To: Mayor of Portland
Portland City Council
Housing Authority of Portland
Portland Development Commission
Housing Community Development Commission
Portland Planning Commission
Gresham City Council
Multnomah County Commission
Oregon Legislature
Governor of Oregon
Oregon Congressional Delegation
Portland Mayoral Candidate Tom Potter
Portland City Commissioner Candidate Sam Adams
Portland City Commissioner Candidate Nick Fish
Subject: Now That You Know The Neighborhood Public Housing Statistics, What Are You Going To Do?

On July 19, 2004 you were all sent a table* containing the names, total number of HAP clients and percentage of HAP clients in every neighborhood in Multnomah county. Regardless of the fact that this table was compiled at personal expense by a private citizen and not a government it still provides not only the best but your ONLY tool for public housing decision making that can guide you toward distribution and away from concentration of public housing clients among Multnomah county's 117 neighborhoods.

The statistical information in the table along with the proposed transparent, understandable and accountable public housing policy contained within the 3-6-9 Resolution** changes the existing public housing paradigm i.e., the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time, from simply, "MORE Wherever We Can Put Them That No One Will Notice Or Complain" to "WHERE Do We Put Them In a More Equitable Manner By NEIGHBORHOOD." The issue now is where in Multnomah county. In a few years it will be where in Metro's jurisdiction.

The new public housing paradigm begins with this question: Is there anyone in the state of Oregon who believes that improving the quality of life in their neighborhood is achieved by OVERLOADING their own neighborhood with low-income housing? ONLY when you have answered this question may you move on but not before. This is the starting point. If you begin anywhere else you've started off on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction. You cannot get the right public policy answer if you start by asking the wrong public policy question.

Democratic VP candidate, Senator John Edwards, has often and rightly talked about the, "two Americas." I gratefully borrow and rework the concept into "two Multnomah Counties." One for neighborhoods with lots of public housing clients and one for neighborhoods with few to none. So the question arises: On what moral, ethical or equitable grounds do any of you elected or appointed officials stand when you vote to spend public funds, our money, to place public housing clients in just a few selected neighborhoods? The answer, NONE Whatsoever.

When decisions about the $150,000,000 taxpayer funded Columbia Villa remodel were being made, instead of increasing the number of public housing clients in the Portsmouth neighborhood, which already had the highest number of HAP clients of any neighborhood in Multnomah county and the second highest, 18%*, neighborhood percentage of housing clients of any neighborhood in Multnomah county, you should have significantly REDUCED the percentage. Every one of you who voted to spend taxpayer's money to maintain the outrageously and indefensibly high percentage of public housing in my neighborhood chose to keep excessive public housing in my backyard and out of yours.

During the Carter administration, when private banking and real estate interests immorally and illegally kept buyers in or out of neighborhoods for ethnic and racial reasons it was called "red lining." Today, when our local government continually chooses to concentrate public housing clients in a few select neighborhoods it's called immoral, unethical, bad public policy.

Regardless of whether the 3-6-9 Resolution is presented to the Portland City Council in the next six weeks or the next six months and regardless of its passage or defeat, thousands of citizens, taxpayers, voters and the press throughout Multnomah county are aware that you, elected and appointed officials, now know where and how many public housing clients there are in every neighborhood. If you vote to spend a new dime of public funds in any neighborhood that already has six percent (6%) public housing clients you will be identified as voting for concentration of public housing and against the livability standards of the neighborhoods that have already done their fair share.

Notwithstanding the mea culpas from the U.S. congress, the intelligence establishment and the national press corps, "groupthink" is not an acceptable "excuse" when it comes to analyzing the data and taking a position on public housing policy in Multnomah county. All of you must take individual responsibility as public officials and immediately, albeit informally for the moment, accept "No" and "Stop" as the default responses from HAP, PDC, BHCD, the Portland Planning Commission and the Oregon legislature to any new programs especially those within the FY 2004 $217,000,000 public expenditures for public housing projects which are situated in neighborhoods with more than 6% public housing clients. In competitions for public funds, including loans, to build or support public housing, considerable weight should be given in favor of projects based in neighborhoods with the lowest percentage of public housing clients especially those below three percent (3%).

Do not look to Vera Katz for leadership. Portland's mayor is an ailing lame duck that has consistently and persistently obfuscated and obstructed every attempt to debate and discuss the issue of public housing for years when she was well and had political longevity. She is hardly going to change her spots now that she is sick and about to leave the political stage. It's time to focus on the future controller of public housing policy in Multnomah county Tom Potter or Jim Francesconi.

The city of Portland, and more specifically, the mayor of Portland holds all the cards in the public housing game in Multnomah county. The new mayor, Tom or Jim, can dismiss every HAP, HCDC and PDC commissioner that does not publicly acknowledge support for the equitable housing policy contained in the 3-6-9 Resolution. Every one of you should encourage both Jim Francesconi and Tom Potter to make a public statement to that effect right now.

