Basic HTML Version
10
|
HBA HOME BUILDING NEWS
|
PROTECTING YOUR INDUSTRY
|
OctOBEr, 2012
|
HBApdx.org
there will be no economic re-
covery without a strong housing
market, and there will not be a
strong housing market without
strong private sector job growth.
Please take a moment to review
the OHBA’s endorsements and
recommendations on ballot mea-
sures and legislative candidates
on our website
www.oregon-
hba.com
. In your local elections,
please vote for the candidates
who are pro-housing and pro-
jobs.
At every NAHB Board Meeting,
we provide a report on the state
of housing and the economy in
Oregon….you all might find the
most recent state economic data
to be pretty interesting.
Oregon’s housing market con-
tinues to bump along on a slight-
ly upward track, with the Portland
area still doing better than the
rest of the state. In fact, the Or-
egon Office of Economic Analysis
has opined in their recent report
to the legislature that in Oregon
“Housing [is] No Longer A Drag.”
the State Economist’s recent
report also contained the follow-
ing factoids:
• Oregon’s 8.7 percent unem-
ployment rate for July 2012 (Jun
US rate is 8.3 percent) is down
from 9.6 percent a year ago in
July 2011 and down 2.9 percent
from recession highs.
• We rank 26 for fastest job
growth at 1.0 percent for all
states for July 2012 over July
2011.
• Oregon’s total nonfarm em-
ployment increased 0.7 percent
year-over-year for the second
quarter of 2012, with total non-
farm up 44,200 since February
2010 with the private sector up
50,500.
• Our 3.0 percent personal in-
come growth for first quarter
of 2012 over first quarter of
2011 works out to an annual-
ized first quarter 2012 growth
at 3.4 percent.
the report concluded as follows:
• Oregon’s economic expan-
sion is still intact for now, but
remains at risk, and is losing
steam due to weakness in glob-
al demand for our products. to
date, local labor markets have
slowly improved along with
the nation overall, resulting in
a slowly declining unemploy-
ment rate.
• Although economic growth
in Oregon has continued at
roughly the same slow pace
since the recovery began, the
forces driving this growth have
recently changed. In particular,
the regional housing market is
beginning to show signs of life,
which is helping to offset weak-
er market conditions among
many of Oregon’s major manu-
facturers and exporters.
• Slow growth will continue to
be the norm. the manufac-
turing cycle is past its peak,
and Oregon’s major trading
partners are ordering fewer
of our goods. consumers will
not save the day, since many
still need to fix their household
balance sheets by saving more/
paying down debt. recent im-
provements in labor markets
and housing markets will help
the expansion persist, but will
not be enough to generate
strong growth.
All of this helps illustrate the
importance of electing officials
who promote job and housing
growth. Your vote for these can-
didates is a vote for your own fu-
ture.
has the highest review and permit
fees for street improvements in the
Portland Metropolitan area. On a
recent small infill street improve-
ment done in NE Portland a build-
er paid the City $22,000 in permit
and inspection fees. In comparison
, a similar project in Washington
or Clackamas County would only
have fees of $5,000. These are the
types of roadblocks that the infill
builders in Portland are dealing
with every day.
Many neighborhood groups
are vehemently vocal when older
homes built over double lots are
demolished and replaced with two
new homes. Renaissance Custom
Homes recently had to endure the
press and an outcry from neighbors
in the East Moreland neighbor-
hood when an article appeared in
the Oregonian on August 27 titled
“Eastmoreland Residents claim
they are under assault by infill.”
The article refers to this demolish-
ment as a disturbing trend. Yet,
what Renaissance did was within
the City’s code, within their rights
as a property owner and in line
with Portland’s mission to main-
tain the current UGB.
The positive impact of infill
building in Portland spans the ad-
dition of jobs for the communities,
increased revenue to the benefit of
everyone, and the fulfillment of
the City’s own goals under Metro.
Even given these benefits, infill
builders often get blamed for any
number of issues by the neighbor-
hoods and the City alike. The in-
fill builders and the HBA are ready
and willing to work with the City
for solutions to these problems. I’d
like to call on the City of Portland
to be part of the solution by educat-
ing the neighborhoods about their
infill goals and helping to find a
more efficient and less expensive
way of approving construction
that is allowed under the code and
supports Portland’s plans for the
future.
News from the Oregon Home
Builders Association
Jon Chandler’s
Oregon
Update
Inside Line:
HBA calls on Portland Metro to support infill building
Continued from page 9
Housing Starts
Oregon
Bend
corvallis
Eugene
Medford
Portland
Salem
total
SF
total
SF
total
SF
total
SF
total
SF
total
SF
total
SF
Jan-12
641 395 33
33
2
2
21
21
20
20
522 281 15
15
Feb-12
609 447 39
39
49
13
56
22
21
19
431 343 23
21
Mar-12
721 536 68
63
9
4
44
37
31
31
493 336 26
26
Apr-12
937 533 50
50
49
1
37
37
33
31
700 382 64
24
May-12
1223 691 57
57
28
6
129 42
42
42
860 444 38
38
Jun-12
797 598 92
66
12
6
38
28
52
25
532 445 57
25
Jul-12
1160 682 90
90
39
4
52
36
79
43
790 434 55
27
Peak
May-06
3102 2259 379 367 16
16
153 149 146 117 1953 1112 157 127
Appeals:
‘Brown’ supports a bright spot in the industry – infill development
tion plan with a wish list of streets
a city wants to build is not reason
enough to require developers ad-
jacent to those streets to give up
land so the streets can be built if
the developments are not going
to benefit from the new construc-
tion (e.g., by having access to the
new streets).
Unfortunately, the Oregon Su-
preme court previously held that
conditions requiring landowners
to spend money (e.g., to make a
half-street improvement) do not
give rise to a taking claim under
the US or Oregon constitutions.
As such, the
Brown
court’s analy-
sis would not necessarily apply to
a condition requiring Brown to
merely improve one-half of Brady
Way absent any land dedication.
However,
Brown
did settle two
previously unanswered ques-
tions. Specifically the
Brown
court
held that the “taking” is the im-
position of the condition, which
also sets the date of the taking for
valuation purposes. these points
had not yet been answered in
Oregon and, therefore, created
some uncertainties in evaluating
potential claims. So, in Brown’s
case, the city of Medford’s impo-
sition of the condition requiring
Brown to dedicate a portion of
his parcel for Brady Way consti-
tuted the taking, and Brown was
entitled to compensation equal
to the value of the taken proper-
ty on the date the condition was
imposed ($15,000 by the court’s
valuation).
Given that infill development is
one of the bright spots in the in-
dustry today, the
Brown
decision
provides an important reminder
to local governments not to over-
burden such developments with
conditions that are unrelated to
the public policies they are meant
to advance, such as requiring de-
velopers to shoulder the burden
of establishing or improving
streets that will not be impacted
by their proposed developments.
the full
Brown
decision can be
found at:
www.publications.ojd.
state.or.us/Publications/A147176.pdf
For more information on this
case, or for any other questions,
please contact
bjoseph@dunn
carney.com
.
Bill Joseph is a partner at Portland
law firm Dunn Carney Allen Higgins
& Tongue, LLP, and a member of the
firm’s Construction & Design Team.
His practice focuses on business liti-
gation and transactional law with a
specific emphasis onhelping those in
construction and related industries.
Continued from page 9