Solutions

The Portland Housing Bureau's Rental Services Office offers a helpline for technical assistance and information on landlord-tenant laws and policy. Staff can provide referrals and information to callers, but the RSO doesn’t investigate tenant issues or directly escalate egregious cases to Code Enforcement or other relevant bureaus. 

The Portland Housing Bureau established a rental registry of residential properties in 2018 to create an inventory of rental housing in the city. These registration fees fund the RSO’s operations. Last year, a large cache of money from this revenue was “discovered,” suggesting the RSO has the financial capability to expand its functions.

First, the bureau could build on the rental registry and augment its data set by additionally requiring that rent increase and lease termination notices be submitted to the RSO at the same time they’re issued to the tenant. Second, tenant complaints received on the hotline could be aggregated and analyzed to better understand the issues tenants are experiencing. Third, the city could take a more proactive role in supporting tenants by doing “warm hand-offs” to partner agencies like code enforcement and pursuing legal action in select cases where there are vulnerable tenants and multiple or otherwise egregious violations. Lastly, conducting regular surveys of tenants and landlords would provide insight into the issues both parties most commonly face. 

‍Tenant support: According to the NLIHC’s recent National Renter Survey, 30% of renters avoid asking their landlord for help when they have a problem. A quarter of renters who reached out to their landlord to report a habitability issue either didn’t receive a response or the issue wasn’t remediated. This makes sense: In Portland the only recourse for a tenant experiencing issues with their housing – after self-advocacy or mediation – is through the legal system. This is a costly and time-consuming process for both parties. It also means tenants must navigate a power imbalance that may jeopardize their housing or result in some other type of retaliation. A substantive city investment in tenant stability will mean that more renter households can feel fully at home in their residences and put down roots in their communities. It will also prevent homelessness in certain cases.

‍Data collection: As Evicted in Oregon notes, only court filings for evictions are collected, which means we have no information about how many tenant households receive lease terminations or “self-evict” for a variety of reasons. We don’t even have a rough idea of what that ratio is. Quantitative data is critical to inform policy, yet we’re missing key data that would help us make more effective decisions. With a modest investment in scaling up PHB’s data collection functions we would improve the data sets, and put in place tools that will enable local policymakers to have a much deeper understanding of our rental housing and the experience of living in it. 

Local dashboards could track rents and rent increases, tenant instability, corporate property ownership, and eviction rates (pre-court process). Granular demographic and socioeconomic dashboards could reveal exactly where affordability gaps are largest, who needs housing, and which neighborhoods lack vital services. A public database of rent increase and complaint history by property would give prospective tenants important information they need to make an informed decision about a new rental home. Accurate market data could help to direct public funds and tax incentives toward the most economically vulnerable populations and inform difficult choices about where public funds should be prioritized or whether they are making a difference. This data could be used to set organizational KPIs around renter household stability.

1. The National Low Income Housing Coalition's 2025 National Renter Survey
2. Portland Tenants United 2023-2024 Annual Renter Survey Report‍
3. City of Santa Monica’s Rent Control Board’s Public Access Portal

Affordable rental housing is usually managed by for-profit property management companies. Employees at these companies often lack training to support lower income households - especially those facing challenges like mental illness or substance use disorder. Metro is currently working on research about what a mission-driven property management (MDPM) model could look like. They define it as, “property management designed with the primary goal of promoting access, long-term housing stability, and improved well-being for people exiting homelessness who face serious challenges to housing stability – challenges that could cause them to be excluded or lose their housing in a conventional property management model.” 

Additionally, we need a dedicated funding source for resident services in affordable housing, to enhance the livability of those communities. Though property managers and resident services staff work together, their functions are different. Depending on the property and needs of the community, resident services staff may organize social gatherings and other events; help residents connect with healthcare, professional training and financial planning services; and offer other types of support to residents.

Staff who are trained to address the needs of tenants in these buildings, with a trauma-informed approach, would create a better experience for all residents. For example, they would be better able to help navigate conflicts between neighbors, and connect people who are behind on rent with resources to avoid eviction. Approaches to bringing MDPM to affordable housing range from creating a non-profit organization that provides services, to providing and requiring training for employees of for-profit management companies.

Fully funding resident services to meet the level of need will mean more stability for residents and overall, more success for local affordable housing programs. This will stabilize properties that are in financial duress from unpaid rent and other operating issues.  

