Testimony Before the Oregon State Land Board on the Sale of State Trust Lands

Cascade Policy Institute President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. presented a version of this testimony before the Oregon State Land Board on December 13, 2016.


Re: December 13 SLB hearing on the possible sale of the Elliott State Forest

Dear Land Board members:

I am writing in advance of the December 13 Land Board hearing to summarize my testimony.

First, you were correct in deciding last year that a sale of the trust lands was necessary to fulfill your fiduciary responsibilities to the Common School Fund (CSF) beneficiaries. The continued requests from public land advocates to retain ownership should be ignored.

Unfortunately, your sale protocol is fatally flawed, for two reasons: (1) the four unnecessary “public benefits” requirements inherently devalue the asset; and (2) you are prohibiting competitive bids. Both of these elements ensure that you will not be able to get the best possible offer for the transfer, which you are required to do as fiduciaries.

Any sale should be made through a straight up, no-string-attached auction of the property. That is the only way you can determine fair market value.

To illustrate how much money you are leaving on the table, we’ve done two sets of calculations. In one scenario, we took the difference between the “official” price tag of $220.8 million and the high appraisal of $262 million ($41.2 million), and calculated the value of that over 50 and 100 year periods.

In another scenario, we assumed that the Land Board took the “maximum revenue” approach by dispensing with appraisals and simply selling the Elliott via competitive bid with no public benefit requirements. For this scenario we picked $350 million as a conservative value for what the winning bid might be, then subtracted the official price of $220.8 and used the difference ($129.2 million) as the starting point.

We used two different assumptions about future return rates – the first being the 7.5% used by Oregon PERS, and the second a more conservative rate of 6.0%. The projections are below.

Elliott State Forest sale

Investment projections of net proceeds under various assumptions

Difference between high appraisal and sale price: $41.2 M
Interest rate 7.5% 7.5% 6.0% 6.0%
Time period 100 years 50 years 100 years 50 years
Present value $41,200,000 $41,200,000 $41,200,000 $41,200,000
Future value $56,982,781,049 $1,532,217,537 $13,979,245,841 $758,910,356
Difference between market price and sale price: $129.2M 7.5% 7.5% 6.0% 6.0%
Time period 100 years 50 years 100 years 50 years
Present value $129,200,000 $129,200,000 $129,200,000 $129,200,000
Future value $178,693,575,522 $4,804,915,187 $43,837,829,190 $2,379,883,932

Notice the stunning difference in earnings between the first 50 years and the second 50 years. This is, of course, the miracle of compounding. The refusal of the Land Board to sell off this land in a traditional auction will likely cost public school students somewhere between $44 billion and $179 billion in lost earnings by 2117, and much more in the centuries beyond that. 

You have a fiduciary responsibility to the CSF beneficiaries to get the best possible price for the timberland. That can only come through a traditional auction. I urge you to set aside the one offer in front of you and direct the DSL staff to design a new, competitive bid sale protocol to be implemented during 2017.

Sincerely,

John A. Charles, Jr.

President & CEO

Cascade Policy Institute

How Much Is the Elliott State Forest Worth to Oregon Schools? (Don’t Forget the Value of Compounding)

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Advocates of public schools frequently complain about the need for more money, yet many of them are now objecting that the State Land Board is on the verge of selling off the Elliott State Forest, which is an endowment asset for public schools.

The fact is, the Land Board is required by the Oregon Constitution to maximize revenue from the Elliott. The sale has to go forward because timber management is no longer profitable. But the Board should insist on competitive bids, which it is currently prohibiting. The Board should also remove all restrictions on future timber harvesting.

If the Elliott were sold in a competitive auction, it would likely go for $350 million or more. Let’s assume that the proceeds were invested in a manner similar to the PERS fund and had average annual returns of 7.5%, which is the target rate for PERS.

After 50 years, the investment would be worth $13 billion; but after 100 years, it would be worth $487 billion. The huge difference in the two time periods is due to the miracle of compounding.

Do school funding advocates have a better idea for raising $487 billion? If not, they should support an auction sale of the Elliott State Forest.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Metro Should Dump the Garbage Tax

By Allison Coleman

Portland-area voters just approved Ballot Measure 26-178, which imposes a five-year property tax that will generate $80 million dollars for Metro to maintain parks owned by the agency.

On the surface, this seems like a wonderful thing; everyone likes parks, and they need to be maintained. However, local residents are already paying a Metro garbage tax of $2.50 per ton, originally intended for this very purpose.

