Yuyun Lusiyani
Oregon’s aggressive response to its escalating housing crisis has seen an unprecedented surge in public investment, with the state committing $1.4 billion to low-income housing development over the past five years. Despite this monumental financial injection, which has seen the cost of developing each apartment nearly double to an alarming $540,000, a critical impediment to accountability remains: an unusual state law that shields the financial intricacies of these subsidized projects from public scrutiny. This veil of secrecy, a rare carve-out in Oregon’s public records legislation, prevents taxpayers, researchers, and journalists from understanding precisely how these vast sums are being allocated, raising profound questions about efficiency, cost control, and the ultimate effectiveness of the state’s efforts to combat a deepening homelessness crisis.
The Escalating Housing Crisis and Oregon’s Unprecedented Investment
The Pacific Northwest, and Oregon in particular, has been grappling with a severe and persistent housing affordability crisis that has directly fueled a dramatic rise in homelessness. For years, communities across the state have witnessed an increasing number of individuals and families without stable shelter, straining public resources and exacerbating social challenges. According to recent reports, Oregon’s homeless population continues to grow, despite significant state interventions. In response to this urgent humanitarian and economic crisis, Oregon has significantly ramped up its commitment to creating more affordable housing units. Over the last half-decade, the state has funneled an extraordinary $1.4 billion into low-income housing initiatives, a sum unparalleled in its history. This financial commitment is set to continue, with an additional $850 million already earmarked for dozens of upcoming projects, further bolstered by federal tax credits managed by the state, bringing even more capital to bear on the issue.
However, this substantial financial outpouring has coincided with a worrying trend: the per-unit cost of developing these crucial affordable apartments has skyrocketed. In just five years, the cost has nearly doubled, reaching an astonishing average of $540,000 per apartment. This figure is not merely a statistic; it represents a tangible constraint on the state’s ability to house its most vulnerable populations. Every dollar spent inefficiently means fewer homes built, fewer families served, and less relief for those struggling to find affordable shelter. The inherent paradox is stark: as the state pours more money into housing solutions, the problem of homelessness continues to grow, prompting Margaret Van Vliet, a former director of Oregon’s state housing agency, to observe grimly, “For all the public money, we seem to be digging a deeper hole.” This sentiment underscores a growing concern that without a clear understanding of where the money goes, the state’s ambitious goals may be undermined by unchecked expenditures. Understanding and controlling the cost of construction could make it possible, with the same amount of money, to either build more rent-restricted apartments or to discount rents more steeply, directly impacting the scale of the state’s response.
A Unique Veil of Secrecy: Oregon’s Public Records Exemption
Central to this dilemma is Oregon’s distinctive public records law, which includes a specific exemption that effectively seals the financial details of subsidized housing projects. Unlike most other states across the nation, Oregon maintains this legal barrier, making it an outlier alongside only a handful of others, such as New Jersey, where similar financial data is similarly withheld from public view. This legislative provision ensures that critical information—such as itemized construction costs, contractor profits, and fees paid to a myriad of professionals including lawyers, brokers, loan agents, developers, and even the state housing agency itself—remains confidential. While the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) agency acknowledges it possesses detailed cost breakdowns (per unit, per square foot, per bedroom), it asserts that this information is not subject to disclosure under the existing law, preventing the public from seeing which projects are the most expensive.
The origins of this secrecy trace back to 1997, when the Oregon Legislature approved the exemption. At that time, the state housing agency operated with a staff and budget that were merely one-fifth of their current size, suggesting a vastly different operational landscape. The primary justification offered for the exemption, as articulated by Lynn Schoessler, then the deputy director of Oregon Housing and Community Services, during a public hearing, centered on concerns about corporate privacy. Schoessler suggested that disclosing detailed financial information could “give somebody an indication whether this corporation was ripe for takeover or a buyout or whatever,” emphasizing a “concern on the corporate level.” Lawmakers at the time seemingly agreed, approving the exemption almost unanimously. However, critics today argue that this rationale, focused on protecting private entities benefiting from substantial public funds, stands in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of government transparency and public accountability, especially given the scale of current investments and the severity of the housing crisis.
