Newberg City Council recently approved a large amount of grant money from their construction excise tax fundsto a new organization. A Newberg resident is asking the council to reconsider. This is the letter she sent to the mayor and the council.
Dear Newberg City Mayor & Council Members,
I am writing to ask the council to reconsider its recent decision to fund the SPARK housing program with $742,934.52 from the CET fund. I am extremely disappointed that the council decided to ignore:
the Affordable Housing Committee’s recommendation,
the fact that the SPARK program didn’t even meet the criteria to be eligible for the funds,
the underlying classism and patronizing assumptions of the whole SPARK program,
some very basic money facts, and
the fact that the SPARK program won’t help the families in our community that most need housing assistance.
The Affordable Housing Committee took seriously their duty to review applications objectively and plainly laid out its reasons for rejecting SPARK. The committee’s decision was, quite simply, based on SPARK not meeting the objective criteria that ALL applicants were judged by. (I am sorry that Mayor Rosacker feels that those criteria favor 501(c)3 organizations, but perhaps there’s a reason for that: other organizations have some legitimacy AND more than just the “concept of a plan.”) I question whether other organizations would have received funding if they, too, had not even met the basic criteria. While the mayor publicly recused himself from the discussion/decision of the council at the meeting, the whole thing just smells wrong.
Furthermore, in the same meeting, City Manager Will Worthey recommended recognizing Newsberg as a media outlet based on the established criteria and scoring system. Yet when it came to spending a great deal of money, the council ignored the established criteria. WHY would the council accept the current scoring criteria for something far less significant, but shrug off the affordable housing committee’s recommendation, which was based on established objective criteria?
Being a retired nurse, former City of Newberg firefighter/paramedic and a college graduate, I have nothing against the teachers, nurses, and firefighters that SPARK identified as their target demographic. I understand the challenges of commuting to work as I commuted to work at Providence St. Vincent and Kaiser Westside for years. However, what the council fails to recognize is that the aforementioned demographic generally HAS housing stability. It may not be in Newberg, but these professionals are housed.
You know who generally doesn’t have stable or affordable housing? Minimum wage earners, hospitality workers, grocery store clerks, caregivers, seasonal workers, or disabled folks. These folks also work in Newberg and would probably like to be able to live in Newberg. Living where they work is especially important when transportation is often an expense they struggle with as well. Unfortunately, it appears that this is a demographic that Mayor Rosacker and the rest of the SPARK board find less desirable or worthy to help. This is classism, hidden in plain sight.
Beyond the classism, though, is the patronizing assumption that the reason people can’t afford housing in Newberg is because they are bad with money and need financial education (48 months of financial education, for crying out loud!) People can’t afford houses in Newberg because all that is being built is $400,000+ homes and because everyday things cost more, thanks to tariffs, corporate greed, and food rotting in the fields with no one to pick it.
More concerning is the fact that the program is not fully fleshed out, and while the SPARK website recently deleted references to “relational, emotional, and spiritual development”, we have no idea exactly what ideological education program participants would have to agree to participate in for 48 months in order to have a chance at a grant for a down payment. If the program proves to be too patronizing or onerous, the participants would be forced to leave and then have to find new housing. The program’s stated desire to avoid the tenant/landlord relationship would further expose participants to unfair risk from waiving important tenant rights they would have had in a traditional housing situation.
Lastly, by doing some basic calculations, I found that this program will NOT be nearly as helpful as it claims to be. Using a basic mortgage calculator, I calculated that the average Newberg home priced at $426,600 would require a down payment of $85,320 (20%). The SPARK program would allow the participant to apply for a grant that averages around $38,400 (figuring a program contribution of $800/month for 48 months.) This is not quite half of the necessary down payment.
Additionally, the monthly mortgage payment for the sample home would be $2215.52.
Households making 80% of median income make $72,800 a year or $6066.67/month before taxes or likely around $4,000/month take home pay.
Households making 50% of median income make $45,500 a year or $3791.67/month before taxes or likely around $2900/month take home pay.
A person working 40 hours per week at $17/hour makes $35,360/year or $2946.67/month before taxes or likely around $2300/month take home pay
This means that SPARK’s stated target demographic (who usually already have housing stability before entering the program) would be looking at purchasing a home whose mortgage payment is more than half of their monthly income. Poorer households (that struggle with housing stability and may be unhoused) will find that a mortgage payment would be most, if not all, of their monthly take-home pay. The poorer folks would also struggle to afford even the “market rate” rent that the SPARK program would require. On top of all of this, none of these income levels would qualify for a mortgage for a $426,600 home, unless they get a really questionable and predatory lender.
Bottom line, the decision to award the CET money to SPARK does not bear up under further examination. The program won’t help the Newberg residents and workers that need help the most and it has all the appearance of being a classist, patronizing, ideologically based way to help a “more deserving” group of people. The math doesn’t add up. Finally, there isn’t even a solid program to evaluate. The affordable housing committee had it right. The city council needs to reverse this decision.
Newberg Neighbors for a Better Community 
You must be logged in to post a comment.