News Oct 14, 2015 at 4:20 pm

Local Math Instructor Crunched the Numbers and Found Moving Is More Expensive Than Many Realize


A 9.4 mile commute is 20 days * 9.4 * 2 = 376 miles per month.
Lets say a well tuned compact car and a non highway drive giving low value of 20 miles per gallon.
That means 18.8 gallons of gasoline for the month.
Even at $4 a gallon that is only $75.20 for gas. That leaves $228 in the commute column unaccounted for.
A more detailed accounting is required here because the numbers are not explained in enough detail to say they are true or not.
Link to spreadsheet?
Perhaps something to consider is to vote in a law which, while not totally restricting (for the time being) this "sacred right" of greedy landlords/speculator-developers from just throwing out their tenants (so they can charge more next time around), would force these people who make these nasty decisions to PAY for ALL related moving costs ... i.e. everything mentioned in the article ... and make it payable up front at the same time they deliver their cruddy news to the tenant(s). The check (or better yet, money order) should come attached to their required legal notice. SOMETHING needs to be done to SLOW this rotten process down, if the powers that be are too spineless to ban it completely. At least it would give these hooligans something serious to consider, and spread the pain both directions instead of, as now, just the one way.
@Velma: the mileage stated was one-way, the commute costs were based on the round trip, using this cost of commute calculator:…

This calculator builds in wear-and-tear and other costs of ownership. My calculations were based on my mini-van getting 20mpg, and paying $2.75/gal for gas.

@disastronaut: I'll see about putting the spreadsheet into a google doc and sharing it that way.
I know it may not be a popular view but my parents waited to have children until they could afford them, perhaps the actual reason that Margot is not a homeowner is that she and her spouse chose to have 2 children before instead of after purchasing a home not that the owner of the house she was living in decided to do something different besides renting it out. Landlords usually do not evict people without cause from a house on the chance that they will find other people to pay a ton more money for the same place. In fact vacancy is very expensive for a landlord so they attempt to minimize it. They might ask tenants to move because they decided to sell the home or they want to do a remodel so extensive that it would not be possible with tenants occupying the property, but if they just feel that the rent is below market rate then they would raise the rent, not give notice.

My first no-cause was many years ago (1998) and was discriminatory. It was probably illegal but I didn't have the resources to fight it, or even know that I could. Discriminatory and retaliatory no-cause evictions are happening like crazy in today's market. With demand high and supply low a LL can get rid of a tenant they don't like and have 100 applicants to take their place.

The next no-cause was for an owner move-in (and was 4 years ago, this article erroneously suggests that it was more current -- the figures provided for this article and to city council were a "if I had to move today" scenario). It's much trickier to make a case against this, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an unexpected move for the tenant who has to shoulder the unexpected burden of the moving expense. Our move required $5000 in actual cash (fees/ deposits, double rent, truck rental, etc.), before accounting for lost wages and opportunity costs.

What this article doesn't mention are economic evictions. You're absolutely right that the landlord can just raise the rent. But some people are getting rent increases of $400-500/mo. What if you can't pay the increased rent? Then you have to move. And that move is very expensive.

I'm not sure why Joe Cortwright seems so surprised that these expenses add up quickly. Moving expenses are tax-deductible and often even reimbursed by employers for work-related relocations. This suggests that we acknowledge the costs are formidable and have set up certain structures to mitigate them. So what of the responsible rent paying tenant who is forced to move due to no fault of their own? It should would be easier to have that money saved up in the bank for unexpected situations like this if it weren't being vacuumed out of our wallets with all these rent increases.

