I would like to address a prevalent belief that increasing the inventory of high-end residential housing will automatically lead to an increase in affordable housing options.

This notion seems reminiscent of the “trickle-down theory,” which has been widely criticized in past economic discussions for its flawed assumptions. While it is understandable that some may view high-end housing as a means to stimulate the overall housing market, evidence suggests that this approach does not effectively result in affordable options for those in need. Instead of assuming that wealth generated in one area will benefit all levels of society, we should consider targeted strategies that directly address the needs of lower-income households.

I believe that a more comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure that all community members have access to safe and affordable housing. It may be worthwhile to explore policies that incentivize the development of genuinely affordable units rather than relying on an indirect and potentially misleading correlation.

I think it would be best to build affordable housing in places other than coastal areas, where there is potential to accommodate a larger number of residents. Specifically, we should consider developing properties in areas where the existing infrastructure can support increased housing density without becoming overly strained. Importantly, building in areas without toxic landfill or benzene in the air will contribute to a healthier living environment for our community.

Bonnie Weissberg
Portland