influences on public policy. Occasionally distributed to more than a quarter of million readers in Oregon and beyond. Facebook, Portland Politics Plus . Opinion contributor to Patch.com news.