Portland approves financing for 47-unit affordable housing project at former Oxford Street shelter site

Portland city councilors approved a tax-increment-financing deal in July for a planned 47-unit affordable housing development at 197 Oxford St., the former site of the city-run Oxford Street shelter.

The approval allows the project to move forward under the financing arrangement. Avesta Housing and Reveler Development are partners on the development.

The proposal would replace a former emergency-shelter location with permanent affordable housing. The available reporting does not provide a construction start date, completion date, total project cost or value of the tax-increment-financing agreement.

Forty-seven planned units, with 12 linked to zoning obligations

The project is planned to include 47 affordable units. Of that total, 12 are tied to Portland’s inclusionary-zoning requirements for separate market-rate projects in the neighborhood.

Those 12 apartments are not the full scope of the Oxford Street development. The project is planned for 47 affordable units overall, while the reporting specifically identifies 12 units as connected to inclusionary-zoning obligations.

Reveler Development plans market-rate development on adjacent parcels. The financing arrangement and the connection between the projects prompted debate over whether the structure complies with the intent of the city’s inclusionary-zoning rules.

The available report identifies the policy dispute but does not provide details of individual arguments, an exact City Council vote tally or a resolution beyond the financing approval. The council’s action approved the financing deal; it does not mean construction has begun.

What the approval changes

The council decision puts an approved financing arrangement in place for the proposed redevelopment of 197 Oxford St. It also establishes the project’s connection to nearby market-rate development through the 12 units identified with inclusionary-zoning requirements.

For Portland, the decision concerns both a planned affordable-housing project and the city’s approach to applying inclusionary-zoning obligations when affordable units are associated with development on nearby parcels. The reported debate centered on whether this particular structure meets the intent of those rules.

The next known practical step is implementation of the project under the approved financing arrangement by the development partners. No construction schedule or completion deadline was included in the available reporting, so the timing of the planned apartments remains unknown.

The project remains a proposal at this stage, but the financing approval marks a municipal decision allowing the 47-unit development to proceed at the former shelter site.