Month: October 2016

Power Is the Narcotic of Choice for Politicians

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Oregon’s free-market research center, Cascade Policy Institute, celebrated its 25th anniversary with a gala dinner party on October 20 at the Tualatin County Club. Since its founding in 1991, Cascade has emerged as a leading voice for individual liberty and economic opportunity. Building coalitions with others, Cascade has helped develop innovative policies such as Oregon’s charter school law and the more recently enacted Right-to-Try statute.

Cascade helped Ethiopian immigrants break the Portland taxi cartel and secure a license to operate a new company. The Institute also helped a young Black woman start her hair-braiding business by persuading the legislature to repeal onerous licensing regulations.

And a paper first published by Cascade in 1996 suggesting that 84,000 acres of the Elliott State Forest be sold off helped persuade the State Land Board to do just that; a sale will be approved by the Board in December of this year.

However, such advancements will be tougher to come by in the years ahead, because the culture of Oregon has changed. The permanent political class that now rules the state has little respect for the entrepreneurial spirit.

The 2016 legislative session served as Exhibit A for this change. In the short space of 30 days, the majority party rammed through two major pieces of legislation: (1) a dramatic increase in the minimum wage; and (2) a mandate forcing electric utilities to provide 50% of their retail load from designated “renewable energy” sources.

Each bill only received a few hearings. Vast areas of complexity were brushed aside as unimportant. When hundreds of witnesses showed up pleading for a more incremental approach, they were dismissed. In 35 years of lobbying, I had never seen anything like it.

This was in contrast to Cascade’s early years, when the organization sponsored “Better Government Competitions” in 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. These events solicited good ideas from citizens about how to make government work better. Top officials including Governor John Kitzhaber and Portland Mayor Vera Katz enthusiastically endorsed Cascade’s “citizens’ suggestion box.”

Today, many elected officials openly disdain the public they serve. They don’t want your ideas, just your obedience and your tax dollars. Moreover, if you compromise and give them half of what they want today, they’ll be back for the rest tomorrow.

Nowhere was that more evident than with the so-called “coal to clean” bill in 2016. Why was this topic even being discussed when only nine years ago the legislature passed SB 838, which mandated that large electric utilities procure 25% of their power needs from specified “renewable energy” sources by 2025?

SB 838, passed in 2007, was seen as a visionary achievement. The leading legislative advocates, Senator Brad Avakian and Representative Jackie Dingfelder, were exultant. Oregon was now on a path to renewable energy Nirvana!

Yet by 2016, the “25 by 25” banner was seen as wimpy and out of date. Oregon’s perceived reputation as an international environmental leader had been undercut by legislation elsewhere. So the new (arbitrary) standard became “50% by 2040.”

We can do better than this. Perhaps if Measure 97 fails, legislators will stop looking for quick fixes and work together on tax reform. There are officials in both parties willing to tackle PERS reform and transportation finance, if the Majority party allows it.

Replacing hubris with humility would be a good first step.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. This article originally appeared in the October 2016 edition of the newsletter, “Oregon Transformation: Ideas for Growth and Change.”

Read Blog Detail

Something’s Rotten in Metro’s Missing Garbage Tax Money

By John A. Charles, Jr. and Allison Coleman

Metro is asking for a new tax levy this November (Measure 26-178 on your ballot) despite the fact that it already has sufficient funds to operate all its parks.

In 2002, the Metro Council enacted a garbage tax for the specific purpose of funding operations and maintenance of Metro parks. That amount was raised to $2.50 per ton in 2004. Between 2002 and 2015, the garbage tax brought in $46.8 million for Metro parks.

Given that Metro raised all this money for parks, why is Metro asking for voter approval of another $80 million parks levy in the upcoming November election? Where did the $46.8 million in garbage tax money go?

The answer can be found in a bait-and-switch ordinance adopted by Metro in 2006. The Council amended the Metro Code to retain the garbage tax, but “undedicate” its use so that revenues would be swept into the Metro General Fund.

Since 2006, regional taxpayers have paid more than $32 million in garbage taxes that should have gone to parks, but instead went to other purposes. We’ve heard the scare stories before, but it’s time to call Metro’s bluff. Voters should reject the Metro tax levy and demand that all money from the garbage tax be rededicated to parks maintenance, as promised 14 years ago.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. Allison Coleman is a Research Associate at Cascade.

Read Blog Detail

Oregon Must End “Economic Apartheid”

By Randal O’Toole

The housing affordability crisis is turning Portland, already one of the whitest cities in America, into one that is even whiter. Census data indicate that, between 2010 and 2014, the number of whites living in the city of Portland grew by 30,500, or 6.8 percent, but the number of blacks shrank by 4,500, or 11.5 percent.