Beyond Financials: The Scope of Redactions
The opacity extends beyond mere financial figures. ProPublica’s investigation revealed that the exemption is interpreted broadly by the state housing agency, leading to the redaction of a wide array of information that appears to have little to do with corporate takeover threats. For instance, when requesting records for three apartment projects in the Portland area, the agency blacked out details such as the list of languages spoken by prospective tenants a developer hoped to attract, plans for translating tenant outreach brochures from English, and even explanations of potential financial risks a project might face, alongside the developer’s strategy for covering cost overruns.
In a telling instance, the developer for one of these projects was Home Forward, the Portland housing authority – a public entity itself. Home Forward readily provided ProPublica with an unredacted copy of the same application material that the state agency had heavily censored. This unredacted version revealed entirely mundane details, such as market volatility, site-specific challenges, unforeseen design modifications, and economic factors like inflation, material price fluctuations, and labor shortages as typical financial risks. The state housing agency spokesperson justified these redactions by stating that the public records exemption shields "market studies and analyses" as well as "pro forma statements," which outline a development’s anticipated cash flows. This broad interpretation highlights how the existing law allows the state to withhold even basic operational and planning information that would offer valuable insights into project viability and management, seemingly without a clear public benefit from such secrecy.
The Urgent Call for Transparency and Accountability
Amidst spiraling costs and a deepening crisis, a chorus of voices is advocating for a reevaluation of Oregon’s restrictive public records law. Margaret Van Vliet, a former director of Oregon’s state housing agency, has been particularly vocal, urging lawmakers to revisit the exemption. Her concern that “we seem to be digging a deeper hole” despite increased spending highlights the critical need for scrutiny.
Academic experts echo this call. Jason Ward, an economist and director of the nonpartisan Rand Corp.’s Housing Center, finds Oregon’s secrecy difficult to defend. Ward, who has successfully obtained similar data from 17 states for his research, stated that “when you’re just looking at how public funds are used, there should be an incredibly strong bias towards transparency.” He further asserted that “when you see costs going up and up and up and the outcomes aren’t good, there’s an almost unqualified public case that these things should be open to scrutiny by taxpayers, policymakers, the media, whomever.” His experience underscores that transparency in housing development costs is generally the norm, not the exception, across the United States.
Within Oregon, the state’s own Sunshine Committee, a body tasked with reviewing public records exemptions and recommending their repeal or modification, has also identified this carve-out as a potential area for examination. Charlie Fisher, the committee’s co-chair, emphasized the fundamental importance of transparency, stating, “Verifying how public dollars are being spent, especially at this scale, is one of the fundamental reasons why people should have access to public records.” Given the billions of dollars involved, Fisher concluded that “the case is even stronger.” These collective statements from former officials, academic experts, and transparency advocates paint a clear picture: the current lack of oversight is a significant impediment to effective governance and public trust, directly impacting the efficacy of state programs designed to address critical social needs.
Lessons from the West Coast: California and Washington’s Transparent Models
The argument that transparency could somehow hinder development or expose private corporations to undue risk is directly contradicted by the experiences of Oregon’s West Coast neighbors, California and Washington. Both states operate with public records laws that allow for the disclosure of detailed financial information for subsidized housing projects, and neither has reported adverse effects on development activity or corporate investment.
California’s Proactive Approach to Cost Control
California, a state with an even larger and more complex housing market, offers a compelling case study in the benefits of transparency. Financial details of its housing projects are public records, a fact that has enabled crucial investigative journalism and academic research into rising costs.
- Investigative Journalism: In 2020, reporters from the Los Angeles Times unveiled that some low-income housing units in California were costing over $1 million each to develop. Their investigation meticulously detailed how government rules, specific impact fees, and requirements for higher wages were driving construction prices skyward. The stark implication of their findings was that, had costs been more efficiently managed and aligned with rates seen elsewhere, an additional 12,000 low-income families could have been housed between 2011 and 2015. This type of analysis, vital for identifying inefficiencies and advocating for change, would be impossible under Oregon’s current secrecy mandate.
