portland maine city council – Kate Sykes for District Five

The District Five Insider is a newsletter about the big decisions making their way through the City Council, what they mean for District Five, and how you can get involved. Enter your email and click subscribe to receive this newsletter in your mailbox.

Friday, March 27, 2026

A New Beginning for 1871 Forest Avenue

A long-vacant site on Forest Avenue, one many of us remember as the former Tortilla Flat restaurant, is now proposed for new housing. This project brings 33 new homes to District 5, with more potentially on the way.

What Happened

Avesta Housing has submitted plans to redevelop 1871 Forest Avenue with a 33-unit residential building. This proposal is part of their Home for Good program, which combines permanent housing with on-site supportive services.

After meeting with the development team today, I want to share a few key details:

This project will include 33 studio apartments designed for recently unhoused individuals
Preble Street will provide on-site services and support for residents
The model is similar to Logan Place, Houston Commons, and Florence House, all of which have strong track records in Portland
This is Phase 1 of a plan to develop additional family housing on another portion of the site in the future

The proposal also includes site improvements along Forest Avenue, including sidewalks, landscaping, and better integration with the street.

Why It Matters

This is a site that has been sitting vacant for years in a highly visible and important location in our district.

It is also an area where we are already seeing significant investment, including the ongoing redevelopment of Riverton Park by the Portland Housing Authority. Adding housing here, in a place with access to transit, services, and amenities aligns with our broader goals as a city.

As supportive housing, or “housing first,” this development is designed to provide stable, permanent homes for people who need additional support.

With the Homeless Services Center nearby, and reported encampments in the woods on and around this site, this neighborhood is already experiencing the impacts of people living outside. Residents and businesses in Riverton have raised concerns with me about panhandling, drug use, property crime, and pedestrian safety. These concerns are valid, and they reflect what people are experiencing day-to-day. One of the most effective ways to respond is to help people move out of the woods, out of the shelter system, and into stable housing. This development is intended to do exactly that.

With on-site services provided by Preble Street, this model is designed to support people who need help staying housed. We know that outcomes improve when people have a stable place to live. Mental health challenges are less publicly disruptive and easier to manage when someone is housed. Substance use and chronic disease is more treatable when someone is housed. Cycling people through encampments, emergency rooms, and the criminal justice system only amplifies those challenges.

I also want to acknowledge something I know some neighbors are feeling: a desire to see market-rate housing or different types of development on this site. That perspective is part of a broader concern about how this neighborhood has changed over time.

At the same time, this is a site where we already see the impacts of unmet housing needs. Choosing not to build housing here does not mean those challenges will go away. They simply remain unaddressed.

Developments like Logan Place, Houston Commons, and Florence House have shown that this model can work in Portland. They provide structure, support, and stability. They are a missing link in addressing homelessness in a long-term, sustainable way.

Today I asked the developer to think carefully about how this project fits into the broader neighborhood context. This area already includes a mix of housing, services, and public investments. It is important that we approach this thoughtfully, with an eye toward integration, safety, and community cohesion.

I also raised the importance of the Riverton Trolley Park. This is a real asset in the neighborhood, and one that has not been used to its full potential. I have asked Avesta to think intentionally about how residents of this development can be part of activating that space in a positive way, whether through organized activities, or programming that connects people to the outdoors and to each other. We should be thinking not just about housing people, but about how people become part of our community.

What Comes Next

A neighborhood meeting will take place on Wednesday, April 1st at 5:30 PM at the Friends Meeting House, right next door to the site. I encourage anyone interested to attend, ask questions, and learn more about the proposal.

This meeting is an important opportunity to hear directly from the developer, understand how the project will operate, and share feedback.

As this project moves through the Planning Board process, there will be additional opportunities for public input.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Notice: Under Maine law, documents – including e-mails and text messages – in the possession of public officials or city employees about government business may be classified as public records. There are very few exceptions. As a result, please be advised that what is written in a text message or e-mail could be released to the public and/or the media if requested.

Wednesday, March 18, 2026

Turning Point USA, the Expo, and the work of Public Trust

I’ve received many emails over the past few weeks about the May 15 event scheduled at the Portland Expo, and I want to take a moment to lay out the facts as clearly as I can, explain why many people are concerned, and share how I’m thinking about this.

