Date:

March 31, 2018

To:

Seattle City Council

From: Steve Walker, Director; Emily Alvarado, Policy Manager; Maureen Kostyack, Strategic Advisor
CC:

Brenda Anibarro and Erika Pablo, Office for Civil Rights

Subject: Resolution 31754: Affirmative Marketing and Community Resident Preference Policies

This memo responds to Council Resolution 31754, which requests that the Office of Housing (OH)
provide recommendations that would provide neighborhood stability and, in particular, to review
community resident preference programs in other comparable cities and submit recommendations to
Council by March 31, 2018. The memo provides a status report on research and policy development
that is still underway, in coordination with the Office for Civil Rights, including community input and
engagement. OH will be available to report to City Council in six months about our recommendation
regarding a potential community resident preference policy, after continued and focused community
engagement, policy and legal research, and other efforts as described in more detail below.
OH has provided several recent City Council presentations that broadly cover our activities related to
neighborhood stability and anti-displacement (see summary below). Therefore, this memo focuses on
the specific Council request to investigate ways that OH-funded housing developments may be able to
give preference to residents of the neighborhood in which the housing is located.
Council Resolution 31754, Section 14, states:
The Council requests that the Office of Housing, in collaboration with community partners and other
City departments, prepare and submit recommendations to Council by March 31, 2018 for best
practices, financial tools, as well as potential changes to the Seattle Housing Levy Administrative and
Financial Plan and sub sections 23.58B.040.B and 23.58C.040.B of the Land Use Code. Council seeks
recommendations that would provide neighborhood stability, as evidenced by people returning or
being able to stay in the neighborhood, such as options for giving preference to qualified applicants
for OH-supported housing who have been long-time residents of the neighborhood in which the
housing is located, informed by a review of preference programs implemented in comparable
settings, such as San Francisco, California, and Portland, Oregon.
The 2017 City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority Joint Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) submitted
to HUD, recommits Seattle to affirmatively furthering fair housing by addressing both segregation and
displacement. It acknowledged that Seattle still reflects historic patterns of racial and ethnic segregation
with predominately white households living in the north of Seattle and concentrations of people of color
in the south of Seattle. It also detailed trends of displacement, including the distinct loss of Black
population in and around the Central District and in much of Southeast Seattle. Input in the community
engagement for the AFH affirmed that community sees how historic redlining and mortgage practices

 shaped the racial character of neighborhoods and how economic pressures now displace residents from
their longstanding communities.
Seattle 2035 Growth and Equity Analysis analyzed impacts on displacement and opportunity related to
Seattle’s Growth Strategy, providing analysis of some of the ways that the growth strategies could affect
the city’s marginalized populations. Specifically, it mapped displacement risk, focusing on both physical
(direct) and economic and cultural (indirect) displacement that affects marginalized populations. By
combining data on vulnerability, amenities, development potential, and rents, the displacement risk
index identifies areas where displacement of marginalized populations may be more likely.
Addressing displacement is priority for City housing funding programs. The Council-adopted OH Funding
Policies set objectives for the Rental Housing Program, including: Contribute to the City’s equitable
development goals through the development and preservation of affordable housing in low-income
neighborhoods where underserved groups have historic ties, including neighborhoods where low-income
individuals and families are at high risk of displacement. Significant concerns about displacement were
expressed during City Council’s deliberations on the 2016 Seattle Housing Levy renewal.
There is strong community concern about displacement of communities of color and low-income
households, and consistent advocacy for the City to strengthen strategies that provide an opportunity
for people to stay in their communities, help sustain longstanding local cultural anchors, and also to
address past harms. This support has been well-documented in the city plans and policies referenced
above.
1. Background – Anti-Displacement Strategies to Promote Neighborhood Stability
The exploration of a community resident preference policy -- intended to help low-income residents
return to or stay in their neighborhood -- must consider the context of the City residential antidisplacement and stabilization strategies that are in place. Anti-displacement is central to the Office of
Housing’s work. OH deploys a range of strategies designed to prevent and mitigate displacement and
help longtime residents remain in their neighborhoods. These strategies include:
•

