Yesterday’s Solutions, Today’s Obstacles: A Call for Housing Reform
In March 2022, while running for governor, Tina Kotek declared:
“As Governor, addressing homelessness and affordable housing will be my number one priority. I will use every tool and resource available to meet this challenge.”
Like many elected officials, Governor Kotek links Oregon’s homelessness crisis to a lack of affordable housing. But that narrative is misleading.
Yes, Oregon faces a housing affordability problem—rising rents and home prices are making it harder for working families to rent or buy a home. And yes, we have a growing homelessness crisis. But these are two separate challenges with very different root causes.
If you're interested in my perspective on solving the homelessness crisis, request my position paper: “Oregon’s Homeless Crisis: Why Current Strategies Are Failing.” Just email me at doug@hhfpdx.org.
If you want to understand how we can address the housing affordability crisis, read on.
Solutions we adopted in the 1960s and 1970s to address urgent challenges have become the source of the problems we face today. Here are three examples.
Legacy Solution #1 – Urban Growth Boundaries: Time to Revisit a Landmark Idea
A generation ago, Oregon was rightly concerned about the impacts of unchecked urban sprawl. We wanted to preserve our forests and prime farmland from being paved over by haphazard development. Looking at the urban sprawl in other states, we resolved to take a different path.
Our answer was the creation of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) around cities. The idea was straightforward: land inside the boundary would be available for development, while land outside it would be protected from indiscriminate construction. UGBs were designed to concentrate growth, preserve natural and agricultural land, and ensure more efficient use of infrastructure. As populations grew, land inside the UGBs would be expanded—deliberately and incrementally—to meet future housing and development needs.
That was the original intent behind urban growth boundaries. But the reality has played out differently. The expansion of land within UGBs has not kept pace with population growth, as illustrated in the chart below.
Since the UGB was established in 1980, the land within it has expanded by only 9 percent—from 236,000 acres to 256,360 acres in 2024. Meanwhile, the population living within the boundary has grown from 940,660 to an estimated 2.5 million, a 166 percent increase over the same period.
Advocates for limiting UGB expansion argue that there’s still plenty of land available for development within Portland’s existing boundary. So how do we know which position is correct?
It comes down to one of the most fundamental principles in economics: supply and demand. Supply is how much of something is available. Demand is how much people want it. When these forces are in balance, markets function smoothly. But when demand far outpaces supply, we get shortages, rising prices, and, in the case of housing, rationing through affordability. When supply exceeds demand in the case of housing, we see falling housing costs.
So, again: how do we know if there's enough land within the UGB? Just follow the prices.
Over the past two decades, land values within the UGB have soared. And this is not a point of controversy. No one disputes it. The reason is simple: demand for developable land in the Portland metro area has far outstripped the supply. In any market, when prices climb sharply and persistently, it's a clear sign that the supply isn’t keeping up. In 1950, the median home price was 2.2 times the average annual income; by 2020, it was 6 times the average annual income due in part to soaring land values.
The question we must wrestle with is this: Do we want to keep fighting the battle against urban sprawl—a battle that made sense a generation ago—or are we ready to confront today’s crisis: the severe shortage of affordable housing?
We can’t do both. The tools we designed to win yesterday’s fight are now part of what’s holding us back. It's time to decide which problem we’re truly committed to solving.
Legacy Solution #2 – Regulation: From Environmental Savior to Housing Barrier
The unchecked growth of the early 20th century came at a steep environmental cost, triggering a justified backlash from those concerned about pollution and the health of our natural resources. By the 1960s, environmental degradation had become impossible to ignore.
In 1962, the Willamette River was considered one of the most polluted rivers in the nation, choked with industrial waste and raw sewage from combined sewer overflows. In response, Governor Tom McCall championed groundbreaking state-level pollution controls, setting the stage for broader environmental reform. Over the following decades, landmark legislation—like the Clean Water Act—and major infrastructure investments followed.
Thanks to these efforts, the Willamette has come a long way: stretches of the river once deemed unsafe are now swimmable, wildlife habitats are recovering, and water quality has significantly improved. Still, challenges remain.
So why bring this up?
Because this story offers a powerful lesson: regulation was the solution. The environmental damage of the past wasn’t solved by wishful thinking or market forces alone—it was addressed through coordinated public policy, firm standards, and collective will.
Today, we face a very different crisis: a deepening shortage of affordable housing. And ironically, the very tools we once used to solve environmental problems—regulations, zoning restrictions, and land use controls—have now become part of the problem.
The regulatory framework that helped clean up our rivers and skies was essential in its time. But over the years, layer upon layer of rules, permitting processes, and development restrictions have created a system that often paralyzes housing production. Projects stall. Costs climb. Timelines stretch for years. And while the intention may still be good, the outcome is increasingly unaffordable housing and growing inequality.