What we know

Last fall, Calvary Chapel Greater Portland, a local church, entered into an agreement with the City to rent the Expo for what was described as a worship event. According to staff, the event was presented as a free gathering that would include music, prayer, and food.

The contract was signed in October 2025, and the event was booked at the City’s standard nonprofit “exhibit” rate. Later, the City was informed that Turning Point USA Faith would be a sponsor of the event and would send a speaker.

Turning Point USA is a conservative political organization closely aligned with the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, and its “TPUSA Faith” initiative works with churches and religious leaders to encourage political engagement and voter participation. The event is now being publicly promoted as part of a national tour.

Why people are upset

I have heard three main concerns from residents. First is whether the City was given a complete and accurate description of the event at the time it was booked. Second is whether it is appropriate for a large national organization to benefit from a nonprofit rate intended for local events. And third is whether this event could create safety concerns or harm members of our community, particularly immigrants and LGBTQ residents who have often been the targets of harsh rhetoric in our divisive national politics and the media’s often incendiary coverage of it.

I want to say clearly that these concerns are valid. They reflect a broader moment we are living in where many people feel vulnerable, divided, and uncertain about whether institutions will protect them.

What the City can and cannot do

When the City rents out a public facility like the Expo, we are bound by the First Amendment. That means we cannot deny access to a group based on its political or religious views. Even if many residents strongly disagree with those views. Even if I personally disagree with those views.

However, the city is still responsible for enforcing our contracts, ensuring rates are applied consistently, requiring appropriate insurance and security, and making sure events are conducted safely and within the rules.

What about the “bait and switch” concern?

Some residents have asked whether the contract should be cancelled because the event now involves a national organization.

The key legal question, as I understand it, is not whether outside groups are involved. That is pretty common in events like this. The question is whether the original renter has transferred the contract to another entity.

Courts generally look at three things: who signed the contract, who carries the insurance, and who is financially responsible to the City. If Calvary Chapel remains the tenant and is responsible for payment, insurance, and compliance, then the involvement of Turning Point USA Faith is typically considered to be a co-sponsorship, not a reassignment of the contract. If facts emerge that show the contract was misrepresented or improperly assigned, that would warrant further action. But those determinations must be made carefully and based on evidence.

The trust question

There’s another layer to this situation that I think is important. Some have asked why the event may not have been fully described at the outset. One possibility is that the organizers believed that, as a progressive city, Portland would not treat them fairly if they were fully transparent about their political associations.

If that’s true, then this moment is also a test of us. We can respond by confirming that fear, or we can respond by demonstrating that our commitment to fairness is real, even when we disagree.

Allowing this event to proceed is not an endorsement of its message. It’s a recognition that in a pluralistic society, the government does not get to decide which viewpoints are acceptable.

At the same time, we should not ignore harm or the fear people in our community who are targeted by certain rhetoric feel right now.

I think we can hold both truths at once. We can uphold constitutional protections, and we can stand firmly for the dignity and safety of every resident.

Where we go from here

City staff are continuing to evaluate security needs, insurance requirements, and logistical planning. Event organizers will be responsible for any additional costs required to ensure safety. I will continue to ask questions and expect clear answers about how this event was booked and how it will be managed. And I will continue to listen to your concerns.

One final thought

We are living in a time when deeper forces are pulling us toward conflict, when outrage is rewarded, institutions are tested, and people are tempted to believe that division is inevitable or even necessary.

We shouldn’t take that bait. Portland can be a city that is both principled and compassionate, one that protects free expression while standing firmly against exclusion and the kind of rhetoric that puts members of our community at risk.

And because so much of this moment is being framed in the language of faith, I’ll just say this plainly. Christ is invoked often in our public life by people across the political spectrum to justify power, to organize movements, to draw lines between who belongs and who doesn’t. But the life of Christ, as many understand it, as I understand it, does not point us toward domination, exclusion, or fear. It points us toward humility and understanding, toward care for the vulnerable, toward treating others with dignity, even those with whom we profoundly disagree.

That doesn’t mean we abandon our convictions or stay silent in the face of harm. But it does mean we resist the pull to become cruel, reactive, or self-righteous in the process.

I short, we shouldn’t become what we oppose in order to oppose it. We can do better than that. And we will.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Friday, March 13, 2026

2025 Annual Report to Constituents

Dear neighbors,

Over the past year we’ve worked together to tackle major challenges facing Portland, from housing and street safety to strengthening our local economy and public institutions.

