On affordable housing: address systemic barriers to generational wealth
Beaverton Mayor Beaty’s plea to the next governor
EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece is a part of our #GovernorGoals series. Learn more about it here. Send your goals on one of the selected topics to theway@or360.org for potential publication.
My hope for Oregon’s next governor is that s/he will think creatively and strategically about homeownership and its effect on generational wealth. We must acknowledge that certain members of our community—BIPOC folx—have been disproportionately harmed by various economic policies and exclusionary practices over generations. Our next governor should act boldly to correct these inequities. It’s time to build and retain generational wealth equitably, including through housing.
As we all know, the Portland Metro region is in a housing and houselessness crisis. This complex challenge needs to be addressed in diverse ways at multiple levels. Two established paths are opening sheltering options and developing affordable housing. I’ll share a bit about what we’ve been doing in Beaverton and what else needs to be done.
Beaverton is operating a temporary shelter and working to establish a permanent year-round shelter with a health clinic. We’ve been working with Metro on affordable housing and recently completed the Mary Ann, where all 54 units are affordable and 20% of them are “deeply affordable.” But that’s a drop in the bucket of the need. The reality is that for Oregon to alleviate the suffering of houselessness, the next governor will need to think differently.
Having a seasonal or year-round shelter fills a need. Affordable housing fills a need. But it’s not the solution. Supply has always lagged behind demand. We obtain bonds to build affordable units and before construction is completed, all of them are reserved—with waitlists. We face inadequate funding, insufficient land, and growing costs of labor and construction.
Though affordable rentals address an immediate need, they do not allow people to build generational wealth. We need pathways to homeownership.
In Beaverton, we have two homeownership programs. We provide down payment grants of up to $25,000 for low-income, first-time homebuyers through our Welcome Home Beaverton program. We also partner with Proud Ground for income-qualified, first-time homebuyers through the Community Land Trust model. These programs help, but we need a broader program.
On the federal level, the FHA has a loan program designed for first-time homebuyers, but it has credit qualifications and is limited to one- to four-unit structures. Veterans have access to a similar loan program with fewer limitations—but it’s only for veterans.
My husband and I bought our home using the Oregon VA program, which offers reduced down payments, lower interest rates, various dwelling types, etc. But many in our community don't have access to a program like that or have been excluded from homeownership for other reasons. In particular, BIPOC communities have experienced systemic barriers since the government began financing housing. Equity demands that serving these communities be the priority.
The next governor should bring mayors together to tackle these housing challenges. As we demonstrated through the pandemic, mayors are central to the vitality and future of Oregon. We’ve been on the frontlines advocating for our communities, and we must be at the table.
If all we do is build shelters and affordable rental housing but don’t develop a systemic approach to homeownership, we will remain in a cycle, never addressing discriminatory barriers to generational wealth-building. The next governor should lead the charge.
34th Mayor of Beaverton, She/Her, Girl Mom, Combat Veteran, Military Spouse, and all around outdoor enthusiast.
Photo credit: "Development Rendering: Affordable Housing for Seniors in Unionville (Draft)" by YorkRegionGovt is licensed under
“Next Oregon governor should focus on pathway to homeownership”
I Agree – M. Fitzpatrick
Without hesitation, I agree with the above caption and have always advocated for homeownership as the solution; a remedy long overlooked due to the lack of understanding, intentional or unintentional and compassion for those who make wealth possible for the wealthy. There is a need for that concept – however, it should not take precedence over the greatest housing needs.
While writing opinions about housing as well as outlining unconventional considerations of what affordable homeownership can mean and does mean for lower income households as well as the city governance, and community resource development has long baffled me. Housing for all is a form of nation building, not welfare.
As a long-term community development advocate and practitioner – I am amazed at the intentionality of government’s overlook of the creation of wealth for lower income residents as well as the eventual prosperity of our cities.
Government consistently find logic in investing in market rate and high-income housing – the existence of such housing on a national level far exceeds the need while affordable housing, when considered by the massive need, can far exceed the subsequent benefit of the smaller amount of expensive and high-end market rate housing.
While devising a strategy and working on the alleviation of the devastating impact gentrification was having on the City’s Black community – I began to mindfully measure the impacts of the displacement of lower income households and their replacement by higher income residents.
I believe we can all agree that there are more residents at the bottom income stratosphere, struggling to survive, than there are high income households at the top of the income stratosphere supporting the viability of local government.
Ten nicely constructed and maintained homes on an acre of land will generate more property taxes and value to the community and local government than one high-end home on the same size space.
I would like to call attention to the compilation of affordable housing, nicely constructed homes for homeownership purposes versus the compilation of single site, high-end homes. What I consider is based on instinctive analysis of the status. And, I say this to make a point, and not to change
When I see the homeless camps, I am once again reminded of U S Government’s disregarded pledge that “all Americans deserved a decent, safe, sanitary and affordable home to live.
I began to think about the lost revenues, in jobs specifically, as well as opportunities to rebuild and maintain the Nation’s once valued infrastructure. What happened? Why did it happen? Is America better off today than it was yesterday? Is America in a free-fall? Can it re-equip its moral standing? Why were drug companies allowed to destroy the American character? Why did the U S government allow private, for-profit enterprises to deplete resources from the masses?
I am just thinking; I am just asking?
Let us think about the American economy and what it would be if we returned to the state of existence where more Americans, those currently on the streets, were contributing to its viability.
MFitzpatrick