•
•
•
•

Funding the development and preservation of affordable housing, including in high
displacement risk neighborhoods, and including developments that provide ground floor spaces
for cultural, community and commercial anchors
Funding of new Rental Rehabilitation Financing
Sustainable homeownership tools, including Home Repair Program loans and grants
Strategic acquisition of property for affordable housing
Community input and engagement:
o Community Driven Outcomes in Affordable Housing Development. This all-day workshop
on February 27th was designed to bring together community-based organizations,
housing organizations, neighborhood groups interested in community outcomes and
anti-displacement. Its purpose was to foster communication, provide information, and
hear community input. The workshop featured local and national case studies as well as
2

 in depth discussions of key issues. Several city departments assisted with planning and
presenting the workshop, which was attended by about 80 people. The workshop
presentation by OH and OCR on affirmative marketing and resident preference is
attached. All workshop materials are posted on OH’s website.
2. Affirmative Marketing – Requirements and Best Practices
Affirmative Marketing refers to outreach to potential housing residents, beyond standard advertising, to
let them know that affordable housing opportunities are available. The purpose of affirmative
marketing is to provide equal access to housing choices regardless of race, national origin, familial
status, disability, and other protected class status. Affirmative marketing is mandated by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for all federally funded housing as an essential
step to further fair housing. OH has extended this requirement to all City-funded housing.
Affirmative marketing has helped to provide neighborhood residents with access to new affordable
housing developments in a number of Seattle projects. To that end, ensuring effective affirmative
marketing policies are in place is foundational; it is the basis for who knows about and applies for Citysupported affordable housing.
i.

City Affordable Housing Incentive Programs: Early this year, OH released new requirements
for affirmative marketing for housing that is participating in incentive programs, including
the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, Incentive Zoning, and Mandatory Housing
Affordability. Under the Affirmative Marketing policy, two weeks prior to generalized
advertising for the initial lease up of the property, the owner must: 1) contact the Seattle
Housing Authority so that information about available units will be communicated to
voucher holders, and 2) contact three community-based organizations to inform them of
the available units. In addition, the policy requires that property owners annually share their
leasing information with community-based organizations. Lastly, the policy requires that the
properties offer a voluntary demographic survey to residents so that OH can gain important
data on households benefiting from the program.
This Affirmative Marketing policy for was developed after implementation of a Racial Equity
toolkit, a survey to 100 community-based organizations, and meetings with community
groups facilitated by the Department of Neighborhood’s Community Liaisons. Key lessons
learned from the engagement include: many community organizations serving low-income
communities of color felt that housing information was shared by word of mouth in their
communities, so an online database would not be the best tool to help underserved and
marginalized communities know about available housing. OH will closely monitor
implementation of this policy.

ii.

City-Funded Affordable Housing: OH requires affirmative marketing for all City-funded
housing. A housing owner must include a description of affirmative marketing efforts in its
Management Plan for each project, which is approved by OH prior to initial leasing. This
must include actions to provide information and otherwise attract eligible applicants from
3

 all racial, ethnic and gender groups in the area, including persons who are otherwise unlikely
to apply for housing at their property. Owners meet these requirements, in part, by
contacting organizations serving disadvantage groups to let them know of housing
opportunities and how their community members or clients can apply. Owners must report
annually to OH on their efforts and results.
In the coming months, OH will develop a guidance for affirmative marketing for funded
housing based on national and local best practices. This work will build on outreach to
community organizations conducted for the incentive program requirements described
above. It will involve input from community organizations and housing providers, as well as
research on national best practices. The purpose of this work will be to provide information
and improve practices and, over time, to examine the impact of affirmative marketing on
the diversity of applications received.

