Oregon’s Housing Crisis: Why Spending More Has Not Solved the Problem
Oregon has made housing and homelessness one of its top political priorities. State leaders have promised more homes, more affordable housing, and more resources to address homelessness. Yet the numbers discussed in this episode of Oregon Discussion tell a different story: fewer homes than promised, rising homelessness, struggling housing providers, and billions of dollars spent without the results Oregonians were promised.
In this episode, hosts Mike McLane and Shelly Boshart-Davis are joined by Jacob Vandever, Chief of Staff for the Oregon House Republican Office, to examine what is happening inside Oregon’s housing policy debate. The discussion moves beyond slogans and focuses on the core question: if housing has been such a major priority, why are the results getting worse?
Housing Was the Governor’s Top Priority
The episode begins by focusing on Governor Tina Kotek’s stated housing goal. As discussed in the transcript, Kotek set a public target of 36,000 new homes per year. In 2024, Oregon permitted just 14,621 homes, which is less than 40 percent of that target and down significantly from 2019 levels.
That gap matters because this was not a side issue. Housing was one of the clearest promises made by Oregon’s current governor. It was presented as a defining priority.
The hosts argue that if a governor publicly sets a major policy target, voters should be able to compare that promise to the results. By that standard, Oregon’s current housing trajectory is not meeting the mark.
More Money, Fewer Results
One of the main themes of the episode is the disconnect between spending and outcomes.
Oregon has spent enormous amounts of money on housing and homelessness. Portland-area voters approved housing bonds totaling more than $911 million, and those funds are nearly exhausted while more money is now being requested.
The question raised in the episode is not whether housing matters. It clearly does. The question is whether Oregon’s current model is producing results.
Shelly Boshart-Davis argues that Democrats often measure success by how much money is spent rather than by the outcomes produced. She connects this problem to other policy areas as well, including education, housing, and behavioral health.
The concern is straightforward: taxpayers are being asked to spend more, but the public is not seeing the level of results that should come with that level of investment.
Portland’s Affordable Housing Warning Sign
A major part of the conversation focuses on Portland’s affordable housing system.
Jacob Vandever discusses reports that one of Portland’s largest affordable housing providers may be at risk of going under without additional public support. The reasons cited include crime, nonpayment of rent, damage to units, difficulty evicting problem tenants, and the use of some units for issues such as fentanyl distribution or human trafficking.
This part of the episode highlights a deeper problem: housing policy cannot be separated from public safety, behavioral health, addiction, and tenant accountability.
If affordable housing providers are losing money because units are being damaged, rents are not being paid, and crime is not being addressed, then simply building more subsidized units does not solve the whole problem. The system must also be able to maintain safe, livable housing.
Tenant Protections and Real-World Consequences
The episode also discusses Portland-specific tenant protections and restrictions on screening prospective tenants.
Vandever explains that Mayor Keith Wilson has suggested revisiting some of these rules so housing providers can better assess risks before renting units. According to the discussion, that idea has received pushback from members of the Portland City Council.
The broader policy point is that tenant protections may be well-intentioned, but if they prevent housing providers from protecting other tenants, neighbors, and the property itself, they can produce unintended consequences.
The hosts argue that housing policy must balance compassion with order, safety, and accountability.
COVID-Era Housing Policies
The conversation also looks back at COVID-era housing policy.
During the pandemic, Oregon implemented eviction restrictions, including limits on evictions for nonpayment of rent. The legislature also created a landlord compensation fund to help housing providers recover some of the rent they were not allowed to collect during that period.
Vandever explains that the early proposal compensated landlords for 80 percent of missed rent if they absorbed the remaining 20 percent. Later, lawmakers worked to make housing providers whole.
This period created long-term consequences. Housing providers saw the state change rules quickly, limit property rights, and shift financial risk onto landlords. That created uncertainty for anyone considering whether to rent property, build housing, or invest in Oregon.
HB 3115 and Public Camping Policy
The episode also discusses House Bill 3115, a 2021 law connected to public camping rules and Oregon’s response to Ninth Circuit case law.
Vandever explains that the law was passed in response to court rulings that limited how local governments could enforce public camping restrictions if there were not reasonable alternatives available. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision changed the legal landscape, but Oregon has not repealed or substantially changed the state law.
The hosts argue that HB 3115 has tied the hands of local governments and made it harder for cities and counties to manage camping, sidewalks, public spaces, and business districts.
Shelly Boshart-Davis specifically argues that the law should be repealed so local governments can make decisions that fit their own communities.
Homelessness Is Rising in Oregon While Falling Nationally
One of the strongest data points in the episode is the contrast between Oregon and the rest of the country.
According to the discussion, homelessness nationally went down by 3 percent in 2025, while Oregon’s homelessness went up by 19 percent and Multnomah County’s went up by 43 percent. Oregon is also described as ranking number one in the nation for unsheltered child homelessness.
That contrast matters because it challenges the idea that homelessness is simply a national trend outside Oregon’s control.
If homelessness is falling nationally but rising sharply in Oregon, the hosts argue that Oregon should ask what it is doing differently — and whether those policies are making the problem worse.