Some of those blacks moved to Portland suburbs, but most moved out of the Portland area completely. While the number of whites in the Portland urban area grew by 94,000, the number of blacks shrank by 3,400.

Even before 2010, Portland’s high housing prices were negatively affecting blacks and other low-income groups. Census data show that, between 2000 and 2010, the share of households headed by whites living in single-family detached homes declined by 3.3 percent, but the share of households headed by blacks living in such homes declined 16.1 percent.

Housing prices also affected homeownership. Between 2000 and 2010, the share of whites living in their own homes fell by 2.2 percent, but the share of blacks (which was already well below the white share) fell by 12.6 percent.

In short, Portland’s housing affordability crisis forced some low-income people to leave the region and others into lower-quality housing. This process has led some to charge the region with “economic apartheid.” Yet, planners defend the region’s housing prices, one saying, “This is capitalism; how do you fight it?”

In fact, Portland’s high housing prices aren’t a result of capitalism; they are due to government land use restrictions. Portland planners celebrate the fact that the region’s urban growth boundary has forced the population to “grow up, not out,” as the region’s population density has grown by 20 percent since the boundary was first drawn in 1979.

Such increased densities are a prescription for increased land and housing costs. In 1990, an acre of land suitable for home construction inside the growth boundary cost about $25,000. Today, a similar acre, if you can find it, would generally cost about $300,000.

Higher land prices are accompanied by increased regulation as Portland-area governments know that homebuyers have few alternatives if they don’t want to endure long commutes. In 1999, the Portland City Council approved a comprehensive design ordinance despite warnings from the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland that the new rules would make housing more expensive.

Portland and other Oregon cities also have stiff system development charges that can add $20,000 to $40,000 to the cost of a new home. By comparison, similar charges in Houston, one of the nation’s most affordable housing markets, are less than $2,000 for homes of up to 3,000 square feet.

In 1990, the median value of owner-occupied homes in the Portland area was twice median family incomes, which was very affordable. Today, thanks to the growth boundary and regulation within the boundary, it is nearly five times median family incomes, which is very unaffordable.

These policies effectively discriminate against low-income blacks and other minorities; and under a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, they violate the Fair Housing Act just as much as if Portland put out a sign saying, “No blacks allowed.” The ruling said that land use policies that make housing more expensive can be legal under the Fair Housing Act only if they have a legitimate goal and there is no other way of accomplishing that goal without making housing less affordable.

For example, requiring sewer hookups makes housing more expensive but has a legitimate goal of protecting public health. The goals of the urban growth boundary and densification, however, are either not legitimate or could be achieved without creating a housing crisis.

Boundary advocates often claim the growth boundary is needed to preserve farms and open space. But all of the urban developments in Oregon only occupy 1.5 percent of the state; and if there were no boundaries, it still would be less than 2 percent. Urbanization is no threat to Oregon farms, forests, or open space.

Advocates also claim that densification will lead people to drive less, saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the effects of density on driving are tiny, especially when compared with the huge costs; and there are much better ways of saving energy and reducing emissions that don’t make housing unaffordable.

To end discrimination against blacks and other low-income minorities, the Oregon legislature must repeal the state’s land use laws that authorize growth boundaries and other regulations that make housing unaffordable.


Randal O’Toole is an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. He is the author of Cascade’s new report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights.

Read Blog Detail

Uber Translated: Better Service for the Underserved

By Lydia White

It’s not news that free-market visionaries provide better service than their corrupt competitors, but big government advocates are reluctant to admit it, even when such enterprise benefits their causes.

Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft provide cheaper, timelier, and higher quality rides. They better serve those with lower incomes and disabilities. They give Portland residents a local source of income. They also better comply with city regulations.

Uber serves high- and low-income communities equally; taxis underserve poorer neighborhoods. Ride-hailing services connect the disabled with handicap-accessible cars; taxi companies force disabled users to wait and hope for one to eventually pass by.

The Portland City Auditor claims the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) isn’t doing enough to “monitor the quality of service by ride-for-hire companies” and ensure riders from low-income communities or with disabilities are fairly served. Yet PBOT found that while Uber and Lyft provide a plethora of data (too much, in fact, for PBOT to analyze), taxi companies fail to comply with the Bureau’s requirements. Moreover, Uber’s internal rating system provides its own system of accountability—including cleanliness and efficiency.

The free market is forging ahead with 21st-century technology. While cronyism befell taxi companies, Uber and Lyft created an innovative alternative.

Proponents of big government should embrace the free-market sharing economy, especially if they truly wish to help traditionally underserved minorities.