Office of Housing Next Steps:
• Research national best practices; survey and convene local
organizations to identify local best practices
• Circulate draft and finalize OH Guidance for City-funded housing
• Monitor outcomes of Incentive Program Affirmative Marketing
Requirements

4

 3. Community Resident Preference – Case Studies
Community Resident Preference refers to policies that give a preference to certain applicants to housing
at the time of initial leasing. If carefully constructed, such policies can be part of a jurisdiction’s antidisplacement strategies.
Community Resident Preference policies do not generally guarantee that an applicant eligible for the
preference will be able to reside in a particular housing development. Depending on the number and
type of preferences used, the policy will create a smaller pool of eligible applicants for units subject to
the preference. A lottery is still commonly used to create a ranked list of applicants.
To conform with Fair Housing, any preference policy must meet the requirements of HUD’s 2015 Rule
on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. This rule advances the original objective of the Fair Housing Act
to reduce segregation, and increase choice and opportunity, for members of protected classes. It
created a legal test for disparate impact, including a requirement that policies be designed to
limit/minimize discriminatory impact on members of protected classes. For example, a policy that gives
preference to residents of a neighborhood that has a high proportion of a particular racial group may be
seen to discriminate against members of other protected classes. OH is working closely with the Office
for Civil Rights to research policy options and engage the community to address any concerns raised
about potential discriminatory impacts of preference policies.
In recent years, community-based affordable housing developers in Seattle have explored or
implemented various approaches to provide preference to certain applicants, to address and prevent
displacement. One development provided a preference for applicants from certain zip codes reflecting
communities with a high risk of displacement. Absent clear government guidance, this approach has
been met with hesitance by property management companies.
Case Studies
Several cities across the country have implemented Community Resident Preference policies at the
urging of community members to help address past harms of segregation caused by government policy
and practice and to address present impacts of displacement. While the policies vary in design and
implementation, they share an underlying purpose. Vicki Been, the former Department of Housing
Preservation and Development Commissioner for the City of New York explained that New York “is
intended to ensure that local residents, many of whom have deep roots in the community and have
persevered through years of unfavorable living conditions, are able to remain in their neighborhoods as
those neighborhoods are revitalized” in part through development. In Portland, Oregon, policy was
instituted explicitly to mitigate marginalizing or displacing community members, particularly because
Portland’s urban renewal explicitly marginalized and displaced historic residents of North and Northeast
Portland. In San Francisco, Mayor Edwin Lee acknowledged that their policy was "important progress in
our efforts to halt the displacement of residents at greatest risk of being forced out of the city they
know and love," said. "This will thwart the out-migration of African-American and Latino communities
who have been deeply impacted by the challenging housing market."
5

 These three cities – New York City, Portland and San Francisco -- provide examples of community
resident preference as an anti-displacement strategy. Additional information about each city is attached
to this memo.
New York City Community Preference Policy
New York’s high housing costs led the City to develop anti-displacement preference policies over 30
years ago. The policy has been changed over the years and challenged successfully in court in
certain circumstances. The current challenge in federal district court is being watched nationally.
•
•
•
•
•

In effect since 1980s
Applies to all funded projects citywide
50% of units set-aside for preference during initial lease up only
Preference for neighborhood residents
Applicant selected via lottery

San Francisco Neighborhood Preference Policy
San Francisco’s policy gives preference residents living immediately near the project location or in
the same City district. The policy applies to projects not using HUD funding. HUD opposed
application of this policy to a HUD-funded senior project in the Western Addition district, finding
that it could limit equal access to housing and perpetuate segregation, inconsistent with the Civil
Rights Related Program Requirement of HUD.
•
•
•
•
•

In effect in 2016
Previously applied to all funded projects; Now applies unless project is receiving HUD funding
40% of units set-aside for preference during initial lease up or initial sale only
Eligible applicants: reside in same Supervisorial District or within ½ mile of project
Applicants selected via lottery

