While we realize that there is not one right way to go about addressing issues of growth management and gentrification, we believe that some proposed policies and tangible changes prove better than others. In this section we explore three possible mechanisms for addressing these issues and discuss the merits and drawbacks of each.
1. Relaxation of the UGB
One possible solution is relaxing the UGB, or in other words, expanding or eliminating the boundary in order to allow more sprawl. Some argue that the boundary has not had much of an effect on sprawl, if at all, and that the UGB is simply a strategy of growth management that has minimal effect (Jun, 2004). More concrete policy changes and changes in land use, such as the creation of land trusts within the boundary (which we explore later), could have much more of an effect on creating more equality in the housing market.
The boundary places limitations on housing and land markets, preventing extension of some public services beyond the boundary to communities that could benefit from increased infrastructure. The UGB may indirectly contribute to increased gentrification in Portland as well. Removing the boundary would not inherently solve this problem and could have no effect at all on the damage already been done in terms of housing inequality. However, relaxing the UGB could theoretically slow the process of gentrification by leaving land further from the city center open for development, as housing prices in the city center could stabilize (not including factors such as inflation) as a result. The boundary has already been expanded three dozen times since its creation.
In addition to these issues, there have actually already been attempts to reduce the boundary by residents of Damascus and Boring, though these did not get passed. That these residents wanted to retain the rural character of their towns enough to protest the UGB shows that some people have strong interests in constraining the UGB or keeping it as is. Overall, relaxing the UGB is not the only solution, nor necessarily the best solution, to limiting sprawl and creating denser cities.
2. Changes in Zoning Policy
Another proposed solution changing zoning policy at the municipal level. Liberalization of zoning can be used to mitigate the inflationary effect of the UGB on housing prices by facilitating an adequate housing supply, including: minimum density requirements, zoning for multifamily housing throughout the metro area (as opposed to designated single-family units), and ordinances enabling the construction of accessory dwelling units. All of these changes in policy, when combined, would help in farmland preservation, infrastructure cost savings, reduction of air and water pollution, compact development, and promoting housing affordability, lessing the equity gap previously discussed (Mathur, 2014).
Zoning liberalization and densification tends to be unpopular with existing homeowners, however, who object to the aesthetics of new development or worry that it will increase traffic, make parking more constrained, and bring in crime or undesirable elements. Upzoning and redevelopment policy are also in and of themselves contested on the grounds of equity, as new units tend to be less affordable than older units. And, while according to classical economic theory, increasing supply will decrease the price, denser neighborhoods and their associated urban amenities are also in strong demand in certain places, thus serving as an example against the prevailing theory.
Another suggestion is to expand inclusionary zoning/incentive zoning to make private developers provide affordable housing. Abolishing exclusionary zoning unites the causes of environmentalists and affordable housing advocates (Liberty 2002).
3. Creation of Community Land Trusts
Another more tangible, rather than theoretical, solution to the issues of inequity and gentrification to which the UGB indirectly contributes is the creation of community land trust both on the scarce amount of land within the boundary which still remains undeveloped, as well in areas right on the fringes of or just outside of the boundary. Community land trusts often act as a means of increasing resident resilience for those who are threatened by gentrification and increased housing prices (Moore & McKee 2012).
These programs separate the ownership of land from the ownership of housing, making housing units more affordable on land with high prices. Under this model, a land trust agency purchases real estate and is able to resell it to prospective homeowners, the homeowner then pays the cost of the house and not the land and agrees to a long-term lease. The difficulty in this lies, however, in raising the initial capital to purchase the land in the first place. Some argue that the time and effort put into raising the funds could be better used for other means.
Proponents of land trusts argue how positive effects can be achieved for the local community in terms of housing affordability, and a heightened sense of community. For example, when families are ready to sell their land, the community land trust can buy back the house at a formulated appreciation value to make the following re-sell as affordable. Community land trusts are popular in areas of gentrification because they maintain affordability while protecting the land from market increases and inflation.
An example of a successful land trust is the Burlington Community Land Trust in Burlington, Vermont. The land trust has bought land and sold it to community organizations since 1984. These transactions between the land trust and community members not only include houses but also social service providing establishments such as health centers, food coops, homeless shelters, child centers, and senior centers. The positive social effects, at least in the case of the Burlington land trust, have reverberated and been felt by the surrounding community. If executed properly, this model could function well in other situated contexts as well, combatting issues posed by growth management, and also aiding minority communities in cities that are starting to experience increased gentrification.