Anyway, thanks for the wise advice about waiting to have kids; are you suggesting that the only people who should have kids are the people who could be homeowners? Homeownership will be forever out of reach for a huge swath of our population (here and nationally); should these folks not have kids? Do you have any other advice that worked for your parents 50 years ago that you'd like to bequeath on those of us unlucky enough to be coming of age in time that couldn't be more different than when your parents were our age?
@Velma: I forgot to mention that for my calculations I used 21 work days in a month, on average. Which is actually a little low:

5 workdays / week * 52 weeks / year * 1 year / 12 months = 21.67 workdays a month.
Margot I love you.
Take this and then magnify it for people with disabilities, the elderly, low income/fixed incomes. Who because of a disability may have an added expense of hiring a moving company. Also with people on SSI (making 733.00 a month) they are only allowed to have 2,000 in checking/savings. Try paying a bunch of application fees, movers, first, last, deposit's not possible.

I hope the gentleman above would not tell me not to have a disability if I can't afford it. :-)
I was recently evicted from a home where I was renting a small room at approximately 325/mo including utilities. I am now renting a small (400sf) space of my own. My moving costs, including double rent for 5.5 weeks, which is the commitment it took to secure the space, as a single adult with no pets or children have already exceeded $2000, and I'm not even done moving yet.
Should have waited to have kids until you were able to purchase a home?! That's basically saying that only wealthy people should procreate. Who do these elitists expect to serve them in restaurants, answer their customer service calls, and work other minimum wage jobs if they think they can tell us whether or not we 'should' be having children? Working hard and getting an education do not equal being able to buy your own home these days, or even rent one anymore!!!
The idea that only homeowners should have kids is beyond asinine—especially in a place like Portland where middle-income people are increasingly being priced out of homeownership. Furthermore, it only serves to advance the incredibly dangerous notion that every family should be homeowners, and that you're not a real adult if you don't own, which is one of the attitudes that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis. There will always be families for whom renting is more suitable than buying, because they don't have the money, because they need the flexibility to move quickly, or because they are uncomfortable having most of their net worth tied up in one single hard-to-liquidate investment. We need public policy solutions to make sure those families are accommodated.
Yes, by all means keep having kids.... then rents will be even worse in 25 years. You know that pesky "supply and demand" thing you always overlook.
A responsible person must consider that there are advantages and disadvantages to buying vs renting. Renting is cheaper in the short run. Renting gives you flexibility of being able to move out without as much attachment and responsibility. Renting allows greater predictibility of cosy of housing in the short run because landlord is mostly responsible for maintenance costs. Renting provides for less qualification checks. However, that comes at a cost. Renting is more expensive in the long run. Renting provides for less housing security than owning. To name a few. If a tenant cannot afford to buy a house they still have a few options, they can buy a house in other parts of the country where it is cheaper, they can increase their housing security by insisting on a longer term lease. It would not be hard to find a landlord willing to sign a 2 or 3 year lease. They might even give you a little break on the rent if you do that. When they lease us still 6 months out, they can renegotiate a lease so they will know if they have agreeable terms in advance or, if not, at least have 6 months notice. If the tenant does not want to be tied down to a lease, that is fine, bit that comes at a cost. You cannot reasonably expect a landlord to be tied down to you at the rate you are currently paying while you are not tied to them. That is unfair. Tenants have a lot more rights and powers than this article suggests.

People, for some reason, want to make the landlord pay when they want their own place back. That would be fair if we in turn made the tenant pay for the landlord's vacancy whenever the tenant wanted to leave.
I flew to Santa Barbara with less than ten grand in cash on me and TSA held the plane to insert an agent to ride next to me. I banged her in Burbank, then took the AMTRAK the rest of the way; cheaper. It wasn't enough to rent a place down there, so I tried to cash a cashier's check at a bank and they wouldn't do it without my having California State ID, so I went to the UPS store to rent a mail box, in order to have a local address so I could change my drivers' license, but they wouldn't even rent it to me without local ID. I went to the airport in time to catch the next flight, but a different airline at that small airport was contracted to service for the one that I was a VIP member with, stalled me until the plane left to charge me more money for a latter flight. I caught a cab back to the train station and the driver had to ask me why I was going from the airport to the train station. San Francisco, was OPEN for BIDNESS!!! I spent one night at a cheap hotel, then rented an office for $175.00 per month and slept there for a year and a half. Never did find a job.
Lisa, that's such a quaint suggestion. When was the last time you were a renter, the 70s?