San Francisco Anti-Displacement Preference Policy
San Francisco negotiated with HUD to develop this policy to replace Neighborhood Preference. The
approved policy provides priority access to a portion of units in a development to households living
in census tracts that have been identified as having the greatest risk of displacement.
•
•
•
•
•

In effect in 2016
Applies to certain funded projects in low-income neighborhoods with high displacement risk, as
defined by a research analysis conducted by University of California Berkeley.
40% of units set-aside for preference during lease up or initial sale only
Eligible applicants: reside in one of six city neighborhoods that have been identified as having
the greatest risk of displacement
Applicants selected via lottery

Portland, Oregon, Affordable Housing Preference Policy, N/NE Neighborhood
Portland’s policy is designed to give preference to marginalized families with historic roots in North
6

 and Northeast Portland, neighborhoods affected by Urban Renewal. The policy was developed as
part of the North/Northeast Neighborhood Housing Plan, which also provides funds for housing
development. The preference is for families currently in the community as well as those who have
already been displaced. The policy gives first priority to households displaced by the Portland's
seizure of their property by eminent domain for Urban Renewal activities.
•
•
•
•

In effect in 2015
Applies to funded projects in areas of concentrated Urban Renewal activity in N/NE Portland
40% of units set-aside for preference during initial lease up or sale only
Top priority given to households who owned property in North/Northeast Portland that was
taken by city government, and to their descendants; preference also given for current or former
residents, with a point system.

4. Community Resident Preference – Research and Policy Development
Cities across the country, particularly those facing displacement of low-income communities of color,
are considering community resident preference policies. Recent litigation and HUD actions are bringing
the issue into more public discussion. National housing and civil rights organizations are examining pros,
cons and potential approaches. Examples can be seen in policy papers at New York University’s Furman
Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy.
Earlier this year, HUD suspended its review of already-submitted local Assessments of Fair Housing
(AFH) and put future AFHs on hold to allow time for a Department review of AFH requirements and fair
housing policy. Therefore, it is difficult to predict future positions of HUD’s fair housing enforcement
division on community resident preference policies. (Note: Seattle’s AFH was already approved by HUD
and the City must still implement all HUD requirements.)
In consultation with national experts, including former HUD Fair Housing officials, several preliminary
directions can be taken from recent experience. In designing a community resident preference policy,
policymakers should consider:
•

•

•

Demographic data on geographic areas:
o The extent to which policies are informed by reliable demographic data that clearly
shows implications of a preference policy for various racial and ethnic groups and other
protected classes.
o How the scope, scale, and design of geographic boundaries forming the basis of
preference policy might promote integration or segregation for current and future
populations.
Data demonstrating displacement:
o Whether a policy is justified by data that clearly documents the effects of displacement
on various racial and ethnic groups and other protected classes.
Multiple preference points:

7

 Whether there is a point system that allows for several criteria to form the basis for
applicant selection and preference.
o The extent to which preference policy applies to a portion of, rather than the entirety
of, the building.
o The distinction between a preference policy which determines a household’s placement
in a lottery, as opposed to their overall eligibility to apply for a development.
Fund sources:
o Whether a development utilizing a preference policy includes federal funds.
o Whether various affordable housing fund sources trigger specific marketing, wait list,
lottery, or other applicant selection process.
o

•

Community resident preference policies have been discussed for many years at the High Cost Cities
Housing Forum convened by Enterprise Community Partners, of which OH is a member. There is
potential that national convenings will be organized on this topic in the coming year, with likely
involvement of the Urban Institute, Enterprise Community Partners, and philanthropic organizations.
These convenings may help to hone in on best practices for design of community resident preference
policies, such as those identified above.