We solved one crisis through regulation. But today’s crisis—the shortage of affordable housing—requires a different kind of solution: reform. Not the elimination of all rules, but the courage to streamline, simplify, and modernize them. If we want to build housing that is more affordable, more accessible, and delivered in a timely manner, we need a regulatory system that enables—not obstructs—progress.
Legacy Solution #3 – Litigation: When Legal Tools Become Tactical Weapons
Litigation has been a powerful tool for reform when public will or political courage falls short. It’s messy, expensive, and slow—but it often brings clarity, accountability, and real-world results. Whether cleaning up the Willamette River, protecting civil rights, or advancing affordable housing, lawsuits have been instrumental in driving progress.
Unfortunately, litigation today is increasingly used as a tactic to delay, block, or derail housing development—especially in areas facing affordability crises. While legal challenges can serve legitimate purposes (e.g., ensuring compliance with environmental or planning laws), they are often weaponized to protect the status quo, shield affluent neighborhoods, or stall politically unpopular projects.
Here’s how litigation is used today to hamper housing development:
Weaponizing Environmental Laws – Environmental laws are frequently used not for genuine environmental protect, but to delay or stop housing projects.
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) Legal Challenges – Neighborhood groups often file lawsuits to stop multifamily, affordable, or supportive housing. In Portland, local opposition has sometimes led to appeals or lawsuits against shelter siting or low-income housing, even on public land.
Death by Delay – Even when lawsuits fail, they often delay projects by months or years, increasing carrying costs, eroding financial viability, and creating uncertainty that scares off lenders and developers.
Laws intended to protect the public interest are too often used to preserve privilege and block progress. For housing policy to succeed, we must rethink how litigation fits into the system—balancing accountability with urgency.
What Once Worked is Now Holding Us Back
Over the past generation, the implementation of urban growth boundaries—along with the strategic use of regulation and litigation—helped solve a range of complex problems that likely could not have been addressed any other way. These tools protected natural resources, curbed pollution, and brought order to chaotic growth. But today, those very same solutions have become obstacles to solving a new and urgent crisis: the shortage of affordable housing.
What once served the public good is now strangling progress, not just in Portland, but across the country. If we want to meet the housing needs of today and tomorrow, this must change.
It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way
Understand this: It doesn’t have to be this way. Across the country, some cities are not paralyzed by regulation and litigation. In the Portland Metro area, we’re currently issuing just 2.6 housing permits per 1,000 residents—a rate that falls far short of meeting demand. By contrast, Austin, Texas led the nation in 2023 by permitting 18 new homes per 1,000 residents.
That’s not just a difference in numbers—it’s a difference in mindset. One city embraces growth and meets it with action. The other talks about growth but builds barriers.
What can be done, you ask? How do we turn this around?
It starts at the top of the food chain. In Oregon, that means Governor Tina Kotek. She has the authority to lead bold change—but does she have the political will to challenge the entrenched interests within her own party? Over the years, many well-meaning leaders have become highly skilled at crafting regulations and using litigation to block what they oppose. But today, those same tools are standing in the way of building the housing we urgently need.
If Governor Kotek is serious about solving Oregon’s housing crisis, she must be willing to confront the status quo, even within her own ranks, and lead the charge toward reform.
It can be done. Here’s an example of what one governor did in the face of his state’s crisis. On June 11, 2023, a tanker truck carrying 8,500 gallons of gasoline crashed and ignited beneath an I-95 overpass in Philadelphia, causing the bridge to collapse. I-95, a vital artery connecting New York and Washington, typically carries 160,000 vehicles a day.
Officials warned repairs could take months—but Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro declared a state of emergency, waiving environmental reviews, bidding procedures, and procurement rules to prioritize speed.
The result? I-95 reopened in just 12 days.
What if Governor Kotek had the same sense of urgency with Oregon’s housing crisis?
Conclusion: The Time to Act Is Now
We didn’t hesitate when the problem was polluted rivers or sprawling cities. We acted—boldly, creatively, and with resolve. The results were transformational. But now, facing a housing crisis that touches every Oregonian, we cannot afford to be timid.
Governor Kotek has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to bring that same boldness to today’s greatest challenge. Just as Governor Shapiro cut through red tape to rebuild I-95 in 12 days, Oregon must cut through the layers of outdated policy and process that are suffocating housing production.
This doesn’t mean abandoning what we value—our environment, our communities, or our shared vision of livable cities. But it does mean recognizing that the tools of the past are no longer fit for the task at hand. Reform is not reckless. Reform is the only responsible path forward.
The call is simple:
Add enough land within Portland Metro’s UGB to bring land prices closer to pre-2000 levels.
Streamline regulations that delay or deter housing construction.
Rein in litigation that prioritizes obstruction over progress.
Oregon has led the nation before. We can lead again. But only if we have the courage to admit that yesterday’s solutions are now today’s obstacles—and to act accordingly.
The clock is ticking. Let’s build a future that works for everyone—before more are left behind.