In 2002 the Metro Council enacted a garbage tax to pay for the operating costs of parks. In 2004 the tax was raised from $1.50 per ton to $2.50 per ton. Between 2004 and 2015, this tax brought in $46.8 million dollars for Metro.

In 2006, Metro “undedicated” the tax, meaning it would still be collected but the money would be swept into the general fund for other purposes.

This year, the Metro Council claimed they needed the operating levy to maintain their parks, but they never told voters about the garbage tax.

Metro should do the honorable thing and repeal the garbage tax. Voters may not mind paying for parks, but there is no reason to tax them twice.


Allison Coleman is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Portland’s Zoning Policies Make the Housing Crisis Worse

By Lydia White

The masterminds behind Portland’s newest inclusionary zoning recommendations have proven once again to be economically illiterate.

The Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission unanimously recommended requiring developers with 20 units or more to make 20% of units “affordable” at 80% of median family income, or 10% “affordable” at 60% median family income.

This policy fails to accomplish the Portland Housing Bureau’s stated intentions to “harness the economic power of the private market to increase the supply of affordable housing.”

A simple economics lesson would show them their policies exacerbate the city’s affordable housing crisis.

Developers are indeed responsive to basic economic concepts like incentives and cost-benefit analyses. They will not, and cannot, eat 20% of their costs. As with any tax, costs are passed on to consumers. Developers must offset their losses by accepting taxpayer-funded subsidies, cutting costs (such as forgoing routine maintenance or major repairs), or raising the prices of remaining units. This makes housing even less affordable, forcing lower-income households out of the city and spurring gentrification.

Until such unintended consequences are seriously considered, Portland city leaders will continue to amplify the housing crisis. Only the most out-of-touch city planners believe they can defy the laws of economics and make a scarce commodity more affordable by decreasing its supply.


Lydia White is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Something’s Rotten in Metro’s Missing Garbage Tax Money

By John A. Charles, Jr. and Allison Coleman

Metro is asking for a new tax levy this November (Measure 26-178 on your ballot) despite the fact that it already has sufficient funds to operate all its parks.

In 2002, the Metro Council enacted a garbage tax for the specific purpose of funding operations and maintenance of Metro parks. That amount was raised to $2.50 per ton in 2004. Between 2002 and 2015, the garbage tax brought in $46.8 million for Metro parks.

Given that Metro raised all this money for parks, why is Metro asking for voter approval of another $80 million parks levy in the upcoming November election? Where did the $46.8 million in garbage tax money go?

The answer can be found in a bait-and-switch ordinance adopted by Metro in 2006. The Council amended the Metro Code to retain the garbage tax, but “undedicate” its use so that revenues would be swept into the Metro General Fund.

Since 2006, regional taxpayers have paid more than $32 million in garbage taxes that should have gone to parks, but instead went to other purposes. We’ve heard the scare stories before, but it’s time to call Metro’s bluff. Voters should reject the Metro tax levy and demand that all money from the garbage tax be rededicated to parks maintenance, as promised 14 years ago.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. Allison Coleman is a Research Associate at Cascade.

Oregon Must End “Economic Apartheid”

By Randal O’Toole

The housing affordability crisis is turning Portland, already one of the whitest cities in America, into one that is even whiter. Census data indicate that, between 2010 and 2014, the number of whites living in the city of Portland grew by 30,500, or 6.8 percent, but the number of blacks shrank by 4,500, or 11.5 percent.

Some of those blacks moved to Portland suburbs, but most moved out of the Portland area completely. While the number of whites in the Portland urban area grew by 94,000, the number of blacks shrank by 3,400.

Even before 2010, Portland’s high housing prices were negatively affecting blacks and other low-income groups. Census data show that, between 2000 and 2010, the share of households headed by whites living in single-family detached homes declined by 3.3 percent, but the share of households headed by blacks living in such homes declined 16.1 percent.

Housing prices also affected homeownership. Between 2000 and 2010, the share of whites living in their own homes fell by 2.2 percent, but the share of blacks (which was already well below the white share) fell by 12.6 percent.

In short, Portland’s housing affordability crisis forced some low-income people to leave the region and others into lower-quality housing. This process has led some to charge the region with “economic apartheid.” Yet, planners defend the region’s housing prices, one saying, “This is capitalism; how do you fight it?”

In fact, Portland’s high housing prices aren’t a result of capitalism; they are due to government land use restrictions. Portland planners celebrate the fact that the region’s urban growth boundary has forced the population to “grow up, not out,” as the region’s population density has grown by 20 percent since the boundary was first drawn in 1979.

