For the last seven years, Oregon has been roiled to find solutions to secure additional housing. The price of new homes and rentals is steadily rising; renters have complained that the lack of adequate alternatives allows landlords to force them to pay higher rents and enter into agreements that heavily favor the landlord. Moreover, the effects of homelessness are manifest on the streets of many cities and suggest a breakdown in the social order. Housing has become a major, if not the major, political and social issue in the state for the last decade.

From the time she was House Speaker, Gov. Tina Kotek has been a driving force in responding to the so-called “housing crisis” in the form of legislation and state funding. Since 2019, Kotek has proposed, and the Oregon legislature has adopted, multiple solutions to relieve the situation of renters, to provide shelter for homeless persons and to increase the number of housing units, especially to low and moderate income Oregonians.

Let us consider each of these three areas.

Renters have seen benefits as the Legislature imposed statewide rent control, restricted the use of evictions, enacted tenant rights regarding security deposits, fees and the habitability of premises. These changes improve the situation of renters, despite concerns that they discourage construction of new rental units. The number of building permits for new multifamily units in Oregon, which range from basic to luxury housing, was about 5,000 in 2024 and 2025. These numbers are far short of the annual 36,000 new housing units the state declares as necessary. That deficit will not be filled by other forms of housing such as new single-family dwellings.

There are many reasons for these relatively low numbers, but they do show that investors are not lining up to build more units in Oregon.

Regarding homelessness, Gov. Kotek declared a housing emergency in 2023 and saw through legislation that mandated siting of homeless shelters despite local zoning restrictions and provided funding for their operation. Nevertheless, a recent federal report found that, while , approximately 27,200 people experienced homelessness in Oregon in January 2025, a 19 percent increase from the previous year and the second largest increase for any U.S. state.

Federal, state, and local funding for homelessness are likely to decrease as the numbers of homeless persons increase. This is discouraging news.

As to increasing the number of available housing units, it is here that the Oregon Legislature has been most active. Since 2019 Oregon requires that accessory dwelling units and duplexes be allowed in most urban areas and in larger cities that a suite of housing alternatives that increase density be allowed in single-family zones. It has established a statewide housing apparatus that keeps track of existing and proposed housing and allocates housing obligations on local governments to allow their fair share of the regional housing need.

These significant land use law changes were supplemented over the years by other measures designed to preempt local regulations as a means to encourage residential uses , especially those relating to low income or affordable housing. Local governments were admonished to use only “clear and objective standards” to regulate housing, to decide within certain time limits, that larger communities would provide a Housing Production Strategy to assure they were on target to meet their fair share of housing (with the state both assisting them and providing disincentives for failing to do so), allowing housing on certain commercial, public or religious land notwithstanding local zoning, requiring the use of up to 10 “adjustments” from various local zoning requirements in housing cases, encouraging use of Inclusionary Zoning” to give applicants who accommodate affordable housing increased density or other benefits, prohibiting or nullifying private covenants that would restrict certain housing, allowing “one-time” changes to urban growth boundaries and limit or eliminate local hearings or appeals in certain housing development cases. This partial list demonstrates legislative commitment to providing for housing development, a commitment that is, in terms of activity, far more detailed and extensive than that involved with landlord-tenant relations or providing shelters for the homeless.

The question is whether all this activity will produce results. Many of the land use measures are derived from changing state-local land use relationships in California, which does not have a statewide land use program comparable to Oregon’s half-century of experience with the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which has a stronger deference to local controls, and which is even more committed to overcome planning and zoning restrictions to accommodate housing. By waiting so long to do so, California’s efforts are meeting with local resistance and time consuming and expensive litigation which Oregon has largely avoided.

But what has all this activity meant for housing? While it is too early to come to a definitive conclusion, the numbers are revealing. In the last three years, Oregon has not met half of the 36,000 residential dwelling permits it projects as needed. Over half of the residential building permits issued between 2014 and 2023 were for single family housing. The state permitted 14,621 units in 2024, down 33 percent from the 2021 peak of 21,916. Multifamily permits (5-plus units) dropped by over 50 percent from 2022 to 2024. Lower birthrates, slower population increases and higher household formations as younger people strike out on their own puts a strain on housing and households get smaller (they now average 1.9). With all this housing need, the market should be building more housing. Why is this not happening?

The reasons are many, starting with interest rates as public debt and the stock market attract capital, the increased cost of materials and labor, especially after the Iran war, the lack of construction labor availability following immigration sweeps, low income levels that do not compete with other similarly-sized urban areas across the county and a state public financing system that leaves local government infrastructure dependent on bonding (requiring a public vote to raise property taxes) or systems development charges (which raise the cost of housing).

What do not appear to be reasons are litigation (LUBA has almost no urban housing cases) or local delays (there are almost no cases in which local governments have violated state laws against delays). This suggests that what is not needed is more state preemption of local land use regulations. Cities are barely keeping up as it is.

What is needed is money to deal with heavy systems development charges and subsidies to low income and affordable housing. King Canute could not command the tides and the State of Oregon cannot produce more housing by mere fiat.

Edward J. Sullivan is a retired practitioner in land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience in these fields. Contact him at esulliva@gmail.com.

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at the law firm Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or at crichter@batemanseidel.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Oregon housing challenges persist despite sound and fury | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.