Category: Featured

The Housing Affordability Crisis: The Role of Anti-Sprawl Policy

By Randall Pozdena, Ph.D.

Executive Summary

So-called smart growth policies are advocated as a means of avoiding sprawl.  These policies have at their heart a policy of reducing the availability of land for housing in urban areas. In Oregon and some other states, anti-sprawl policy is implemented by regulations that impose urban growth boundaries (UGBs).  Other regulations impose minimum density policies and others reduce spending on highways and increase spending on transit service—especially light rail—as an alternative.  Advocates of anti-sprawl policies argue that such regulations would allow urban growth to proceed at a lower overall cost.

Many states adopted smart growth policies in the last five decades—enough time for the policies to have demonstrated their purported advantages.  The evidence, at least on the housing front, is that the cost-containment claims have not materialized.  Instead, many urban areas are finding themselves with home prices that make ownership and rental of housing increasingly unaffordable.  Cities and states are thus using or considering additional regulations and subsidy policies to provide their residents with more affordable housing.  There is virtually no discussion of whether anti-sprawl regulatory interventions precipitated the housing crisis, let alone consideration of abandoning the policy.

The purpose of this study is to examine the links between anti-sprawl regulations and the spectacular increases in housing costs and the virtual disappearance of affordable housing in many markets.  Specifically, we measure the extent of site supply restrictions and its impact on housing prices using an economic model of housing markets, data on the economic conditions in housing markets, and trends in development revealed in satellite inventories of US land uses.

We apply the analysis to data from all 50 states and identify those states whose development policies reflect constrained site supply and those that do not.  Because Oregon has among the longest-standing and most aggressive implementations of smart growth land use policy, we pay particular attention to the state, and drill down with analyses at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level in Oregon to demonstrate that the state-level findings are corroborated for all of its MSAs.

The primary metrics examined in this study are the rate of housing price appreciation, the degree of rigidity (“inelasticity”) of the supply of new homesites, and the degree to which the housing stock has failed to increase enough to affordably provide additional housing services.  Since we note that the adverse trends in house price inflation and slowing of site supply took greatest effect the last 30 years or so, we scrutinize market behavior subsequent to this period.  Because of the onset of the Great Recession in 2007, however, we estimate our models on this period.  This is because we do not wish to conflate the effects of anti-sprawl policy with the collapse of mortgage markets and home construction that persisted for the next half decade.

After establishing the linkage between constrained site supply and housing prices and affordability, we turn to the evaluation of the various policies that are in place or proposed to redress these problems.  This analysis is performed for the state of Oregon only.  The State’s wide-ranging and aggressive policies and proposals make it broadly representative of the nature, cost, and effectiveness of these policies—both those in place and those recently proposed.  With theory as a guide, and our acquired knowledge of the reactivity of the housing market to various stimuli, we can then opine on the likely effectiveness of these policies.  We also offer our own suggestions.

At the national level, using state and MSA data, we find the following:

  1. Twenty-three of the 50 states studied fail to provide housing units at a volume adequate to keep housing prices and incomes growing at a rate consistent with affordability. On average, these states under-provided housing units by 6.4 percent of their current stock of housing units.
  2. We demonstrate that those states that fail the affordability and supply adequacy test are overwhelmingly those with documented adoption of one or more aggressive anti-sprawl growth regulatory initiatives.
  3. Annual housing price inflation exceeded annual income growth by 14 percent each year during the study period in those states that failed to provide housing in sufficient quantity to keep it affordable. Extrapolating the findings to the nation, the housing stock is smaller by as much as 4.5 million housing units (in 2015 likely) than it should have been to preserve affordability.

Because Oregon has aggressively pursued anti-sprawl policy, it was given special attention in the study.  We found the following:

  1. All eight of Oregon’s MSA housing markets failed the test of affordability and adequacy of supply over the various study periods for which data was available. The estimated total shortfall in supply equals approximately 18 percent of the existing stock—virtually identical to that found for Oregon using state-level data.
  2. We analyzed the current and proposed housing policies of the state of Oregon. At present, proposals include approximately $2.3 billion by the State and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assist housing access and over $600 million in new affordability-related programs. This study finds that there is little hope that these policies can redress the scale and extent of Oregon’s affordable housing problems and, in some cases, may worsen them by burdening developers of housing with new regulations.