I asked my 2010 landlord for a 2 year lease. She said yes, property management company said no - they don't do leases longer than one year ago so that they can raise the rent based on current market values. Lucky for her she ended up needing to move back in anyway. When she agonized over the no-cause eviction they assuaged her guilt by reminding her that I was "just a renter".

Find me a landlord in Portland who is willing to sign a 2 to 3 year lease and renegotiate the terms 6 months before it's up and I'll show you a unicorn, walking on water. Landlords aren't even offering or renewing ONE YEAR leases right now. Why would they?
@margot you just lost a lot of credibility with the statement that landlords in portland aren't offering 1 year leases, I see 1 year leases on craigslist and downtown buildings are advertising discounts if you sign a 1 year lease. Personally I don't know why any landlord would sign a lease but that is because of how easy Oregon law makes it for a tenant to leave early. The landlord has to try to rent the unit as soon as they leave and in this market that means there is basically no reason not to just break your lease as a tenant so it really only locks in the landlord. Perhaps if leases were more easily enforced in both directions they would be more attractive to landlords.

Also I am not saying that no one without a house should have kids, just that if your priority is home ownership that it is a lot easier to do so if you buy a small starter home to begin with, but it is difficult to live in a small 1-2 bedroom home if you already have 2 kids, not to mention that it is much harder to save up money if you have made that choice. It really isn't your landlords fault that you need more childcare than you used to and I don't think it is legitimate to count childcare as a moving expense, it is a having kids expense. I can't access your spreadsheet but you also mention deposits as a moving expense, a refundable deposit is clearly not a moving expense unless you damaged the place you were living and therefore lost part of your deposit. I agree that moving isn't cheap and that there are advantages to having the security of owning a home, that is why I did not have kids when I was in my 20's and instead bought a house. Based on your statement that you were given 30 days notice on a month to month tenacy back in 1998 I would say that we are about the same age, and during the last 20 years anyone who prioritized home ownership in portland has been able to achieve that goal. It does seem to be getting more difficult but the woman who owned the house you were renting on a month to month tenacy deciding to move back into her home is not the reason you don't own a home.
@paul kemp1 if you fully vacate your old place they are required to attempt to rerent it immediately and you are not responsible for any rent once someone else takes possession. If you really are looking at 5.5 weeks double rent you should fully vacate ASAP, in this market you will probably get most of your rent back.
"If I really believed the costs were that high," Cortright says, "I think the moving rate would be much lower." Newsflash! Mr. Cortright, moving is often not a choice due to no cause evictions, unchecked rent increases, job loss, and other changes in life circumstances. Some people move because they're buying a house, or they've found a better rental, or increased their income. We're not talking about those people.
For example: In 2007 I received a no cause eviction when my longterm rental home was sold, my rent was $1100. My landlord gave me one month's free rent in consideration of my 17 year track record as a good tenant. My new house was $1200+last month's rent+security deposit. I paid a friend $1000 to pack up my house and get ready for a huge sale. My son had pneumonia so I had a $10 an hour childcare expense. Luckily, friends helped me move so I avoided having to hire a moving company or renting a pod. I spent few hundred dollars having rooms in the new house painted, something it needed but my new landlord refused to pay for. I own my own business so I had increased payroll expenses for the weeks that I spent prepping, moving, and setting up my new house. This was a "cheap" move. It cost me less than $5K (not including increased payroll).

My new house was 3.5 miles further away from my son's school (I drove him in the mornings so my kindergartener didn't have to take a 1 hour bus ride). I formerly lived close enough for a quick walk to walk to work, my new home was 2.5 miles away. This added 9.5 miles a day, 47.5 miles a week increasing my fuel costs, and decreasing my quality of life. One year after I moved my rent was raised 50% to $1800. I couldn't afford it. I also didn't feel like I could call on my friends again so soon after my last move. This move cost me $3000 in rent and deposits, plus a pod rental, overlap rent at the new rate at my old house for two weeks, once again my son was out of school so $10 an hour for childcare, and of course I had increased payroll. This move cost me well over $5K and put me another 2 miles from work and 1.5 miles from my son's new school.

