Candace Avalos

“Okay, thank you so much. Thank you for answering those questions. I will then share my comments on how I feel about the So I'll start by saying something that might surprise people after our conversation. Thank you. I am genuinely grateful for this amendment package. I spent a lot of time going through it, and I think that you all heard a significant amount of what council raised last week. So thank you to Donnie and the team. I want to give you that credit. Last week, I introduced a lot of amendments, 12, I guess 13 with Green Avalos 1. And because I believe that the term sheet needed stronger protections for Portlanders, and not all of those ideas were— I didn't expect them to appear exactly as I wrote them, but I do see in here how you wanted to, or how you got to the underlying principles, and that's what mattered most to me. So some of the highlights of what I appreciate that you…”

“Who exactly is we? Because the work up until this point has been given to us without our input. They put out a draft term sheet without any kind of signal that that's what we wanted. So it just continues to be this position where it's like, well, you're going to have a chance later, you're going to have a chance later. This is the chance. This is literally our only chance. I do not agree. I asked the same question too. What happens after we pass ask this, what is, what is the box that the negotiating team is working within? And it does feel like it's restricted. And so if we don't have an opportunity to do this, I, you know, it's just like I keep hearing now's not the time, now's not the time. The time is now. And then it's like, well, now is the time, but it's very narrow. And actually, no, it's not the time. Which time is it? When is the time that I'm going to be able to represent E…”

“Sure, just, um, very, very briefly because I know we're short on time, is that we had a great discussion. It really falls within our, um, long-range goals on Vision Zero, and I think both the co-sponsors may want to add a word.”

“If you're a lobbyist, identify your organization— the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when council clerk calls your name.”

“Thank you, Councilor. I am next in the queue and I, well, first of all, thank you for being here. You know, obviously housing affordability is one of our most pressing challenges, and we need to get serious about increasing housing production. And so I think that the single-story buildings have become an important topic in housing policy because they raise the question of, are there opportunities to safely build more housing on more sites by modernizing regulations that were developed decades ago? So I'm grateful that we're having this discussion. We're engaging students. And to envision what the future looks like. I wanted to pick up on the dialogue around accessible housing. You know, I think that as more people— if you look broadly at housing and kind of what's going on with where— what kinds of housing people need, obviously we know we need more family-sized housing. That's been a…”

“All right, I am next in the queue. Thanks again. We all know that Portland is continuing to face a significant shortage of affordable housing, and one of the biggest barriers to getting projects built or preserved is access to So I see today's ordinance as adding another financial tool to our toolbox. And this action, while it appropriates the $35 million federal award, it's important that we remember that the Section 8— Section 108 program is not a traditional grant. So it's only allowing the city to borrow federally guaranteed funds and then relend them to affordable housing projects over time. So I do think that used responsibly, this can help stretch our local resources and make more affordable housing projects financially feasible. But at the same time, because the city is ultimately responsible for repayment, I think it's important that we understand how PHB plans to manage both…”

“Based on information that has recently come to my attention, I believe additional time is appropriate to allow the property owner's family to determine whether they can resolve the situation without the need for foreclosure. And we can ask questions on that if you'd like. And then as a reminder, we continued this ordinance package to allow more time for committee member questions about specific properties that are eligible for foreclosure under city administrative rule. So I will ask Kevin Foster, our Foreclosure Prevention Manager, to provide us with any updates on the properties and potential resolution, and then we will open it up to committee questions and discussion. So with that, take it away.”

“Thank you again for folks for testifying in front of us today. Always an opportunity to share your experience at committee. Um, Diego, go ahead and call the next item, or actually, um, please open items 3 through 16.”

“Thank you, Claire. We have 4 main items on our agenda. We'll have some time for public comment. Then we will do a continuation of the foreclosure properties that we discussed on July 21st. Then we will have an ordinance on housing and a housing financing grant. And after a short break, we will talk about the single stair design and hear from Portland Neighbors Welcome about a local design competition that they organized. So, but before we get to our main items, we need to adopt committee minutes for our meetings on June 2nd and June 16th. Diego, can you please read the item?”

“Um, thank you. So I wanted to just speak to Portlanders while I have this chance. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Smith. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to take this chance because I understand that, you know, we have been as a body scrutinized on whether or not we're being reasonable. And I think that is difficult, a difficult standard to evaluate without understanding how the city approaches major public investments. So I just want to take this chance to share 2 examples. First, when the City of Portland considers investing in a capital construction project with a nonprofit, for example, we have an intentional process thank you. So we require things like a complete application that includes a summary of the organization, how it operates, how the partnership would benefit both parties, detailed plans and blueprints, a financial plan, and the organization's own financial contribution, a…”

“Hello. Apologies that I can't be there in person today. Thank you, Dwayne and Mike, for being here. I'm really glad to hear that you are here to engage in good faith negotiations with the council. We're prepared to do the same. And before I ask my question, I just want to emphasize that it's not just us that you have to convince, also Blazers fans who Um, have seen some concerns about how the team's operating in it. This is why we're asking these hard questions, and the council is eager to keep the Blazers in Portland. And simultaneously, Portlanders are investing 3 times through their state taxes, their county taxes, and now their city taxes. So we do have an immense responsibility to assure an equitable return. And to Portlanders, I just want you to know that keeping the Blazers in Portland has not been a debate amongst councilors. We all want to keep them here in their home. Thank …”

“Yeah, thank you. Good discussion. Um, like I have said before, I spent a lot of time trying to understand the problem with the ordinance and what it was trying to solve. Um, and we heard that essentially the issue isn't the income limit, it's that these homes are competing against similarly priced homes that are built under that broader SDC exemption that doesn't require the verification. So I don't see how this amendment is addressing Raising the income limit doesn't solve that competitive disadvantage. It also doesn't address the broader affordability challenges that we're seeing with today's interest rates. And so I see the way that the ordinance is written without the amendment is it's affecting about 200 homes, but it's still preserving important protections like the sale price caps, the owner occupancy requirements, and many of those homes are also going to be income restricted …”