In summary, this study finds anti-sprawl policy to have been implemented in a manner that has pernicious effects on housing affordability.  Specifically, regulatory constraints on site supply have caused an on-going crisis of housing supply and affordability.  In many markets, the development of land for housing is regulated too aggressively.  Additionally, existing and new programs for addressing housing affordability rely on other regulation and spending programs that will not have the designed effect of providing affordable housing.  This study strongly recommends, instead, relaxation of regulations that limit the land area available for housing development.  Any residual concerns about sprawl should be addressed by reforming current highway and transit pricing and finance practices, which are known to be economically inefficient.

READ THE FULL REPORT

 

Read Blog Detail

Press Release: Report shows ride-hailing services would be a viable solution for TriMet’s high-cost bus lines

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
John A. Charles, Jr.
503-242-0900
john@cascadepolicy.org

PORTLAND, Ore. – Today Cascade Policy Institute released a report that recommends TriMet pursue a one-year pilot program which replaces one or more high-cost and low-ridership bus lines with ride-hailing services. The program would be supported by a subsidy funded by the costs saved by eliminating the bus line.

The report, Ride-Hailing as a Solution for TriMet’s High Cost Bus Lines: A Proposal for a Pilot Project, was authored by Eric Fruits, Ph.D., an Oregon based economist and Portland State University adjunct professor.

The proposed pilot program would offer riders point to point service from ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft within a ride-hail zone, when and where within the zone would be most convenient to the rider. The two high-cost bus lines suggested by Fruits include lines 97 (Tualatin-Sherwood Rd) and 63 (Washington Park/Arlington Hts). These lines intersect other bus lines and MAX stops, so the proof of the transaction should be used as a 2.5-hour TriMet pass. Doing so would allow passengers to connect to other buses or light rail in the area.

Cascade President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. stated, “TriMet should embrace the benefits ride-hailing services offer instead of viewing them as a threat. Pairing services like Uber and Lyft with TriMet’s bus services would give riders a convenient and affordable way to commute while saving TriMet considerable money.” Indeed, the cost of subsidizing 75% of a user’s ride-share fare would be 55% lower than the current cost of operating proposed bus lines 97 and 63.

This proposal comes with its own set of challenges in the form of barriers to access. Services such as Uber and Lyft are hailed through an app on an individual’s smartphone and paid for by linking an individual’s bank account to the app. Some TriMet users do not own either a smartphone or a bank account. Jurisdictions which have adopted similar programs have handled this challenge by creating call centers available to riders without smartphones and by giving unbanked riders prepaid gift cards.

Ride-hailing services also contract out wheelchair accessible rides to third-party companies which would allow disabled riders to continue to commute in the corridor.

Similar pilot projects have been implemented in cities across the United States as transit authorities have recognized and taken advantage of the benefits ride-hailing services offer. TriMet should follow suit and engage in a low-stakes, one-year pilot project in order to cut costs that are rising due to declining ridership in certain areas. Doing so will serve riders, TriMet, and taxpayers alike.

The full report, Ride-Hailing as a Solution for TriMet’s High Cost Bus Lines: A Proposal for a Pilot Project, can be downloaded here.

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free-market public policy research center. Cascade’s mission is to explore and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org.

###

Read Blog Detail

Ride Hailing as a Solution to TriMet’s High-Cost Bus Lines

A Proposal for a Pilot Project

By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

Summary and recommendation

This report recommends TriMet pursue a one-year pilot project that replaces one or more of its high-cost bus lines with ride hailing services supported by a subsidy funded with the cost savings from eliminating the high-cost bus line.