Office of Housing Next Steps in Collaboration with Office for Civil Rights:
• Further research on existing preference policies: data used to
define displacement risk and establish preference areas, lottery
systems, evaluation/monitoring
• Track litigation and any HUD actions
• Track and participate in any convenings of cities, community
organizations, and fair housing organizations from around the
country
• Explore sufficiency and applicability of local data (including
underlying indicators in the Growth with Equity Analysis and
Tenant Relocation Assistance data) to serve as justification for
and design of a potential community resident preference policy
in Seattle

5. Community Input and Engagement
Community input is essential to development of affirmative marketing guidance and a potential
community resident preference policy guidance. OH is working with OCR to hear from community
members and community based organizations about goals, priorities and concerns. This dialogue is

8

 underway and will continue to guide policy options development. To date, community engagement has
included:
•

•
•

As mentioned above, affirmative marketing and resident preference were a featured topic at
OH’s recent workshop Community Driven Outcomes in Affordable Housing Development. The
discussion covered Seattle’s history of housing discrimination and segregation, fair housing
policy objectives and requirements; and learnings from the experience of New York, San
Francisco, and Portland. The community response reflected the common desire to serve the
specific community that is supporting the housing development, and strong concerns about fair
housing violations.
OH presentation to Chinatown International District Community Development and Stabilization
Workgroup
Project-specific discussions as requested by affordable housing providers
Office of Housing Next Steps in Collaboration with Office for Civil Rights:
• Engage with community members and organizations to discuss
goals, priorities, concerns and potential unintended
consequences of resident preference; focus on engagement with
communities of color and impacted communities.
• Engage with fair housing and legal organizations to explore
potential risks/unintended consequences of this work.
• Consider approach to engagement with HUD.

Attachments:
1. New York City Community Preference Policy
2. City of San Francisco Lottery Preference Programs
3. City of Portland Affordable Housing Preference Policy, N/NE Neighborhood
4. Community-Driven Outcomes in Affordable Housing Development workshop: Housing Access for
Local Communities session presentation

9

 Attachment 1
New York City; Community Preference Policy
What is the Preference Policy?
When New York City helps finance the construction or renovation of affordable housing, it requires
that in half of the affordable units the property developer give a preference to income-eligible
residents of the community board district where the property is built. NYC’s districts are defined
here. The policy is intended is intended to ensure that local residents, many of whom have

deep roots in the community and have persevered through years of unfavorable living
conditions, are able to remain in their neighborhoods as those neighborhoods are
revitalized.

How does it work? https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/Marketing-Guidelines.pdf (pg.
27)
The Community Preference is mandatory. The Developer must, during initial rent-up, give an
occupancy preference for fifty percent (50%) of the units to applicants who, at the time of
application, are residents of the Community District in which the building is located. Applicants with
community resident status must meet all other programmatic requirements of the Agency and the
Developer (e.g., income qualification, credit worthiness).
If after all applications have been opened and processed the community preference cannot be filled
from applicants in the logbook, the Developer must provide a letter to the Agency stating how much
of the preference has been achieved. After review, the Agency may waive the remainder of this
preference and authorize the Developer to proceed with the remainder of the log sequentially. If the
community preference is fully achieved, any remaining community applicants will be processed from
the log in the same order as other applicants.
Community Preference Policy Lawsuit:
In 2015, a federal lawsuit (Winfield v. City of New York) was filed on behalf of on behalf of three black
residents New York City. Plaintiffs claim that the Community Preference Policy has a disparate

impact on African-American and Latino applicants in “neighborhoods of opportunity,” which
they assert are predominantly white. They also claim that the Community Preference Policy
perpetuates racial segregation in the city and that its promulgation and application
constitutes intentional discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3604.
https://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/winfield-v-city-of-new-york-tar-case.pdf

The case is continuing to work its way through federal court. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys maintain a
website showing the status of this litigation: http://www.antibiaslaw.com/orp.