• Trauma-Informed Housing: Property Management  
• Shelterforce - Unsupported Housing: When Stability Isn’t Enough‍
• Metro regional government’s Mission Driven Property Management Memo
• Two New Reports Demonstrate the Impact of Resident Services

A Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) gives tenants the first opportunity to purchase their building when the owner decides to sell. A Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) extends a similar right to qualified nonprofit or community-based organizations, which can acquire buildings and preserve them as affordable housing. In both models, tenants or eligible community partners receive a defined period to organize, evaluate the purchase, secure financing, and make an offer before the property is sold on the open market. The owner is not required to accept an offer below fair market value. Washington, D.C., which has had a TOPA since 1980, pairs tenant purchase rights with technical assistance and public-sector support to help tenants navigate the process.

Limited-equity cooperatives (LECs) are a form of cooperative housing in which residents collectively own and govern their building, while each household holds a share that gives them the right to occupy their home. Unlike market-rate co-ops, LECs limit resale prices and owner profit so the homes remain affordable for future residents. This structure can lower monthly housing costs, support resident control, and preserve affordability over time. LECs can be created by converting existing rental buildings—potentially through a TOPA or COPA process—or through new construction.

TOPA and COPA policies help prevent displacement by giving tenants, nonprofit housing providers, or community-based organizations a meaningful chance to act before a building changes hands. Instead of waiting for a sale to trigger rent increases, evictions, or speculative investment, these tools create a pathway to keep residents in place and preserve existing housing as affordable over the long term. TOPA can also give tenants a route to collective ownership, while COPA allows mission-driven organizations to acquire buildings and maintain them as permanently affordable housing.

Because LECs limit resale profits and keep homes affordable over time, they are a practical bridge between rental housing and market-rate ownership. Research from Washington, D.C.—where TOPA has helped create LECs with modest city funding since the late 1970s—shows that monthly housing payments can be lower than rent for some low-income households. According to a recent study, over 16,000 affordable homes have been created or preserved under TOPA in Washington D.C. between 2006 and 2020, including 771 that are owned by residents in the LEC model. With dedicated acquisition funding, technical assistance, and resident organizing support, Portland could use a TOPA and the LEC model to stabilize vulnerable rental buildings, expand affordable homeownership, and give residents a lasting voice in how their homes are managed. 

• In Eugene, Housing Advocates Call for a Tenant Right to Purchase Act
• Sustaining Affordability: The Role of The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) in Washington D.C. ‍
• NYC's Community Opportunity to Purchase Act: A New Era in Housing Policy‍
• Housing Solutions Lab: Limited equity cooperatives
• Eugene’s Our Village by SquareOne

A social housing model treats housing as public infrastructure rather than a commodity, creating homes that are permanently affordable, high quality, and owned or managed by a public, nonprofit, cooperative, or limited-profit entity. Rental social housing can serve a mix of income levels, with higher-rent homes helping cross-subsidize deeper affordability, while public ownership or long-term affordability restrictions keep the housing outside speculative markets. Tenant councils in each building give residents more say in how their apartment communities are managed. In Vienna, several city-run offices offer support to residents, ranging from legal advice to conflict resolution.  

For Portland, a social housing model could combine public land, permanent funding, land banking, nonprofit development capacity, resident governance, and acquisition of existing buildings to create mixed-income housing that remains affordable over generations. Portland Housing Bureau has already begun studying social housing and alternative housing models. Staff are expected to return with recommendations in Fall 2026, giving Portland an opportunity to define a model that fits local needs, existing housing programs, and neighborhood-based anti-displacement goals. There is also strong interest amongst city councilors and several state elected officials.

Social housing models we advocate for include:

• Mixed-income rental housing with cross-subsidized rents owned by a public housing authority (both new construction and acquisition)
• Limited-profit rental housing owned by a non-profit entity
• Limited equity co-ops (affordable homeownership)
• Community land trusts (affordable homeownership)

A social housing program would give Portland a way to build and preserve affordable homes outside the boom-and-bust cycles of the private real estate market. If designed with permanent affordability, mixed-income cross-subsidy, public land, and resident governance, a Portland social housing program could expand housing choices for low- and moderate-income households while also reducing displacement pressure in neighborhoods experiencing rising costs. Rents should be set by an AMI index that reflects renter income disaggregated from homeowner income, to more accurately serve the target population. 

The current PHB study and expected Fall 2026 staff recommendation are an important opportunity to move from concept to implementation by defining the local governance structure, funding sources, target populations, and partnerships needed to make social housing a meaningful part of Portland’s housing system.