Such increased densities are a prescription for increased land and housing costs. In 1990, an acre of land suitable for home construction inside the growth boundary cost about $25,000. Today, a similar acre, if you can find it, would generally cost about $300,000.

Higher land prices are accompanied by increased regulation as Portland-area governments know that homebuyers have few alternatives if they don’t want to endure long commutes. In 1999, the Portland City Council approved a comprehensive design ordinance despite warnings from the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland that the new rules would make housing more expensive.

Portland and other Oregon cities also have stiff system development charges that can add $20,000 to $40,000 to the cost of a new home. By comparison, similar charges in Houston, one of the nation’s most affordable housing markets, are less than $2,000 for homes of up to 3,000 square feet.

In 1990, the median value of owner-occupied homes in the Portland area was twice median family incomes, which was very affordable. Today, thanks to the growth boundary and regulation within the boundary, it is nearly five times median family incomes, which is very unaffordable.

These policies effectively discriminate against low-income blacks and other minorities; and under a 2015 Supreme Court ruling, they violate the Fair Housing Act just as much as if Portland put out a sign saying, “No blacks allowed.” The ruling said that land use policies that make housing more expensive can be legal under the Fair Housing Act only if they have a legitimate goal and there is no other way of accomplishing that goal without making housing less affordable.

For example, requiring sewer hookups makes housing more expensive but has a legitimate goal of protecting public health. The goals of the urban growth boundary and densification, however, are either not legitimate or could be achieved without creating a housing crisis.

Boundary advocates often claim the growth boundary is needed to preserve farms and open space. But all of the urban developments in Oregon only occupy 1.5 percent of the state; and if there were no boundaries, it still would be less than 2 percent. Urbanization is no threat to Oregon farms, forests, or open space.

Advocates also claim that densification will lead people to drive less, saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the effects of density on driving are tiny, especially when compared with the huge costs; and there are much better ways of saving energy and reducing emissions that don’t make housing unaffordable.

To end discrimination against blacks and other low-income minorities, the Oregon legislature must repeal the state’s land use laws that authorize growth boundaries and other regulations that make housing unaffordable.


Randal O’Toole is an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. He is the author of Cascade’s new report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights.

Abolish Growth Boundaries to Ensure Fair Housing

By Randal O’Toole

A recent Supreme Court decision found that government policies that make housing expensive may violate fair housing laws. This decision could have a profound impact on Portland’s housing market.

Portland’s rapidly growing housing prices are a major hardship on newcomers, renters, and low-income families. Particularly hard hit are blacks, whose per capita incomes remain only about 60 percent of whites’.

The housing crisis has actually forced many blacks to move outside of the region. According to Census Bureau estimates, between 2010 and 2014, white numbers grew by 6.8 percent in the city of Portland and 6.5 percent in the Portland urban area, while black populations fell by 11.5 percent in the city and 5.3 percent in the urban area, thus reaffirming the claim that Portland is “the whitest city in America.”

Though many urban planners deny it, there is no doubt that the ultimate source of Portland’s housing crisis is the region’s urban growth boundary. Common sense says that restricting the supply of something for which demand is increasing will cause prices to go up. This is confirmed by economic studies from Harvard, the Federal Reserve Board, the University of California, and the University of Washington, among other places, concluding that strict land-use regulation is the main cause of unaffordable housing.

Other policies also make housing less affordable, including lengthy delays in the permitting process, onerous impact fees, and gaudy architectural design codes. But these policies would have little effect if developers could meet market demand by building homes in unregulated areas outside of existing cities. Urban growth boundaries not only limit supply, but they shield city governments from outside competition.

In 1857, Oregon’s first constitution banned blacks from moving to the state. This was rendered unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. But in June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that governments that impose land-use restrictions that make housing less affordable can be just as guilty of violating the Fair Housing Act as if they put up a sign on their borders saying, “No blacks allowed.”

A rule written by the Department of Housing and Urban Development says that “land-use rules, ordinances, policies, or procedures” that make housing more expensive are allowable only if they are needed to achieve a “legitimate” goal and there were no other way of reaching that goal that wouldn’t increase housing costs. None of the reasons used to justify Oregon’s urban growth boundaries meet these tests.

For example, planning advocates say boundaries are needed to protect farms, forests, and open space. But more than 98 percent of Oregon is rural, and urbanization is no threat to the state’s agricultural or timber production.

