Oregon has directed $1.4 billion to developers over the past five years for low-income housing, yet a state law shields those financial records from public scrutiny, making it impossible to evaluate whether the spending is working.
The cost of developing each apartment has nearly doubled to $540,000, and an additional $850 million in future state funding is lined up for dozens of projects. Oregon is one of only a few states with a carve-out in its public records law that prevents disclosing the financial details of subsidized housing projects, frustrating researchers and journalists who have sought to examine construction costs.
The exemption was created by the Legislature in 1997 when the state's housing agency had a staff and budget both one-fifth their current size. State officials told lawmakers at the time that revealing developer financials could "give somebody an indication whether this corporation was ripe for takeover or a buyout," said Lynn Schoessler, then deputy director of Oregon Housing and Community Services.
What the Right Is Saying
Developers and some state officials argue that protecting confidential financial information encourages participation in subsidized housing programs. Schoessler told lawmakers in 1997 that revealing detailed financials during the application process could expose companies to corporate takeovers or buyouts, saying: "So we're concerned on the corporate level."
Those defending the exemption suggest that excessive regulatory disclosure requirements already burden housing development, and that proprietary cost information should remain private business records. They argue that developers need assurance their competitive financial data will not be exposed to competitors or hostile acquirers.
Some conservative commentators have noted that while transparency matters, forcing disclosure of all project financials could discourage smaller developers from participating in affordable housing programs, potentially reducing competition and limiting development options for the state.
What the Left Is Saying
Transparency advocates argue that taxpayer-funded housing initiatives require public accountability to ensure money is being spent effectively. Jason Ward, an economist who directs the nonpartisan Rand Corp.'s Housing Center, has obtained cost data from 17 states for his research and said only New Jersey besides Oregon has denied him access.
"When you're just looking at how public funds are used, there should be an incredibly strong bias towards transparency," Ward said. "And when you see costs going 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."
Margaret Van Vliet, former director of Oregon's state housing agency, told ProPublica that lawmakers should revisit the exemption. "For all the public money, we seem to be digging a deeper hole," she said, noting that Oregon's homeless population continues to grow despite increased spending.
Housing advocates contend that transparent cost data would allow policymakers to build more rent-restricted apartments or discount rents more steeply with the same amount of funding. Understanding and controlling construction costs is especially pressing in the Pacific Northwest, where leaders have tied the lack of affordable housing to the region's homelessness crisis.
What the Numbers Show
Oregon has committed $1.4 billion in direct developer subsidies over five years, with $850 million more in future funding pending for projects currently in the pipeline. Per-unit construction costs have nearly doubled to approximately $540,000 each.
Comparisons with other states reveal significant cost disparities. A Los Angeles Times investigation found some California low-income units reached $1 million apiece, leading researchers to calculate that 12,000 more families could have been housed between 2011 and 2015 had costs matched other states. University of California, Berkeley researchers estimated California spends $300 million annually just in development fees on subsidized housing.
A Rand Corp. study published last year compared subsidized housing costs across California, Texas and Colorado, finding California's highest-in-the-nation prices were driven by above-market wage requirements and large architectural and engineering fees. The research concluded that if California had Colorado's production costs, it could have built four times as many rent-subsidized apartments.
In contrast, the Portland area's regional government publishes costs for its local low-income housing bond projects, showing some units reached $900,000 each. Fine-grained cost data may also be obtained for projects run by public housing authorities like Portland's, but these represent only about 2% of subsidized units in the state.
The Bottom Line
Oregon has dramatically increased spending on low-income housing while maintaining a secrecy provision that prevents taxpayers, policymakers and researchers from evaluating whether those dollars are being spent efficiently. With $1.4 billion already committed and another $850 million pending, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine if construction costs can be reduced or outcomes improved.
Lawmakers who created the exemption in 1997 did so when the housing agency was a fraction of its current size. Advocates for changing the law argue that modern spending levels warrant revisiting that decision. Developers have cited corporate privacy concerns as justification for maintaining secrecy, though cost information from most other states is publicly available.
What happens next: Housing advocates and transparency researchers are likely to push for legislative changes during future sessions. With homelessness continuing to rise despite increased spending, questions about whether Oregon's housing investments are producing results may intensify.