  • A subsidy covering 75 percent of the fare to eligible riders would be straightforward and relatively easy to understand, implement, and use.
  • TriMet bus lines 97 (Tualatin-Sherwood Rd) and 63 (Washington Park/Arlington Hts) would be reasonable candidates for the pilot project. These lines provide the best combination of lower user costs and cost savings to TriMet.
  • The average rider’s cost would be slightly lower than current TriMet fares. Because the customer is paying a portion of the fare, riders would be more likely to weigh the benefits and costs of using the ride hail service as a connection to the TriMet system (first mile/last mile, a complement to TriMet service) versus door-to-door (a substitute for TriMet service).
  • The cost of the 75 percent subsidy on lines 97 and 63 would be approximately 55 percent lower than the current costs of operating the high-cost bus lines.

Each of the bus lines identified in this report intersects with other bus, MAX, and WES stops or overlaps TriMet transit centers. Uber found that nearly 25 percent of Uber trips in suburban Portland began or ended within one-quarter mile of a MAX or WES station, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this report. To encourage use of ride hailing services as a complement to the TriMet system, proof of fare payment should also serve as a 2.5 hour TriMet pass.

More than a dozen cities in the United States have programs similar to the proposed pilot project. Many of these cities have developed procedures to accommodate users who do not have a smartphone and users with ADA-related needs. Several of the programs began as pilot programs that have been extended because of the success of the pilot.

TriMet faces a challenge of declining ridership in conjunction with rising costs. In addition, the agency operates a number of high-cost bus lines. At the same time, ride hailing services, such as Uber and Lyft have grown in popularity since their introduction to the Portland region in 2015, providing convenient, reliable, low-cost service to millions of riders.

Recent research finds that ride hailing services have the largest positive complementary effect on rail service in cities with large public transit systems already in place, such as Portland. For these cities, the researchers found a small, but statistically significant, complementary effect on bus ridership.

The pilot project recommended in this report would be a low-cost, low-risk test of potential synergies between public transit and private ride hailing. If successful, the lessons learned can and should be applied to additional high-cost transit lines.

READ THE FULL REPORT

 

Read Blog Detail

Survey Shows Florida Scholarship Parents Are Overwhelmingly Satisfied with Their Children’s Schools

By Kathryn Hickok

Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program currently helps more than a hundred thousand of the state’s most disadvantaged students to get a better education through privately funded scholarships, making it the largest private school choice program in America. The program has been funded by voluntary corporate donations to nonprofit scholarship organizations. In return for these donations, companies receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits against their state income tax.

Last week, EdChoice released the largest-ever survey of the parents of Florida’s tax credit scholarship students, revealing these families’ educational priorities and experiences.

Analyzing the responses of more than fourteen thousand parents, EdChoice concluded:

  • “The vast majority of Florida scholarship parents expressed satisfaction with the tax-credit scholarship program.”
  • “Florida parents chose their children’s private schools because those schools offer what their public schools can’t/don’t.”
  • “Among respondents whose children were previously enrolled in a public district or charter school before using a scholarship to enroll in a private school, most parents reported engaging in a variety of education-related activities more often than before switching schools….”

Children have different talents, interests, and needs; and they learn in different ways. The landscape of educational options to meet students’ learning needs is more diverse today than ever. For more information about school choice in Oregon, visit schoolchoicefororegon.com.

Kathryn Hickok is Executive Vice President at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. She is also director of Cascade’s Children’s Scholarship Fund-Oregon program, which provides partial tuition scholarships to Oregon elementary students from lower-income families.

Click here for PDF version:

11-7-18-Survey_Shows_FL_Scholarship_Parents_Overwhelmingly_Satisfied_With_Children’s_SchoolsPDF

Read Blog Detail

Metro Should Let Transit Customers Drive Transportation Innovation

By Justus Armstrong

ABC’s Shark Tank may be coming to the Portland region—not in the form of a reality TV special, but as a taxpayer-funded project that positions the Metro regional government to act as a venture capital firm. Rather than investing in the success of growing businesses, however, the Sharks at Metro plan to fund temporary pilot projects that test new transportation technology.

