This table lays out five household income groups, the number of new housing units needed to <br />serve each group, and the types of structures that would be "financially attainable" for each <br />group. The dark horizontal line is the 80% of median income cutoff; about half the new housing <br />need is above the 80% cutoff, and half is below. Note that below the 80% cutoff, the table <br />explains that the needed housing - over 7,000 units - will consist of "primarily used housing." <br />When some of us on the TRG asked why ECLA proposed to meet a need for new housing with <br />existing housing, we were told that it "wouldn't pencil out," financially, to build new housing, <br />even apartments, without charging rent that was beyond the reach of those making less than 80% <br />of median income. The plan, we were told, was that as Eugene's housing stock ages, rents will <br />eventually fall on the older units, and thus become affordable. <br />However, this "trickle down" housing model simply doesn't work in a community growing as <br />fast as Eugene. As most of us know, rents have not been falling, they have been rising across the <br />board, even on older units. One needs look no farther than Portland to understand the financial <br />misery - and eventual physical displacement from the community - that could befall Eugene's <br />low income renters if we don't take concrete actions right now to ensure additional affordable <br />housing is constructed. <br />The Cathedral Park development is a unique opportunity to do just that. A developer has stepped <br />forward with a financially viable plan to build almost 200 homes - something that we on the <br />TRG were told would be nearly impossible to do. Furthermore, since this an area of town that is <br />suffering disproportionately from a lack of affordable housing, and that has very few large infill <br />sites remaining, the benefits to the community would be even greater. <br />We understand that there are legal questions about which version of the Eugene code must be <br />applied to this project once it reaches the building permit stage. We also understand that if the <br />new code is applied, it might push the project into financial infeasibility due to the loss of <br />building capacity and the need for additional improvements. <br />Regardless of the outcome of that legal inquiry, we remain concerned about the possibility that <br />under the current code, developments like Cathedral Park might not be financially feasible. If <br />the new Eugene code, rather than high construction costs, is the true reason why affordable <br />housing developments "won't pencil," that should concern everyone. Eugene's code should be a <br />help, not a hindrance, to the provision of critically necessary housing. We urge the Planning <br />Commission to look into the need for code revisions to support projects like Cathedral Park. <br />Sincerely, <br />Mia Nelson <br />Willamette Valley Advocate <br />1000 Friends of Oregon <br />P.O. Box 51252 <br />Eugene, OR 97452 <br />541.520.3763 <br />