Planning advocates also say boundaries help save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But research has shown that the effect of growth boundaries on these things is tiny, and there are far better ways of saving energy and reducing emissions that don’t make housing more expensive.

Many Portland planners argue that housing can be made more affordable by growing up, not out, that is, by increasing urban densities rather than allowing the region to “sprawl” across the landscape. But this has never worked anywhere.

Recent census data clearly reveal a strong correlation between urban densities and unaffordability. Moreover, fifty years of census data also show a strong correlation between increases in urban densities and declines in housing affordability.

For example, in 1969, the San Francisco Bay Area was very affordable, with median housing prices a little more than twice median family incomes. Since then, urban growth boundaries adopted by Bay Area counties have increased densities by 65 percent, while median housing prices have grown to seven times median family incomes.

When comparing urban areas across the country, it is clear that the key to housing affordability is to keep land outside of city limits relatively unregulated so that developers and builders can meet demand. For social justice, Oregon must repeal the laws allowing urban growth boundaries and regulation of unincorporated lands.


Randal O’Toole is an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. He is the author of Cascade’s new report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights.

Metro’s $32 Million Broken Promise

— Why You Should Vote Down Metro’s Natural Area Levy

By John A. Charles, Jr. and Allison Coleman

In 2006, the Metro Council submitted to the voters a general obligation bond measure in the amount of $227.4 million to fund natural area acquisition. The measure was approved.

In a little-noticed appendix to Resolution No. 06-367A, the Metro Council stated that greenway lands acquired with bond funds would be land-banked with limited maintenance beyond initial site stabilization and possible habitat restoration. The Council noted that it had the financial means to carry out this promise:

“Once the 2006 Natural Areas Bond Measure is approved by voters, Metro will commit existing excise taxes to this basic level of maintenance, with Metro having sufficient resources currently to manage the newly acquired properties in this manner for a period of approximately ten (10) years.”

If the phrase “existing excise taxes” seems puzzling, there’s a reason; almost no one remembers that in 2002, the Metro Council enacted a garbage tax of one dollar/ton for the specific purpose of funding operations and maintenance (O&M) of parks. That amount was raised to $2.50/ton in 2004. Between 2002 and 2015, the garbage tax brought in $46,789,044 for Metro parks.

Metro Solid Waste Excise Tax

Dedicated to natural area maintenance

 

Year Excise Tax Tonnage Total Revenue
2002 $1.00 1,251,823 $1,251,823
2003 $1.00 1,362,204 $1,362,204
2004 $2.50 1,563,884 $3,909,710
2005 $2.50 1,626,255 $4,065,637
2006 $2.50 1,720,168 $4,300,420
2007 $2.50 1,613,848 $4,034,620
2008 $2.50 1,524,370 $3,810,925
2009 $2.50 1,381,326 $3,453,315
2010 $2.50 1,320,992 $3,302,480
2011 $2.50 1,248,191 $3,120,477
2012 $2.50 1,297,716 $3,244,290
2013 $2.50 1,373,612 $3,434,030
2014 $2.50 1,431,132 $3,577,830
2015 $2.50 1,568,513 $3,921,282
Total Revenue     $46,789,044

Given that Metro raised all this money for parks, and promised no new taxes before 2016, why did Metro place an operating levy on the ballot in 2013 for parks maintenance (which passed); and why is Metro asking for voter approval of another $80 million parks levy in the upcoming November election? Where did the $46.8 million in garbage tax money go?

The answer can be found in a bait-and-switch ordinance adopted by Metro just a few weeks after the bond measure was referred out to voters in March 2006. The Council amended Metro Code Section 7.01.023 to retain the $2.50/ton excise tax, but “undedicate” its use so that revenues would be swept into the Metro General Fund.

Since 2006, regional taxpayers have paid more than $32 million in garbage taxes that should have gone to parks O&M, but instead went to other purposes.

Instead of owning up to this chicanery and restoring the garbage tax as a dedicated revenue source, Metro officials continue to make the case for a new property tax. In a 2011 publication, Metro claimed, “…the existing financial model is not sustainable. Metro’s portfolio of land continues to grow, while the general fund resources needed to support it are decreasing.”

In a more recent document, Metro asserted, “In Metro’s general fund, which pays for many primary programs and support services, costs continue to rise faster than revenues.”

Both of these claims are false. In 2011 Metro was already taking in more than $3 million annually in garbage tax revenue for parks. By the end of 2015 it was nearly $4 million.