Metro proposes that its Partnerships and Innovative Learning Opportunities in Transportation (PILOT) program—a component of the Emerging Technology Strategy—would help meet its “guided innovation” goals, but the shortsighted approach of this program ignores a vital question: Are risky technological investments the best use of taxpayer funding?

In a presentation at a Metro work session in July, Senior Technology Strategist Eliot Rose suggested the PILOT program would “guide innovation in transportation technology toward creating a more equitable and livable region.” Embedded in the presentation were numerous contradictions, beginning with the oxymoron of “guided innovation.” In Metro’s case, guided innovation more than likely means “hindered innovation,” with PILOT funding being a carrot-and-stick method of ensuring that emerging technologies take the direction technocrats deem appropriate, not the direction consumers are demanding.

By allocating government funding to the transportation projects of its choice, Metro risks preventing better ideas from emerging and hampering the innovation necessary for real progress to take place. As Metro strategist Rose noted, ridesharing, bikesharing, and other technologies PILOT wishes to foster have already been expanding in Portland. This technological progress has taken place with private investment, yet Rose still concludes that public money is needed for it to continue.

During the July work session, Metro staff claimed that the government “needs to intervene to bring technology to people and communities that the market doesn’t serve.” This assumption presents another contradiction: If an investment isn’t cost-effective for a private actor, what makes it a cost-effective investment to Metro? And how can successful projects be expected to continue without public funding, if the projects’ functions wouldn’t otherwise be demanded by the market?

Furthermore, Metro’s plan risks sinking taxpayer money into potentially unsuccessful projects. The $165,000 Forth-Hacienda project was presented by Metro as an example of a successful pilot project—not because the project itself was successful, but because its failure offered a great learning experience. The desire to better understand new technologies is not without merit, but the experimental nature of such pilot projects hardly makes them a good fit for taxpayer funding.

For all the project’s flaws, discussion about Metro’s Emerging Technology Strategy has included some promising aspects. For instance, during the work session, Metro Councilor Shirley Craddick brought up the idea of transitioning some of TriMet’s responsibilities to ridesharing networks. Considering more innovative modes for public transportation would be a step in the right direction and likely would improve cost-effectiveness, quality, and ridership of transit while meeting the needs of the populations Metro seeks to assist.

Perhaps a more effective Emerging Technology Strategy could focus solely on ways to improve existing public transportation through new technology, rather than interfering with private transportation markets through subsidies and attempts to shape private development. Instead of subsidizing companies with PILOT funding, Metro could offer open-ended transportation vouchers directly to transit users, especially transit-dependent and underserved populations.

Transit vouchers could be spent on a variety of transportation options, including TriMet and the newer technologies the PILOT program intends to target, such as rideshare, bikeshare, and electric vehicle and autonomous vehicle rentals. Putting the money directly into the hands of transit users could drive innovation through consumer sovereignty on the demand side, encouraging competition and making companies work to meet transit users’ needs instead of Metro’s project specifications.

With its PILOT program, Metro seeks to encourage innovation while managing risk; but any risk associated with developing new technologies should be borne by the companies driving the innovation, not by the public. If Metro moves forward with the PILOT program, it will only hinder its own goals. Instead of shaping existing markets in the private sector, Metro should focus on applying technological improvements to public transportation options.

Moreover, Metro should reform the regulatory framework and barriers to entry that may be preventing the emerging transportation technology market from functioning at its best. After all, the expansion of Uber and Lyft in Portland didn’t take place because Portland subsidized these companies. It happened because Portland stopped banning them. Metro councilors and staff can’t foresee the direction that new technologies will take, so they can’t know enough in advance to guide the direction of innovation or adequately manage its risks. The best they can do is get out of the way.

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

Click here for PDF version:

18-20-Metro_Should_Let_Transit_Customers_Drive_Transportation_InnovationPDF

Read Blog Detail

Another Tax Increase from Kate Brown

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Governor Kate Brown’s top health care administrator is requesting that the legislature increase taxes on beer, wine, cider, cigarettes, cigars, and vaping pens. If approved, the taxes would result in $784 million in new revenue for the state over the next two years.