• Housing the City: A Beginner’s Guide to Vienna Social Housing
• Social Housing Study for Portland
• PolicyLink — Housing for the People: How Local Governments Are Building Social Housing Solutions for Public Good
• Seattle's Social Housing Developer

A permanent local source of funding for affordable housing is an ongoing revenue stream created by a tax or fee with no expiration. For example, Seattle’s voter-approved employer payroll tax (5% on individual employee compensation over $1m) is in place permanently for the purpose of creating affordable housing in a social housing model. In Los Angeles, voters recently enacted a 5% transfer tax on properties valued more than $5 million, and Los Angeles County adopted a ½ cent sales tax for housing. In Austria, a 1% income tax - split between the employer and employee - goes to produce social housing. Permanent funding in the Portland area should be dedicated to affordable housing production and preservation, social housing production, tenant services, and homeless housing services such as shelters, transitional housing and rent subsidies.

In 2015 and 2018, voters in Portland and the broader Metro region approved major affordable housing bonds that proved highly successful—delivering more housing than originally projected. However, these bonds were one-time funding sources, and now that they have been fully spent, there is very little local capital available to continue building new affordable housing. At the same time, the need remains significant, with Portland projected to require roughly 18,000 additional affordable homes by 2045, while thousands of existing income-restricted units are at risk of losing affordability in the coming years. In 2020, voters approved the regional supportive housing services measure to provide ongoing rent assistance and services for people experiencing homelessness and housing instability. Though this funding has helped over 15,000 people access housing, collection of that funding is set to expire in 2030. Without renewal or replacement, the loss of this funding would significantly increase housing instability and homelessness. 

Establishing a permanent, dedicated funding source is critical to a healthy affordable housing ecosystem. Unlike one-time investments, a sustained revenue stream allows cities to plan for the long term, leverage additional public and private financing, and maintain consistent production and preservation pipelines. It also provides the certainty developers and nonprofit housing providers need to reduce costs, improve project quality, and scale up delivery. Ultimately, permanent funding creates the stability required to both meet growing demand and protect existing affordable housing, ensuring that progress is not lost over time. 

• Seattle’s Social Housing Tax: An employer payroll tax on individual employee compensation over $1 million.
• City of Los Angeles’ Measure ULA (United to House LA): A 5% transfer tax on properties valued over $5 million.
• County of Los Angeles Measure A: A half cent sales tax for homelessness and housing production.

A land bank is a public or quasi-public agency that buys properties for future affordable housing construction. Land banks may work with public agencies – such as a school districts and transportation agencies – that have surplus land that could be used for housing. Land banks may acquire privately held properties or accept land as a donation from private entities. Often, the land held by a public land bank needs work to be ready for development. For example, land banks may acquire a brownfield property that has environmental toxins that must be removed before people can safely live there. 

The land bank can take on the work of remediating the property prior to making it available for development. Land banked sites sometimes require zone changes, lot size adjustments, right of way easements, or other land use changes in order to ensure a development is feasible. One of the important roles a land bank can play is to reduce barriers to housing development by acquiring and preparing sites for development and minimizing the holding costs of land for development. A land banking program can play an important role in housing development using social housing models. 

In urban areas, land price increases are often a key driver of total development cost. Land banks offset this cost by having a public entity absorb costs of land acquisition, which is the earliest stage of development. Taking that part out of the equation brings down the cost and shortens the construction timeline. Since land appreciates in value over time, land banking locks in the cost at the point of sale, which means land purchased as little as a few years earlier will already be cheaper than at current prices.

Intentionally selecting land by amenities like parks and schools means people living in affordable housing have access to the resources they need to thrive. Land banks can be a tool for ensuring affordable housing exists in every community. They can proactively purchase land for affordable housing in high opportunity neighborhoods, where land is often more expensive and harder for non-profit housing developers to carry. Another common strategy is purchasing land in gentrifying areas, to ensure residents have access to their communities for years to come. In this case study, land owned by a community land bank in a gentrifying neighborhood in Memphis was sold to a non-profit developer to create affordable housing for local residents, using a community land trust model. 

• Shelterforce - Winning a Land Bank We Can Trust: Lessons from Philadelphia’s Campaign to Take Back Vacant Land
• Overview from Grounded Solutions
• Metro regional government’s land banking study
• Lane County’s new land banking program