This small 2-bedroom house was the smallest, shabbiest house I'd ever rented. It was riddled with code and safety violations, but my landlords only raised my rent $100 during the first five years I was here and I feared retaliation (as many renters do) if I asked for anything but the most essential repairs so I rarely asked for anything. Then in March 2014, a few months after they made some costly essential repairs (that should have been made before they rented the house out) including repairing extremely hazardous electrical issues and replacing windows that didn't open and/or lock, they raised my rent 30% -- that's $365 a month, $4380 a year. I'm now in the same untenable situation that literally tens of thousands of Portland renters find themselves in today -- I can't afford to move, and I can't afford to stay.

I've looked at east county and nearby cities (I have to stay in Oregon due to my custody agreement and can't move more than 60 miles away) but when I factor in the time and expense of a commute it negates most of the potential savings. My small specialty retail business would not survive in any other nearby city. And with gentrification spreading, and displacement increasing, even outlying areas are seeing dramatic rent increases, so there's no guarantee if I did move that I wouldn't find myself back in the same position I am now.

My situation is not rare. It is also not an example of the "worst case scenario". I have a roof over my head and I spend less than 50% of my income on housing. There are 70K+ people living a much worse case scenario than I am.
47% of Portland residents are renters. Half of them spend over 30% of their income on housing, and half of those people are spending over 50% of their income on housing. Telling people they should have bought a house, shouldn't have had kids, shouldn't have gotten a divorce, or should just leave is stupid and unhelpful. You have no idea what has happened in someone's life to bring them to the point of crisis, not to mention the fact that this state of emergency is affecting people who earn solid incomes and even dual income professional couples can't buy houses because they're being snapped up for cash by investors, but I can give you a clue as to what has pushed many Portland renters over the edge: THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH. Why is that? Unchecked greed aided and abetted by the Oregon legislature and the various lobbying groups who have a vested interest in squeezing every penny they can out of their industry, damn the consequences.

Suggesting tenants demand longer leases belies an ignorance of the current rental climate. Many landlords are now only offering month-to-month or six months leases. A one year lease is the maximum you could expect with the vast majority of landlords. The old rules of land lording -- charging a fair rent and minimizing turnover/vacancy -- no longer apply when the vacancy rate is less than 3% and they can put their empty unit out on AirBnb for more than they can get renting it month-to-month.

I admin a group focussed on gentrification, displacement, and housing affordability with 1700+ members. I hear stories nearly every day from Portland residents who have received double digit rent increases, no cause evictions to make room for AirBnB guests, people who are couch surfing, living with their extended families, sleeping in the cars, or having to leave Portland just to survive. Mr. Cortright, I assure you that Margot's story and my story are not unusual or worst case. We're actually lucky to have gainful employment and enough personal resources to keep our families from becoming homeless. Please do your homework. You don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

And congratulations, City Council and Mayor Hales -- you've slowed down displacement by 30-60 days and done absolutely nothing to maintain or increase affordable housing or protect 47% of your citizens from unchecked greed. My only consolation is that it means you've at least heard the murmuring of thousands of people in this city who are suffering in this crisis, but I'm not impressed with your response.
Econoline, I have talked to endless people who are month to month now because their LLs aren't willing to renew their one year leases, so I stand by what I said. There may be LLs out there who would offer a 2-3 year lease right now, but they are rare, and they certainly aren't doing that in multifamily housing.

As to your other concerns: only the increase in the cost of childcare associated with the longer commute was considered. That is a cost that would not be incurred without the move, so it counts. What my calculation did not include was the cost of re-establishing new childcare in a new neighborhood (assuming one needs to do that), those costs would add a cool $100-200 to the total.