Health officials claim that this is a “public health” measure designed to reduce consumption of harmful products, but it’s really just a money grab. The state has an estimated shortfall of $800 million in Medicaid funding, and this proposal conveniently would raise almost that amount.

However, the proposed tax probably will not actually raise that much money because of a built-in contradiction: If consumption goes down, then tax revenue has to go down as well. Legislators cannot support it as both a public health measure and a revenue-raiser at the same time. For one goal to succeed, the other must fail.

It’s an open secret in Salem that the biggest “addiction” problem in the state is not tobacco or alcohol consumption; it’s the addiction that politicians have to taxation on smoking, drinking and gambling. They don’t want less of these activities; they actually want more.

Legislators are not our parents. Oregonians should be left alone so they can decide for themselves what products to use.

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

Click here for PDF version:

10-31-18-Another_Tax_Increase_from_Kate_BrownPDF

Read Blog Detail

Metro’s Bond Measure 26-199 Raises Taxes on Homeowners, Requires No Accountability for Money Spent

By Miranda Bonifield

Metro claims Measure 26-199 is designed to address affordable housing, but the 652.8 million dollar bond measure raises taxes for homeowners without ensuring that it will accomplish its goals.

Metro claims these bonds would fund up to 3,900 low-income housing units. However, the measure doesn’t require a minimum number of units: Metro could build a few units, spend the rest of the money on “services,” and fulfill the requirements of Measure 26-199. The text of the measure even says these bonds may be used for things like grocery or retail space without limitation. In other words, there’s no guarantee the measure will make even a small improvement to housing affordability.

There is no deadline ensuring Metro provides these units in a timely fashion. There is no requirement for Metro to change its practices if auditors find Metro is failing to accomplish its goals. 26-199 asks you to trust Metro’s intentions without any accountability to encourage success. Meanwhile, urban growth boundaries and endless red tape keep Oregon’s housing supply from meeting the needs of our growing population.

Any major project needs firm deadlines and specific goals to have any hope of success, but Metro’s measure provides neither.

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

Click here for PDF version:

10-24-18-Metro’s_Bond_Measure 26-199_Raises_Taxes_on_Homeowners_Requires_No_Accountability_for_Money_SpentPDF

Read Blog Detail

Kate Brown’s Environmental Showmanship Has No Substance

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Governor Kate Brown has announced a legislative proposal that she claims is necessary to “resist” the Trump administration’s changes to federal environmental regulations.

While this bit of showmanship will play well to her base, it has no actual substance. The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission has long had the authority to adopt its own standards that are equivalent to or stronger than federal regulations, and it has done so many times.

In fact, it’s entirely plausible that if federal statutes such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were completely repealed by Congress, there would be no measurable effect on Oregon. The state runs its own environmental programs and doesn’t need Congress or the Environmental Protection Agency.

Gov. Brown may find it convenient to manufacture an environmental crisis; but ambient loadings of air and water pollution have been falling for decades and will continue to do so, regardless of who is President. This is a great American success story, driven mostly by technological innovation and a commitment by corporate boards to continually reduce emissions.

We don’t have an environmental crisis, and we don’t need another law. Gov. Brown should stop using President Trump as a prop in her re-election campaign.

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

Click here for PDF version:

10-4-18-Kate_Brown’s_Environmental_Strategy_Has_No_SubstancePDF

Read Blog Detail

To Work or Not to Work, That Is the Question

By Jakob Puckett

When I was growing up in Ohio, my family had an enormous garden with every kind of produce. Tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, zucchini—you name it, we grew it. We grew so much of it that we would cook the extras into zucchini bread, pickles, and pasta sauce. And we had extras of those, too. My brother and I saw an opportunity and decided to start a business called Veggies2U. We would go door-to-door in our neighborhood and sell our products, and enough people liked them that our business continued for several summers.

It’s a good thing we lived in Ohio, because if we grew up in Oregon and started the same business here, we would have run into some problems. To begin with, we didn’t have a domestic kitchen license, kids were involved in making the food, and we didn’t have a separate storage facility for the materials and food we made for ourselves and those we intended to sell. We would have been in violation of several laws, subject to several thousands of dollars in fines, threatened with jail time, and would have begun our descent into a life of crime, one pickle jar at a time.