Lydia White is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Read Blog Detail

Abolish Growth Boundaries to Ensure Fair Housing

By Randal O’Toole

A recent Supreme Court decision found that government policies that make housing expensive may violate fair housing laws. This decision could have a profound impact on Portland’s housing market.

Portland’s rapidly growing housing prices are a major hardship on newcomers, renters, and low-income families. Particularly hard hit are blacks, whose per capita incomes remain only about 60 percent of whites’.

The housing crisis has actually forced many blacks to move outside of the region. According to Census Bureau estimates, between 2010 and 2014, white numbers grew by 6.8 percent in the city of Portland and 6.5 percent in the Portland urban area, while black populations fell by 11.5 percent in the city and 5.3 percent in the urban area, thus reaffirming the claim that Portland is “the whitest city in America.”

Though many urban planners deny it, there is no doubt that the ultimate source of Portland’s housing crisis is the region’s urban growth boundary. Common sense says that restricting the supply of something for which demand is increasing will cause prices to go up. This is confirmed by economic studies from Harvard, the Federal Reserve Board, the University of California, and the University of Washington, among other places, concluding that strict land-use regulation is the main cause of unaffordable housing.

Other policies also make housing less affordable, including lengthy delays in the permitting process, onerous impact fees, and gaudy architectural design codes. But these policies would have little effect if developers could meet market demand by building homes in unregulated areas outside of existing cities. Urban growth boundaries not only limit supply, but they shield city governments from outside competition.

In 1857, Oregon’s first constitution banned blacks from moving to the state. This was rendered unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. But in June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that governments that impose land-use restrictions that make housing less affordable can be just as guilty of violating the Fair Housing Act as if they put up a sign on their borders saying, “No blacks allowed.”

A rule written by the Department of Housing and Urban Development says that “land-use rules, ordinances, policies, or procedures” that make housing more expensive are allowable only if they are needed to achieve a “legitimate” goal and there were no other way of reaching that goal that wouldn’t increase housing costs. None of the reasons used to justify Oregon’s urban growth boundaries meet these tests.

For example, planning advocates say boundaries are needed to protect farms, forests, and open space. But more than 98 percent of Oregon is rural, and urbanization is no threat to the state’s agricultural or timber production.

Planning advocates also say boundaries help save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But research has shown that the effect of growth boundaries on these things is tiny, and there are far better ways of saving energy and reducing emissions that don’t make housing more expensive.

Many Portland planners argue that housing can be made more affordable by growing up, not out, that is, by increasing urban densities rather than allowing the region to “sprawl” across the landscape. But this has never worked anywhere.

Recent census data clearly reveal a strong correlation between urban densities and unaffordability. Moreover, fifty years of census data also show a strong correlation between increases in urban densities and declines in housing affordability.

For example, in 1969, the San Francisco Bay Area was very affordable, with median housing prices a little more than twice median family incomes. Since then, urban growth boundaries adopted by Bay Area counties have increased densities by 65 percent, while median housing prices have grown to seven times median family incomes.

When comparing urban areas across the country, it is clear that the key to housing affordability is to keep land outside of city limits relatively unregulated so that developers and builders can meet demand. For social justice, Oregon must repeal the laws allowing urban growth boundaries and regulation of unincorporated lands.


Randal O’Toole is an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. He is the author of Cascade’s new report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights.

Read Blog Detail

Metro’s $32 Million Broken Promise

— Why You Should Vote Down Metro’s Natural Area Levy

By John A. Charles, Jr. and Allison Coleman

In 2006, the Metro Council submitted to the voters a general obligation bond measure in the amount of $227.4 million to fund natural area acquisition. The measure was approved.

In a little-noticed appendix to Resolution No. 06-367A, the Metro Council stated that greenway lands acquired with bond funds would be land-banked with limited maintenance beyond initial site stabilization and possible habitat restoration. The Council noted that it had the financial means to carry out this promise:

“Once the 2006 Natural Areas Bond Measure is approved by voters, Metro will commit existing excise taxes to this basic level of maintenance, with Metro having sufficient resources currently to manage the newly acquired properties in this manner for a period of approximately ten (10) years.”

If the phrase “existing excise taxes” seems puzzling, there’s a reason; almost no one remembers that in 2002, the Metro Council enacted a garbage tax of one dollar/ton for the specific purpose of funding operations and maintenance (O&M) of parks. That amount was raised to $2.50/ton in 2004. Between 2002 and 2015, the garbage tax brought in $46,789,044 for Metro parks.