And the deposits DO COUNT. First, you need to come up with that deposit well before you get anything back. With deposits ranging from $1000-3000, that's not a no brainer. Next, getting a deposit back is becoming rare as well. Someone told the landlords that they could go ahead and withhold it all for nefarious reasons and it would be up to the beleaguered tenant to pay the $252 small claims court filing fee to try to get it back. I talked to a lady who was billed $1200 to CLEAN (not replace) 10 year old carpets, after a 5 year tenancy. I was billed $1800 to refinish 20 year old flooring that the LL probably charged the next renters for too because I know she didn't refinish the floors until she sold the house. So, we need to think of the old security deposit as lost and it will be a happy event if any gets returned a month after moving out.

Lastly, this is not a situation that is about our is unique to me. Unexpected moves are afflicting people of all ages, not just those who theoretically could have purchased a home in the last 18 years. Which I couldn't, by the way. I was a 19yo single mom back in 1998, waiting tables at Red Robin. I moved back to Portland after graduate school and marriage and two more kids in 2010, and we planned to buy a house as soon as my husband's academic job stabilized. That's why we wanted a 2 year lease (which is not cheap to get out of, by the way. My lease break free is $2200, even if it's empty for 1 day). That unexpected move sucked us dry and racked up our credit card debt and by the time recovered, the market had gone nutso.

But I shouldn't have to validate this to you. It doesn't matter. For every one person like me there are 20 others who were even more destabilized by this sitiation. There are always going to be perfectly legitimate people who don't own homes for perfectly legitimate reasons. They shouldn't be moved around like furniture at THEIR expense simply because they didn't rent their house from the bank like their LL did.
when I emailed the city council and the Portland Housing Bureau last year to let them know that my rent had been raised every year for three years by 10 percent but the usual raise I was getting was 3 percent only two people emailed back to address my concerns. Amanda Fritz and Traci Manning.

They both mentioned the State of Oregon prohibits rent control and Ms Manning suggested I move to low income housing.

The problem was that I am not low income. I am mid income. I make more than low income housing requires but I do not make enough to meet this ever increasing rent.

It is nice to see an article pointing out that moving when one is already losing money is not a good option. Now if they could find a way to enact some kind of rent moderation where people could stay in the fucking apartment they are already renting at the cost they could afford when they moved in.
Mileage calculation is overstating. Do you as a math instructor at a universtity actually work 5 days a week 52 weeks a year?

I get 7 stat holidays and 3 weeks vacation,that takes me under 20 days per month and I don't get the entire Christmas/New Years break as well as spring break and extended summer time break..
Damn this math person has absolutely no insight or perspective. Sure if our lives were Bubble sheets where we must all choose from 2-3 options then yes, everyone would need to pay these things. Truth is though that moving does not NEED to be so expensive when your willing to let go of your insecurities.
Lisa Carlson: "People, for some reason, want to make the landlord pay when they want their own place back. That would be fair if we in turn made the tenant pay for the landlord's vacancy whenever the tenant wanted to leave."

Oh, you mean like paying double rent because you are require to give 30 days notice, but it's basically impossible to expect a landlord to hold a place for you for that month? Something like that?

econoline: "if you fully vacate your old place they are required to attempt to rerent it immediately and you are not responsible for any rent once someone else takes possession. If you really are looking at 5.5 weeks double rent you should fully vacate ASAP, in this market you will probably get most of your rent back."

Yeah, in a perfect world, perhaps. But reality said that I had to sign a lease that prorated 10 days in September at the new place because otherwise they were going to give it to someone else. And the old place has other tenants who are staying through 11/20, because even though the landlord said at the end of August that they were kicking us out at the end of October, they didn't bother to actually serve the paperwork for another three weeks. So, sure I could technically not pay my rent for October and either see it come out of my security deposit because I didn't give proper notice or just end up screwing over my other roommates...
In 1954, the folks bought a bungalow in Multnomah for twelve grand. In 2001, the weasels who stole it from me sold it for half a million. Then the bubble burst and the new buyers are still under water. Next, the current bubble is going to burst for real, and that same house will sell at auction for less than fifty grand. Stocks and commodities are hanging by a thread and will decline by 90%. The Dollar will be stronger due to scarcity and be in much demand. You bunch of fucking crybabies better go sleep under a bridge now and get used to it, before you get tossed without benefit of the learning curve. Cash is King. Buy an RV and five acres in Pullman, Washington. Build a greenhouse and buy a shitload of heirloom seeds.
'...but Portland is so, trendy.'