10

 Media
https://consumerfinancialserviceslaw.us/new-york-city-defends-its-community-preference-policy/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hud-reviews-new-york-city-affordable-housing-policy-1424399380
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2815771
https://citylimits.org/2016/04/27/advocates-wary-of-lawsuit-over-citys-affordable-housingpreferences/
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/perpetuating-segregated-city-article-1.3372393
http://furmancenter.org/research/iri/discussions/community-preferences-and-fair-housing

11

 Attachment 2
City of San Francisco Lottery Preference Programs
http://sfmohcd.org/lottery-preference-programs

Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference FAQs [excerpt]: http://sfmohcd.org/neighborhoodresident-housing-preference
What is the Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference?
The Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference is designed to benefit residents living in the same
neighborhood as projects containing city supported affordable housing units. The preference applies
only to new residential developments going through the initial lease-up or sale process and is limited
to 40% of the units in the development.
How does the Neighborhood Resident Preference help me get housing?
San Francisco’s affordable housing lotteries are very competitive with many eligible applicants for
each available unit. The Neighborhood Resident Housing Preference improves the chances for
residents of the area around the project by ensuring that 40% of the available units are first offered
to neighborhood residents. Applicants who qualify for the preference will be included in a special
lottery pool from which residents will be selected for these units. Once 40% of the units are filled
from the Neighborhood Preference pool any additional neighborhood residents will be included
among other applicants from outside the neighborhood for consideration for the remaining units.
Eligibility for neighborhood preference does not guarantee that the holder will be eligible for a City
Affordable Housing unit. All applicants will still be required to meet all other eligibility
requirements of the unit (e.g. income eligibility, household size requirements, etc.).
Who is eligible for the preference?
To be eligible for the neighborhood preference, there must be at least one member of your
household who, at the time of application submission, has a primary residence that is located within
the same Supervisorial District as the project or within a ½ mile buffer around the location of the
project.
How do I apply for the preference?
Applying for the preference is as simple as checking the Neighborhood Resident box on the Lottery
Application form and providing proof of occupancy. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community
Development will use its Geographic Information System (GIS) to verify whether your addresses
qualifies and will post a list of applicants who qualify before the lottery.

Anti-Displacement Housing Preference [excerpt] http://sfmohcd.org/antidisplacement-housing-preference

The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development has worked with the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the state of California Department of
Housing and Community Development to craft an appropriate implementation program for lottery
preferences. Recognizing that San Francisco must act to protect residents being priced out of the
12

 City in the current housing environment, the Anti-Displacement Housing Preference will apply to
certain new affordable housing projects. For projects where this preference applies, the preference
allows up to 40% of units to be prioritized for residents who live in low-income neighborhoods
undergoing extreme displacement pressure. Lottery preference will be given to households living in
census tracts that have been identified as having the greatest risk of displacement. These districts are
located citywide, and include census tracts in the Western Addition, Bayview, the Mission, the
Richmond, Russian Hill, and South of Market neighborhoods.
Eligibility for Preference Status
To be eligible for the Anti-Displacement Housing Preference (ADHP), a Household must include at
least one member who, at application submission, lives in one of the census tracts listed in the San
Francisco Census Tracts with Highest Risk of Displacement document. These census tracts are also
identified in the: Map of Census Tracts Eligible for Anti-Displacement Preference" and Census Tracts
Eligible for Anti-Displacement Preference. MOHCD will use its Geographic Information System (GIS)
to determine which applicant addresses are eligible for the preference. The list of applicants
(identified by their unique ‘lottery ticket’ numbers) who qualify for the Anti-Displacement Housing
Preference will be listed on the project posting at http://housing.sfgov.org one week prior to the
lottery.
Media
Excerpt from NPR story:
HUD originally objected to the city's initial plan to grant "neighborhood preferences" to seniors residing
mainly in the Western Addition — many of them African-Americans — applying for residency in the
federally financed complex. Officials argued that such preferences violated the 1968 Fair Housing Act by
limiting equal access and perpetuating segregation in the historically African-American neighborhood.
...
In a Wednesday letter to Mayor Lee, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Gustavo
Velasquez wrote: "HUD can support an 'anti-displacement' preference for 40 percent of the units, where
residents from throughout the city are eligible for the preferences and where race is not considered in
the selection process."
...
In essence, HUD told San Francisco to expand the pool of residents who are eligible for the housing to
other neighborhoods in addition to the mostly black Western Addition. This brings the city in line with
laws that requires equal access.