Metro Solid Waste Excise Tax

Dedicated to natural area maintenance

 

Year Excise Tax Tonnage Total Revenue
2002 $1.00 1,251,823 $1,251,823
2003 $1.00 1,362,204 $1,362,204
2004 $2.50 1,563,884 $3,909,710
2005 $2.50 1,626,255 $4,065,637
2006 $2.50 1,720,168 $4,300,420
2007 $2.50 1,613,848 $4,034,620
2008 $2.50 1,524,370 $3,810,925
2009 $2.50 1,381,326 $3,453,315
2010 $2.50 1,320,992 $3,302,480
2011 $2.50 1,248,191 $3,120,477
2012 $2.50 1,297,716 $3,244,290
2013 $2.50 1,373,612 $3,434,030
2014 $2.50 1,431,132 $3,577,830
2015 $2.50 1,568,513 $3,921,282
Total Revenue     $46,789,044

Given that Metro raised all this money for parks, and promised no new taxes before 2016, why did Metro place an operating levy on the ballot in 2013 for parks maintenance (which passed); and why is Metro asking for voter approval of another $80 million parks levy in the upcoming November election? Where did the $46.8 million in garbage tax money go?

The answer can be found in a bait-and-switch ordinance adopted by Metro just a few weeks after the bond measure was referred out to voters in March 2006. The Council amended Metro Code Section 7.01.023 to retain the $2.50/ton excise tax, but “undedicate” its use so that revenues would be swept into the Metro General Fund.

Since 2006, regional taxpayers have paid more than $32 million in garbage taxes that should have gone to parks O&M, but instead went to other purposes.

Instead of owning up to this chicanery and restoring the garbage tax as a dedicated revenue source, Metro officials continue to make the case for a new property tax. In a 2011 publication, Metro claimed, “…the existing financial model is not sustainable. Metro’s portfolio of land continues to grow, while the general fund resources needed to support it are decreasing.”

In a more recent document, Metro asserted, “In Metro’s general fund, which pays for many primary programs and support services, costs continue to rise faster than revenues.”

Both of these claims are false. In 2011 Metro was already taking in more than $3 million annually in garbage tax revenue for parks. By the end of 2015 it was nearly $4 million.

Meanwhile, Metro was swimming in a sea of new revenue. The Metro Auditor found that during the 10-year period of 2003-2013, total annual revenue went up 22% in real terms, while total expenses went up only 16%. Annual revenue per capita for the Metro region went up 7%; expenses per capita increased by only 4%.

Metro Councilors now state that if voters refuse to approve a new tax levy in November, the agency will “have to ramp back pretty much everywhere.”

We’ve heard the scare stories before, but it’s time to call Metro’s bluff. Voters should reject the Metro tax levy (Measure 26-178 on your ballot) and demand that all money from the $2.50/ton garbage tax be rededicated to parks maintenance, as promised 14 years ago.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. Allison Coleman is a research associate at Cascade.

Read Blog Detail

New Report Highlights Civil Rights Implications of Oregon Land Use Laws, Urban Growth Boundaries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
John A. Charles, Jr.

john@cascadepolicy.org

503-242-0900

PORTLAND, Ore. – A new report released today by Cascade Policy Institute demonstrates that Portland’s rapidly growing housing prices are a major hardship on newcomers, renters, and low-income families. The report claims the ultimate source of Portland’s crisis in housing affordability is the region’s urban growth boundary and that minorities suffer the most from the consequences of high housing prices.

The report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights, is authored by Randal O’Toole, an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization, and the author of The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths.

The report claims the ultimate source of Portland’s crisis in housing affordability is the region’s urban growth boundary:

“The Oregon legislature and various cities have applied band-aid solutions to this problem; but none of them will work and some, such as inclusionary zoning, will actually make housing less affordable. That is because none of these solutions address the real problem, which is that the urban growth boundaries and other land-use restrictions imposed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, Metro, and city and county governments have made it impossible for builders to keep up with the demand for new housing.”

“Common sense says that restricting the supply of something for which demand is increasing will cause prices to go up,” says O’Toole, who cites the findings of economic studies from Harvard, the Federal Reserve Board, the University of California, and the University of Washington, among others, to conclude that strict land-use regulation is the main cause of unaffordable housing.

Other policies which make Portland-area housing less affordable, the report claims, include lengthy delays in the permitting process, onerous impact fees, and architectural design codes. But these policies would have little effect if developers could meet market demand by building homes in unregulated areas outside of existing cities. Urban growth boundaries not only limit supply, but they shield city governments from outside competition.

“These policies effectively discriminate against low-income blacks and other minorities,” says O’Toole. “Under the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, they also violate the Fair Housing Act just as much as if Portland put out a sign saying, ‘No blacks allowed.’”