Spending Per Homeless Person
The episode also discusses homelessness spending per person.
Shelly Boshart-Davis states that Oregon is now among the highest-spending places in the country per homeless person, citing a figure around $95,000 per homeless person.
That figure becomes a central accountability question. If government is spending that much per person and homelessness is still increasing, then voters have reason to ask whether the current model is working.
The hosts do not argue that no money should be spent. They argue that money alone is not enough if the system lacks results, accountability, and the right policy framework.
Housing First and the Limits of One Model
The episode also critiques the “housing first” model.
Vandever argues that people are beginning to recognize that housing first has not delivered what many expected. If the underlying causes of homelessness — mental illness, addiction, public safety, trauma, or behavioral instability — are not addressed, then placing someone in a unit may not be enough.
The hosts emphasize that compassion cannot mean allowing people to live in disorder or placing them in housing without the support and accountability needed for that housing to remain safe and functional.
In this framing, true compassion requires both help and structure.
The Nonprofit Industrial Complex
Another recurring theme is Oregon’s reliance on nonprofits to deliver housing and homelessness services.
Vandever notes that some nonprofits have shifted into housing because that is where public money is available. McLane and Boshart-Davis connect this to what they often call the nonprofit industrial complex: a system where public dollars flow into nonprofit organizations, but outcomes are difficult to track and accountability can be weak.
The concern is not that all nonprofits are bad. The concern is that Oregon has created incentives where organizations may grow around available grant funding rather than around measurable results.
This is one of the most important accountability questions in Oregon housing policy: who is getting the money, what are they delivering, and how do taxpayers know it is working?
Housing Supply Is the Core Issue
The episode repeatedly returns to a basic economic point: Oregon does not have enough housing.
McLane references the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, noting the argument that homelessness is closely tied to the cost of housing, and housing costs are closely tied to supply. When supply is artificially restricted, prices rise.
The hosts argue that Oregon has focused too much on subsidized housing while failing to fix the underlying supply problem.
If Oregon does not build enough homes, then prices remain high, rents rise, and more people are pushed toward instability.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Jacob Vandever raises another important point: not all affordable housing has to be government-subsidized.
He discusses manufactured home parks as an example of naturally occurring affordable housing. Manufactured homes can provide lower-cost ownership opportunities without requiring the same level of tax subsidy as some other housing programs. But Oregon has made it extremely difficult to site new manufactured home parks.
This is an important policy insight. If government makes it hard to build lower-cost forms of housing, then it should not be surprised when housing becomes unaffordable.
The episode argues that Oregon needs more of every kind of housing: apartments, starter homes, manufactured housing, family homes, rural homes, and options for people downsizing.
Land Use and Oregon’s Housing Shortage
The most detailed policy discussion in the episode focuses on Oregon’s land use system.
McLane argues that Oregon’s statewide land use system was created more than 50 years ago in a very different economic era, when timber revenue still played a major role in the state’s economy. Since then, Oregon has changed, but the land use system has remained extremely difficult to adjust.
He discusses urban growth boundaries, exclusive farm use zoning, and the difficulty of converting land that may be technically classified as farm ground but is not actually farmed, irrigated, or suitable for meaningful agriculture.
The concern is not that Oregon should abandon all land use protections. The concern is that a one-size-fits-all system does not work for every region of the state.
Urban Growth Boundaries and Rural Oregon
The episode uses Central Oregon as an example of how land use categories can create real-world problems.
McLane describes land along Highway 97 between Redmond and Bend that may be classified as exclusive farm use even when it is sagebrush, lacks irrigation, and has shallow soil. He argues that businesses and housing opportunities can be blocked by zoning categories that no longer match the practical reality of the land.
The broader argument is that Oregon needs flexibility. Portland, Klamath Falls, Burns, Albany, Bend, Redmond, and rural Crook County are not the same, and housing policy should not assume that one framework fits every community.
Housing as an Economic Issue
The episode also frames housing as an economic competitiveness issue.
Vandever notes that businesses considering expansion in Oregon must consider whether their employees can afford to live here. McLane adds that business leaders often cite housing costs, school quality, and childcare access as top concerns when deciding whether to expand or relocate.
This means housing policy affects more than homelessness. It affects job creation, workforce recruitment, business investment, family formation, and the long-term tax base.
If young workers and families cannot afford Oregon, the state will face deeper demographic and economic challenges.
Conclusion: Oregon Needs a Different Housing Strategy
This episode of Oregon Discussion argues that Oregon’s housing and homelessness crisis is not simply a lack-of-money problem.
The state has spent heavily. Portland-area voters have approved hundreds of millions in bonds. Housing and homelessness have been the governor’s stated priority. The legislature has spent years working on housing bills.
Yet the results remain poor.
The episode’s conclusion is clear: Oregon needs more housing supply, stronger accountability, better public safety, serious land use reform, local flexibility, and a willingness to measure outcomes instead of spending.
If Oregon wants to reduce homelessness, lower housing costs, and make the state livable for working families, it must stop judging success by dollars spent and start judging success by homes built, people housed, neighborhoods stabilized, and families able to afford a future.