In their March 16 report on implementing the urban growth boundary, city staff stated the redevelopment of the core areas should take priority over other areas. Will the Bend City Council take into account council goals 1 and 3 in making its decision? Goal 1 states the growth plan should be affordable, and Goal 3 states to “increase the affordable housing options.” Listed under Goal 3 is the statement, “quantify housing needs through a data-driven approach.” Has staff used critical data from the UGB’s four technical reports?

Staff’s growth planning was driven by minimizing the “vehicle miles traveled” rate, while the failure to provide affordable housing has led to more employees having to commute. The state defines VMT as only the trips beginning and terminating within Bend’s city limits and Deschutes River Woods. UBG data showed as of 2011, over half of Bend’s employees commute from outside of Bend. Failure to provide housing options greatly increases the true regional VMT because more employees must commute.

Staff’s growth planning was also driven by “urban form” (four- and five-story “vertical” high-density housing). The March 16 report claims three assumptions are necessary to the financial feasibility of vertical housing. For land cost, the March 16 report and March 23 presentation conveniently failed to mention a land-cost limit, but the UGB data set the maximum limit at $18 per square foot while the Central Westside Plan set it at $22. The current sale comps range between $45 per square foot to $55 in the east downtown and $35 to $45 in the Central Business District, exceeding staff’s limit.

High rents are required per the staff’s report and presentation. The March 16th report lists the required minimum rent for the least expensive of two “vertical housing” options is $1,430. Using the council’s website formula, the renter’s income to qualify is 96 percent of Bend’s average median income. UGB data shows about 60 percent of Bend’s households wouldn’t qualify.

Multiple incentive programs are required. One proposed incentive program is a city loan program for system development charges, but it is no benefit for these large developments because they typically use their project’s loan for fees instead of cash. The property tax exemption incentive conflicts with the proposed necessary property tax increment funding of urban renewal districts that staff proposes to financing of off-site costs.

The report failed to highlight three other necessary assumptions. Staff proposes the public finances the off-site costs. As noted above, urban renewal district financing conflicts with property tax exemption incentive.

Availability of vacant land is not mentioned. UGB data says most development will occur on vacant land and the UGB data shows there is very little vacant land in the core.

The last omission is a lack of market demand for vertical housing’s expensive, small units. UGB and other data sources show over 50 percent of the new residents are over 64 and another 30 percent are empty-nesters and families. Will this 80 percent of new residents choose to live in the vertical housing’s 790-square-foot studios and one-bedroom apartments?

Staff’s growth plan is driven by ideology instead of available data to provide a housing supply to balance the needs. Staff’s tunnel vision is decreasing the affordability of all housing and reducing the affordable housing options.

Practical solutions to addressing Bend’s housing imbalance begin with understanding the causes. The short answer is “it is all about money” as stated at a City Club meeting by John Gilbert, who I believe is the most knowledgeable and successful affordable housing developer in Central Oregon.

Practical solutions include; a) utilizing the cheapest land instead of the most expensive, b) building shared housing instead of studios and one-bedroom units, c) infrastructure based on benefit/cost analysis and d) stop the landowners and speculators from reaping excessive profits by avoiding the cost of infrastructure.

The council has a difficult task to wade through the hundreds of pages of staff reports, but who else is going to hold staff accountable.

— Mike Walker lives in Bend.