O’Toole explains how this Court decision could have a profound impact on Portland’s housing market. He says the Supreme Court’s ruling said that land use policies that make housing more expensive can be legal under the Fair Housing Act only if they have a legitimate goal and there is no other way of accomplishing that goal without making housing less affordable.

According to Cascade Policy Institute CEO John A. Charles, Jr., “Policymakers think the solution to our housing shortage is to build more tax-subsidized apartments, but simply deregulating the land markets would result in far greater housing supply at lower cost.”

The report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights, is available here.

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Cascade’s mission is to develop and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org.

###

Read Blog Detail

Light Rail to Bridgeport Village: The Dumbest Train Project Yet

By John A. Charles, Jr.

TriMet and Metro are promoting the idea of a new light rail line from Portland State University to the Bridgeport Village shopping mall in Tualatin.

The question is, who would ride it?

We already know from experience that mall shoppers prefer private cars to trains. The Red Line to the airport was opened in 2001 specifically to service the Cascade Station shopping center, which is anchored by IKEA, Target, and Best Buy. Field observations conducted by Cascade Policy Institute in 2010 and again in 2016 showed that more than 98% of all passenger-trips to and from Cascade Station are made in private automobiles. Light rail is simply irrelevant.

The same is true for Gresham Station, another shopping center specifically built around a light rail stop. Regardless of the time-of-day or day-of-week, virtually all trips to and from Gresham Station are made in private vehicles.

The Green MAX line, which terminates at Clackamas Town Center, has also had no effect on travel patterns at the mall.

In order for the Bridgeport Village line to be built, Tigard residents will need to approve the city’s participation in the project by voting for Measure 34-255 in the November election. Local voters should learn from experience and turn down this measure. Light rail through Tigard would be a total waste of money.

Read Blog Detail

Does Oregon Rank Dead Last in Corporate Taxes? NO

Trying to sell voters on the largest tax increase in Oregon history, Measure 97 proponents claim that Oregon ranks dead last in corporate taxes.” But the nation’s leading independent tax policy research organization, The Tax Foundation, says this claim is misleading. It looked at three ways to rate corporate taxes and found:

• Oregon’s top marginal corporate income tax rate is the 18th highest in the nation.
• On a revenue per capita basis, Oregon’s corporate income tax is the 28th highest.
• The Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index ranks Oregon 37th nationally for overall corporate income tax structure.

The dead last corporate tax claim relies on two national reports (AEG, COST) that look at total business tax burdens, not just the tax burdens of large C corporations; the only entities directly targeted by Measure 97. Even so, both these reports make clear that they rate Oregon’s business tax burden low not because corporate taxes are low, but rather because Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax.

As the COST report notes, “If sales tax revenue is excluded…[Oregon] moves from the lowest…to the 20th-lowest rate.”

Misleading voters about Oregon’s corporate tax structure may simply be a tactic to keep us from focusing on the fact that Measure 97 is really a hidden sales tax on steroids that will hit every Oregonian. When we realize that, Measure 97 should suffer the same fate as every other statewide sales tax measure – defeat.

Read much more about Measure 97 and why you should vote against it on
Cascade’s Measure 97 webpage.

Read Blog Detail

Does Oregon Rank Dead Last in Corporate Taxes? NO

By Steve Buckstein

Trying to sell voters on the largest tax increase in Oregon history, Measure 97 proponents claim that “Oregon ranks dead last in corporate taxes.” But the nation’s leading independent tax policy research organization, The Tax Foundation, says this claim is misleading. It looked at three ways to rate corporate taxes and found:

  • Oregon’s top marginal corporate income tax rate is the 18th highest in the nation.
  • On a revenue per capita basis, Oregon’s corporate income tax is the 28th highest.
  • The Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index ranks Oregon 37th nationally for overall corporate income tax structure.

The “dead last” corporate tax claim relies on two national reports (AEGCOST) that look at total business tax burdens, not just the tax burdens of large C corporations, the only entities directly targeted by Measure 97. Even so, both these reports make clear that they rate Oregon’s business tax burden low not because corporate taxes are low, but rather because Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax.

As the COST report notes, “If sales tax revenue is excluded…[Oregon] moves from the lowest…to the 20th-lowest rate.”

Misleading voters about Oregon’s corporate tax structure may simply be a tactic to keep us from focusing on the fact that Measure 97 is really a hidden sales tax on steroids that will hit every Oregonian. When we realize that, Measure 97 should suffer the same fate as every other statewide sales tax measure—defeat.

Read much more about Measure 97 and why you should vote against it on Cascade’s Measure 97 webpage.

Read Blog Detail