This is just a small example, but it points to a much larger problem. Occupational licensing (essentially, getting the government’s permission to work) has become a major roadblock for people who want to work but are deterred by excessive regulations. These laws reduce entrepreneurship, raise prices, and eliminate competition. Oregon is one of the worst states in the U.S. regarding this practice. While we likely would agree that some degree of oversight can be beneficial, the situation has gotten out of hand.

Nearly 25% of Americans need a government license for their occupation, up from five percent in 1950. A 2017 Institute for Justice report found that the national average for a low- or medium-income job requires a $200 fee, an exam, nine months of training, and often additional education. That’s a lot to ask of the 75% of American workers living paycheck to paycheck. Furthermore, some licensing requirements make little sense; and many occupations licensed in one state are not licensed in others, with equal quality of service. Even jobs licensed in many states exhibit inconsistency. For example, the four months of manicurist training required by Oregon are completed in nine days in Iowa.

Occupational licensing restrictions most hurt the people who are least able to bear it—lower-income workers, military families and veterans, and middle-class families. Occupational licensing has also become a way for special interests to cement their position by eliminating competition and raising prices on consumers. Nationwide, thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. Florists, yard workers, even pet-sitters—among countless others—face being regulated out of a job by bureaucrats who have never been in their position.

Overall, Oregon has the eighth-most-burdensome licensing requirements for low- and medium-income occupations (not doctors and lawyers), costing workers more than $300 and a year of training—both higher than the national average—just to reach their first day of recognized work. The Oregon legislature may be starting to recognize this burden. In 2015, legislators passed the Home Baked Goods bill, allowing people to earn money selling products grown and baked at home like my brother and I did, without criminalizing them.

Given the stakes, Oregon should review all existing occupational licensing laws, and requirements not related to job and consumer safety should be eliminated. Farm labor contractors, bartenders, and locksmiths are licensed by only 13 states. Only 21 states license commercial floor sanding and painting contractors; but Oregonian contractors pay hundreds of dollars in fees and undergo 1,463 days of experience and education, triple the average in other licensed states. The legislature can open Oregon for business by de-licensing these industries. Since most licensing occurs on the state level, multi-state working groups could be formed to facilitate uniform licensing standards, enhancing economic mobility among states.

Oregon should focus on building an economy that provides a way out for the hopeless and a way forward for the hopeful, and one step in that direction is to tear down the barrier of occupational licensing.

Jakob Puckett is a Research Associate at the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. A version of this article originally appeared in The Newberg Graphic on August 29, 2018.

Click here for the PDF version:

18-16-To_Work_or_Not_to_WorkPDF

Read Blog Detail

Metro’s Poorly Thought-Out Grants Program

By Justus Armstrong

Portland’s Metro Council plans to award grants for its Investment and Innovation program this fall. The program seeks to strengthen the local infrastructure for waste reduction; but with a combination of corporate welfare and vague performance measures, its methods are murky at best and unethical at worst.

With $9 million in funding over three years, Metro’s program offers grants of up to $500,000 to both non-profit and for-profit organizations for projects in line with Metro’s waste reduction goals. The grants are limited to costs tied to waste reduction projects; but padding companies’ expenses to benefit these projects goes outside the scope of Metro’s stated goals and undermines the competitive marketplace. Most citizens, and Oregon’s Constitution, would oppose tax funding for privately owned corporations. Apart from its good intentions and “green” packaging, what makes this project any different?

Metro’s Investment and Innovation program lacks clear direction and accountability to taxpayers for results. Since the grants outsource waste reduction to third parties, Metro can offer no estimates of the program’s ability to actually reduce waste. Metro is handing out taxpayer money for hypothetical benefits that are unlikely to match the price tag.

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

Click here for the PDF version:

8-8-18-Metro’s_Poorly_Thought-Out_Grants_ProgramPDF

Read Blog Detail