None of you will be able to hide from taking a stand on this issue for very much longer


Richard Ellmyer
Portsmouth neighborhood, North Portland
http://www.goodgrowthnw.org


*HAP Clients as Neighborhood Total # of
% of population HAP Clients [Table also here, http://www.goodgrowthnw.org ]
***********************************************************************
52.75 Hollywood 613
18.39 Portsmouth 1463
13.15 Cathedral Park 359
12.37 Northwest District 1374
10.28 Reed 283
9.03 Humboldt 444
7.61 Eliot 211
7.55 Irvington 506
7.26 Glenfair 170
6.71 King 387
6.59 Boise 226
6.11 Sellwood-Moreland 634
5.84 Lents 793
5.75 Downtown 432
5.74 Buckman 389
5.68 Kenton 363
5.68 St. Johns 563
5.49 Asert-G 228
5.39 Woodlawn 283
5.34 Parkrose 289
5.34 Richmond 616
5.30 Kerns 240
5.25 Pleasant Valley 158
5.21 Sumner 87
5.21 Cully 621
5.13 Argay 305
5.06 Brentwood/Darlington 520
4.97 Vernon 148
4.94 Creston-Kenilworth 385
4.92 Goose Hollow 262
4.89 Bridlemile 283
4.82 Powellhurst-Gilbert 759
4.78 Arbor Lodge 272
4.77 Old Town/Chinatown 43
4.67 Concordia 505
4.66 Pearl District 21
4.63 Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill 222
4.63 Sunnyside 302
4.61 Foster-Powell 343
4.61 Multnomah 326
4.57 Central City-G 228
4.56 Sullivan's Gulch 116
4.55 Piedmont 294
4.45 Brooklyn 137
4.41 Mt. Scott-Arleta 303
4.39 Centennial 862
4.32 South Tabor 260
4.32 Hosford-Abernethy 324
4.31 CENTER 189
4.25 Montavilla 615
4.20 Lloyd District 21
4.19 Sabin 137
4.15 Mill Park 264
4.00 Parkrose Heights 210
3.95 Homestead 110
3.93 Beaumont-Wilshire 215
3.93 Overlook 248
3.87 Hazelwood 670
3.80 City of Troutdale 524
3.78 Madison South 246
3.72 Woodstock 313
3.70 City of Wood Village 108
3.70 Roseway 239
3.68 University Park 138
3.62 East Columbia 15
3.60 Bridgeton 8
3.57 Northwest-G 228
3.57 Mt. Tabor 351
3.56 Wilkes East-G 228
3.56 City of Maywood Park 28
3.55 Collins View 42
3.48 Wilkes 236
3.46 Hayden Island 66
3.38 Linnton 16
3.38 Gresham Butte-G 228
3.36 City of Fairview 287
3.35 Hollybrook-G 228
3.33 Rose City Park 294
3.08 Russell 106
3.08 Hayhurst 144
3.07 West Portland Park 115
3.04 Mt. Hood-G 228
2.97 Northeast-G 262
2.96 North-G 228
2.87 Laurelhurst 128
2.85 Sunderland 2
2.64 Maplewood 60
2.56 Hillsdale 195
2.43 Powell Valley-G 250
2.39 Kelly Creek-G 228
2.38 Markham 64
2.34 Hillside 24
2.34 Centenial-G 228
2.24 Alameda 92
2.22 South Burlingame 31
2.19 Far Southwest 21
2.08 Ashcreek 89
2.05 Southwest-G 228
2.02 Marshall Park 37
2.00 Grant Park 68
2.00 Woodland Park 4
1.96 Crestwood 20
1.84 Rockwood-G 334
1.83 Eastmoreland 81
1.76 North Central-G 282
1.65 Ardenwald/Johnson Creek 4
1.55 Southwest Hills 71
1.50 Healy Heights 2
1.44 Arlington Heights 3
1.22 Arnold Creek 37
0.86 Northwest Heights 3
0.80 Forest Park 6
0.64 Sylvan-Highlands 9
0.00 Northwest Industrial 0

All percentages and totals are estimates based on the best available information. For more accurate data contact mayor Katz and support the 3-6-9 Resolution. I welcome any elected or appointed official in the state of Oregon and any member of the Oregon press corps to publicly challenge my table with one of their own. The data in this table is more reliable as a foundation for public decision making than the data on WMDs provided by the CIA et. al. which was used as a fundamental catalyst for taking our county to war.

** DRAFT
Declare 3-6-9 Neighborhood Percentages As Transparent, Understandable and Accountable Distributive Public Housing Policy Goals

WHEREAS the city of Portland has an established policy that public housing clients should not be concentrated into a few select neighborhoods but rather distributed throughout Portland’s neighborhoods,

WHEREAS it has become necessary to quantify the policy of distribution of public housing clients in order to assure that public expenditures are being spent in furtherance of these objectives,

WHEREAS it is necessary to adopt neighborhood map based accounting as a reporting and decision making tool regarding public housing policy and expenditures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the city of Portland shall establish as its primary public housing client goal in each Portland neighborhood a target of six (6) percent of that neighborhood’s population. Goals for minimum and maximum shall be established so that no neighborhood shall have fewer than three (3) percent and no neighborhood shall have more than nine (9) percent of its population as public housing clients.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the office of the Portland City Auditor shall coordinate the collection of data and report annually on the status of accomplishment toward the 3-6-9 goal.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the city council shall fund the City Auditor’s 3-6-9 related activities by whatever combination of funding sources from HAP, PDC, BHCD or other revenue sources it may choose.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all appointments for PDC, HAP and HCDC commissioner shall be made during the regular city council calendar.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the mayor shall determine that all nominees to become HAP, PDC and HCDC commissioners agree to support the 3-6-9 policy goal before being formally nominated for council approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, during the confirmation proceedings the mayor shall publicly instruct the appointee of his or her obligation to use the office to which they are appointed to further the 3-6-9 policy goal.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this resolution is binding city policy.