You can do for Pullman what you've done for Portland.

Thank you for your response. I do agree with you that not all landlords would be willing to accept a 2 or 3 year lease. If you feel I implied that, then I apologize. What I meant to say was it is not hard to find a landlord willing to sign a lease that long. It is actually quite easy. When a landlord hears long term lease they hear no vacancy expense, stability, and less work they have to put into their rentals. Management companies make most of their money off of finding new tenants, so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that your situation involved a mangagement company. A typical fee structure for them might be 5% of the rent plus 1 month rent whenever they have to find a new tenant. You seem the type to like to do research based off of your spreadsheet and calculation of the cost of moving. I kindly would like to ask you to call 20 random landlords who are not with a management company and ask them if they would be willing to sign a 2 year lease with the right tenant. If they say yes ask them 3 year lease. Maybe also ask them if they know other landlords, and if they do, if those landlords are always trying to maximize rents or trying to not rock the boat too much and keep their tenants from moving. You might be surprised at their answers.

I notice you didn't comment on my comment about how it is not fair to expect a landlord to be tied to you when you are not tied to them. I get that everybody wants something for nothing, but that doesn't make it fair.

I do agree with you that moving costs a lot. Owning a home also costs a lot. Renting a home costs a lot. Just like it is not your responsibility to worry about your landlord's vacancy when you move out, it is not their responsibility to make sure you are taken care of except for what the agreed upon in a lease agreement that is at a cost to you.

I bought a home in 2011 and was a renter all the way up thru that. I further have many friends who rent and know about their situation. I also personally know someone who signed a 3 year lease in a Portland suburb that has good schools and she wanted her kids to have stability. So no, I did not come here magically from the 1970s.
I'm just baffled by renter entitlement. It's not their property! They rented it for a short period of time, and after that they need to figure something else out. Would they have this same anguish at a hotel? At a movie theater? How is an apartment any different? You can't stay as long as you want!

Rent can only go up when someone else wants to live in that space. Rent is going up a lot in Portland because a LOT of people want to live here. If you're a renter, go look out your window and visualize 50 other people who want to move in when your lease ends. Why should they, and the property owner, get screwed over just because you feel entitled to stay in someone else's house as long as you want, and for only what you're willing to pay? Are you saving, for when your lease ends? Or are you just going to whine and scream that it's not fair?
I won't be having kids. But I am a homeowner who works in Customer Service, outside of Portland proper of course. I pay taxes for all of the services benefitting those with children. Sometimes you should wait. Oftentimes. But society doesn't like to hear that, because BABIES!
Ironically, there's a glut of foreclosed houses that the banks deliberately keep off the market in order to keep real estate prices high. These are the same banks that already got bailed out by the tax payers. How about forcing them to liquidate the foreclosures at auction, in order to increase supply and lower the price?
I don't think econoline was trying to be an ass with the kids comment. He was making a good point and it is spot on as far as being good advice to current 20 something's.

Margot - I am curious as to whether you have explored other geographies? Serious question. I know the rental market in portland is very tough right now for popular locations. However, it seems like your resume would transfer well to many other great places (esp mid sized college towns).

Popular cities are crazy expensive, and that isn't going to change any time soon. portland isn't the end all be all, and there are much greener pastures out there where mid level incomes can go a lot further. Just curious as to why all these seemingly thousands of people who decry the rental and housing prices in portland don't take action and refuse to pay them and teach these "evil" landlords a lesson.