Meanwhile, Metro was swimming in a sea of new revenue. The Metro Auditor found that during the 10-year period of 2003-2013, total annual revenue went up 22% in real terms, while total expenses went up only 16%. Annual revenue per capita for the Metro region went up 7%; expenses per capita increased by only 4%.

Metro Councilors now state that if voters refuse to approve a new tax levy in November, the agency will “have to ramp back pretty much everywhere.”

We’ve heard the scare stories before, but it’s time to call Metro’s bluff. Voters should reject the Metro tax levy (Measure 26-178 on your ballot) and demand that all money from the $2.50/ton garbage tax be rededicated to parks maintenance, as promised 14 years ago.


John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization. Allison Coleman is a research associate at Cascade.

New Report Highlights Civil Rights Implications of Oregon Land Use Laws, Urban Growth Boundaries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
John A. Charles, Jr.

john@cascadepolicy.org

503-242-0900

PORTLAND, Ore. – A new report released today by Cascade Policy Institute demonstrates that Portland’s rapidly growing housing prices are a major hardship on newcomers, renters, and low-income families. The report claims the ultimate source of Portland’s crisis in housing affordability is the region’s urban growth boundary and that minorities suffer the most from the consequences of high housing prices.

The report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights, is authored by Randal O’Toole, an adjunct scholar with Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization, and the author of The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths.

The report claims the ultimate source of Portland’s crisis in housing affordability is the region’s urban growth boundary:

“The Oregon legislature and various cities have applied band-aid solutions to this problem; but none of them will work and some, such as inclusionary zoning, will actually make housing less affordable. That is because none of these solutions address the real problem, which is that the urban growth boundaries and other land-use restrictions imposed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, Metro, and city and county governments have made it impossible for builders to keep up with the demand for new housing.”

“Common sense says that restricting the supply of something for which demand is increasing will cause prices to go up,” says O’Toole, who cites the findings of economic studies from Harvard, the Federal Reserve Board, the University of California, and the University of Washington, among others, to conclude that strict land-use regulation is the main cause of unaffordable housing.

Other policies which make Portland-area housing less affordable, the report claims, include lengthy delays in the permitting process, onerous impact fees, and architectural design codes. But these policies would have little effect if developers could meet market demand by building homes in unregulated areas outside of existing cities. Urban growth boundaries not only limit supply, but they shield city governments from outside competition.

“These policies effectively discriminate against low-income blacks and other minorities,” says O’Toole. “Under the 2015 Supreme Court ruling, Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, they also violate the Fair Housing Act just as much as if Portland put out a sign saying, ‘No blacks allowed.’”

O’Toole explains how this Court decision could have a profound impact on Portland’s housing market. He says the Supreme Court’s ruling said that land use policies that make housing more expensive can be legal under the Fair Housing Act only if they have a legitimate goal and there is no other way of accomplishing that goal without making housing less affordable.

According to Cascade Policy Institute CEO John A. Charles, Jr., “Policymakers think the solution to our housing shortage is to build more tax-subsidized apartments, but simply deregulating the land markets would result in far greater housing supply at lower cost.”

The report, Using Disparate Impact to Restore Housing Affordability and Property Rights, is available here.

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. Cascade’s mission is to develop and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org.

###

Policy Picnic – October 26, 2016

Please join us for our monthly Policy Picnic led by

Cascade’s President and CEO, John A. Charles, Jr.


Watch Your Wallet November 8! Why You Should Vote No on Tigard Light Rail and Metro’s Open Space Levy

Metro is asking for a new tax levy despite the fact that it already has sufficient funds to operate all its parks. Since 1995, Metro has spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars buying up large tracts of lands far from where most people live. The Metro Council doesn’t want you (or your dog) to use most of these lands, but they do want you to pay for them. Metro’s Five-Year Operating Levy (Measure 26-178) is one more wallet-grab.

The proposed Tigard-Tualatin light rail project (Measure 34-255 in Tigard) would cost at least $240 million per mile to construct — the most expensive transit project in state history. Tigard will be required to fund part of that price tag, and increased taxes will be the result. This is what happened to the City of Milwaukie and Clackamas County when Metro forced through the Orange line.

John Charles will give you the inside story on these two ballot initiatives and tell you what their proponents don’t want you to know. He’ll explain what these measures really do and what they mean for you, your family, or your business. Bring your friends and coworkers!

Admission is free, but reservations are required due to space limitations. You are welcome to bring your own lunch; light refreshments will be served.

 

Cascade’s Policy Picnics are generously sponsored

by Dumas Law Group, LLC. 

Dumas Law Group
1 2 3 4 9