- Academic Scrutiny and Policy Reform: Further academic rigor has supported these journalistic findings. Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley’s Terner Center demonstrated earlier this year that California was incurring an staggering $300 million annually solely in development fees for subsidized housing projects. This amount, they calculated, could have financed an additional 1,250 apartments each year, highlighting a significant drain on resources. Crucially, this public data and subsequent research directly informed policy action: in July, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation specifically aimed at slashing these excessive development fees. This demonstrates a clear pathway where transparency leads to informed policy adjustments and greater efficiency.
- Comparative Analysis: A comprehensive study published last year, co-authored by Jason Ward of the Rand Corp., compared the construction costs of subsidized housing across California, Texas, and Colorado. The study definitively concluded that California’s “highest-in-the-nation prices” were attributable to requirements for “substantially above-market wages and unusually large architectural and engineering fees.” The economic implications were profound: if California had been able to achieve Colorado’s production costs, it could have constructed four times as many rent-subsidized apartments with the same budget. These types of granular, comparative analyses are fundamental for benchmarking, identifying best practices, and pushing for cost optimization – analyses that Oregon’s current law explicitly forbids.
A spokesperson for the California state treasurer’s office explicitly confirmed that their transparency has not hindered progress, stating, “We have not encountered any difficulty in developing affordable housing because those documents are public.” This directly refutes the corporate privacy arguments made in Oregon.
Washington State’s Openness
To Oregon’s north, Washington State also operates with full transparency. Housing officials there routinely release financial information about funded projects to developers, researchers, media, and the general public. A Washington housing official noted that developers are fully aware that this information is publicly accessible, and it has simply “not been an issue.” ProPublica’s direct experience mirrored this: a request for financial documents for three projects around Seattle was fulfilled without any redactions and, notably, without charge – a stark contrast to the $130 fee and heavily redacted documents received from Oregon’s housing agency. These examples from neighboring states unequivocally demonstrate that public disclosure of financial details for subsidized housing is not only feasible but can also foster accountability and potentially lead to more effective policy outcomes without impeding development.
Official Responses and the Path Forward
Andrea Bell, the current director of Oregon Housing and Community Services, has issued statements acknowledging the importance of transparency. In an emailed response, she asserted her commitment to transparency, expecting her agency to be “open, accessible and accountable to the public.” However, she simultaneously stated that she takes “seriously the agency’s responsibility to comply with the exemption in Oregon records law for housing financials.” This position highlights the agency’s dilemma: a stated commitment to openness juxtaposed with a legal obligation to uphold secrecy. When directly asked whether she supported the exemption or deemed it necessary, Bell offered a carefully worded reply: “The cost of construction is a topic of growing interest. We will take your request under consideration as we assess ways to proactively share construction costs so that they are more readily available to the public.” While this response suggests a potential willingness to explore greater transparency, it falls short of endorsing a repeal of the existing exemption, indicating that any changes might be gradual and internal rather than a full legislative overhaul.
Adding to the complexities, the OHCS agency’s practical approach to public records requests further illustrates the challenges. When ProPublica sought documents, the agency not only provided heavily redacted materials but also charged $130 for the collection and redaction process. A request to waive these fees, typically granted when information serves a significant public interest, was denied. The agency’s justification was that “the interest of the general public would be better served by preserving public resources,” a statement that rings hollow to critics who argue that preserving public resources is precisely what transparency in spending aims to achieve. This bureaucratic hurdle and the cost associated with accessing partial information underscore the difficulty in holding the state accountable under the current regime. It’s also worth noting that while the state agency maintains this secrecy, the Portland area’s regional government, which manages a local low-income-housing bond, publicly publishes the costs of projects it funds
Joko Widodo
admin
Nila Kartika Wati
Pevita Pearce
Nana Wu