13

 Attachment 3
City of Portland, Affordable Housing Preference Policy, N/NE Neighborhood
Portland Housing Bureau, N/NE Neighborhood
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/72705
N/NE Neighborhood Housing Plan, Executive Summary, p. 4
Who has Access –
Decades of involuntary displacement have led to a community very different from the one that
existed three or more decades ago. Much has been lost and some of that is due to who has (or had)
access. Access is fundamentally about equity not just in North/Northeast Portland, but the city as a
whole.
Start Immediately
5. Preference for Community Residents and those Displaced – People displaced or at risk of
displacement from the study area will have priority access to housing developed through this
initiative. Similar policies have been implemented in New York, Massachusetts, California, as well as
through Home Forward here in Portland. The Bureau has been and will continue to work with the
City Attorney’s office and the Office of Equity and Human Rights to develop this program’s
mechanics.
6. Outreach and Engagement – Engage with owners and developers of private market developments
in N/NE Portland to create knowledge and opportunity for marketing vacancies in the local
neighborhood. (Similar strategies will be required for all homes created with Strategy funds.)
Next Up
7. Screening Criteria – Collaborate with community-based organizations to enhance implementation
of existing effective programs like Rent Well. Also, work with owners and property managers as well
as community-based organizations such as the Urban League to implement best practices for tenant
screening that do not have unintended negative consequences for communities of color
for the City's rental and homeownership opportunities in the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal
Area.
FAQs Excerpt [https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/671059]
What is the N/NE Preference Policy?
Recognizing that past City actions have marginalized and displaced many longtime residents of North
and Northeast Portland, the Portland Housing Bureau (PHB) developed the Affordable Housing
Preference Policy as a tool to prioritize impacted households for PHB housing opportunities in the
area. The Preference Policy aims to address the ongoing impact of this legacy by giving priority to
households with generational ties to N/NE Portland—i.e.: current and former residents of specific
areas that were subject to high levels of urban renewal, and their descendants. View maps of these
areas here. Note: The Preference Policy determines the order of applicants on waiting lists for
housing, not their eligibility for housing programs.
14

 How does it work?
Whenever PHB housing in N/NE Portland becomes available, PHB will advertise an open application
round for households to apply to receive preference for those openings. This will apply to rental
apartments, ownership homes, and down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. Top priority
will be given to households (and their descendants) who owned property that was taken by Portland
City government—during the building of Memorial Coliseum or the expansion of Emanuel Hospital,
for example.
All other applicants can receive “preference points” based on current or historic residency. Up to
three points are possible based on whether your current or former address falls within one of the
areas where past City plans had a destabilizing effect on long-term residents; up to three more points
are possible based on the current or former address of your parent/guardian or grandparent, for a
maximum total of six points possible. (Click here to view maps of the eligible areas and their point
values).
PHB will sort the applicants in order of their preference points from highest to lowest, with priority
status households at the top of the list, followed by six-point households, then five-point households,
and so on. All applicants will be notified of their waitlist status by mail.
How do I apply?
PHB will be accepting applications between Monday, October 16, 2017 and Monday, October 30,
2017. Beginning Monday, October 16, applications will be available online and at designated
application sites. Apply online here, in person at a designated application site, or call the helpline to
request a paper application in the mail. You can find a list of application sites as well as a paper
application for download on the PHB website beginning Monday, October 16. Printed applications
can be dropped off at an application site or mailed to the PO Box address below (mailed applications
must be postmarked by 11:59 pm on the Monday, October 30 application deadline). Note:
application sites will only accept applications during their standard business hours on the application
deadline date. Limit one application per household.

Media
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/PHB/article/656409
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/NNE%20Combined%20Presentation%2012%2015
%202015.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/01/portland-anti-gentrification-housing-scheme-rightreturn

15