I fully get that uprooting is a pain, especially when kids are involved. But the rental and especially close in real estate market is not going to be getting cheaper any time soon if ever (the if ever comment relates to houses in popular locations....these rents will come down as supply grows).

Not trying to be condescending or unrealistic at all. Just some questions and thoughts. Maybe the answer is that portland is indeed such a great place that it is worth suffering through this cost of living to be here. I just don't see that, though.
If anyone wants to write a novel or screenplay about the Portland rental crisis and wants to make a landlord the villain of the piece, to write his dialog, all you'd have to do is copy-and-paste Reymont's comments about renting from various articles on this website. (In case you don't know, Reymont is a landlord and has posted about it many times here.)

The situation described in Shelby King's article has nothing whatsoever to do with "entitlement." The "entitlement" argument is a smokescreen anyway. A landlord is not getting "screwed over" because he or she isn't getting the maximum possible rent for a unit, nor is another potential renter is getting "screwed over" because someone else is renting a unit for less than that potential renter would pay. Landlords aren't victims if they're making less money than is possible on their buildings. New potential renters aren't victims if other tenants aren't being driven from their apartments in order to accommodate them. Reymont, if you're going to accuse other people of whining and screaming, you might want to keep your postings free of such histrionics.

Also, to equate renting an apartment with going to a movie or staying in a hotel is as idiotic as it is insulting to anyone who rents. Here's the difference: No one needs to go to a movie. No one needs to go on vacation. Everyone needs a place to live. Those who can't afford to buy a home need to rent. If a renter gets a no-cause termination and has deal with the same kind of economic impact as Margot Black experienced, that person is getting screwed over a hell of a lot more than any landlord who feels he or she isn't making enough profit.
One other question - what is the proposed solution that is being championed by pointing out that it is a bitch to move? I don't think anyone ever said it was cheap or easy? Slightly expanding the timeframe on no cause evictions just pushes things out shortly. Yes we can and should facilitate the construction of below market rate housing by developers. but, this will only help a lucky few who qualify. Not to mention that we need more development period (I know, a very unpopular truth in these parts).

Rent control doesn't work (look at sf and nyc). Basically the only thing left is a near government takeover of private housing stock in a very controlling way (mandating that renters can stay as long as they want), which is never and should never happen. Or, the govt build huge heavily subsidized projects. Who would want to live in such a place, though?

The ultimate answer is that popular areas in popular and growing cities will always command a premium no matter what is done. Fortunately, the inverse is also true for less "happening" and less popular neighborhoods, cities and states.
We may need to re-think Portland + AirBnB. Maybe we as a community just can't afford it. ie- it's leading to too much displacement + loss of stable housing for people. I know it would be tough to go back. One way around it might be increasing the fees hosts pay to the City to put into an affordable housing fund. Or, just stopping the service all together is another option.
Air bnb units that would be potential full time rentals if they weren't air bnb make up a small fraction of overall rental stock in portland. It wouldn't add to the supply that much. Plus, it would just add more high dollar units, as airbnb units by default are almost always in popular locations.
A way to offset some of these costs is to make a portion of them with a cap tax deductible come tax season. You'd still have to find the upfront costs, but get some back come tax season.
When i heard about the POWERFUL SPELL CASTER. I contacted them for a Lottery spell. I was a very poor woman, i had no money for food and bills. i was soo broke and i needed money urgently. so i contacted the spell caster for spell to make me win the lottery. so i did all what he told me, and i sent him necessary details. In 3 days time, he finished the spell and he asked me if i was ready to win the mega money. so he sent me the numbers for me to play the Lottery. I was so surprised and shocked when all the numbers were mentioned. i almost fainted, i have never won so much money in my lifetime. I am so happy and i want to say Thank you to the powerful spell caster's for changing my life from poverty to wealthy. contact him if you want to become a millioniar with a twickle of an eye his email is
Ah, JTR, so reassuring to see we can always count on your callous heartlessness and pro-market cheerleading.
Genuine question here ~ When one rents a home, is that rent not paying the homeowner's mortgage?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.