When you elected me, I promised to fight for housing that Portlanders can afford, public safety rooted in care, living wages, and a local government accountable to the people it serves. With your help, we made meaningful progress on many of these goals in 2025.

Residents like you organized, canvassed, spoke out, and stepped up to serve on boards and commissions, helping move important policy changes forward. Together we delivered real wins for working families while also laying the groundwork for long-term solutions to our most challenging issues.

Meaningful policy change rarely happens in a single vote or a single year. It requires sustained effort in building coalitions, strengthening institutions, and putting the pieces in place for long-term change. This report highlights some of what we accomplished together this year and the work we’ve done to set Portland on a stronger path for the future.

As I share this update, I also want you to know that I will not be seeking re-election to the City Council when my current term concludes. I feel proud of the progress we’ve made together and confident about the direction we’ve set.

I still have eight months left in my term, and there is plenty more work to do. One of the most important efforts now underway is the Social Housing Task Force, which is halfway through its year-long charge to develop a plan for permanently affordable, publicly owned housing in Portland. This work has the potential to shape our city for generations, and it will be essential that the momentum we’ve built continues. That will be my primary focus for the remainder of my term.

Thank you for the trust you placed in me and for everything you have done to help move our city forward.

-Kate

2025 Annual Report Final Download

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Explainer: What’s Actually Happening with Nonprofit Property Tax Exemptions in Portland?

Over the past several weeks, a number of Portland nonprofits have received notices from the City Assessor’s Office indicating that their municipal property tax exemption has been revoked.

Understandably, this has created anxiety, frustration, and confusion.

I’ve fielded calls from nonprofit leaders who feel blindsided and politically targeted. Some have said to me, “The last time something like this happened was during the LePage years. We expect this from the right, not from the left. What gives?” I even received calls from state legislators who didn’t realize that municipal property tax exemptions are governed by state law.

This tells me there’s a real gap in public understanding about what’s happening here.

So, why are some nonprofits in Portland being told they no longer qualify for property tax exemption? The public deserves a clear explanation of what is happening, and what is not.

Federal nonprofit status is not the same as property tax exemption

Many people assume that if an organization is a 501(c)(3), it is automatically exempt from property taxes. That’s not how the law works.

Federal nonprofit status governs income tax. Municipal property tax exemption is governed by Maine state law, specifically Title 36 of the Maine Revised Statutes.

They are separate systems with different standards.

Property tax exemption in Maine is narrow and “use-based”

Under Maine law, all property is taxable unless it falls within a specific statutory exemption. Courts in Maine have consistently held that exemptions must be interpreted narrowly. Taxation is the rule. Exemption is the exception.

It is also important to understand that the statute contains different categories of exemption, each with its own standards. Not all nonprofits fall under the same subsection of the law.

Many community organizations, including arts and cultural nonprofits, rely on the “charitable and benevolent institution” category. Under that provision, the law requires that:

The property be owned by a charitable or benevolent institution;
The institution be organized and conducted exclusively for charitable purposes; and
The property be occupied or used solely for those charitable purposes.

That third requirement: “occupied or used solely” is where most questions arise.

The standard is not whether the organization is valuable or does good work in the community. The standard is how the property is used.

Examples that typically qualify:

A museum open to the public for educational purposes.
A food pantry distributing goods to people.
A shelter providing housing as part of its charitable mission.
A nonprofit operating free or low-cost educational programming.

Examples that can raise statutory concerns:

Regularly renting space for weddings or private corporate events.
Alcohol sales
Leasing portions of a building at market rates to unrelated tenants.
Operating substantial revenue-generating activities not directly tied to the charitable mission.
Using significant portions of a property for non-charitable administrative or commercial activity.

Other institutions, such as houses of religious worship or certain hospital facilities, may qualify under different statutory subsections with distinct legal standards.

This does not mean that revenue-generating activities are unethical. Many nonprofits rely on creative fundraising to survive. But under Maine law, exemption depends on statutory use standards, not institutional goodwill.

If someone believes those standards are too narrow, that is ultimately a question for the Maine Legislature, not something a councilor or municipal assessor can change.

Who makes these decisions, and why Council cannot reverse them

In Maine, assessors occupy a unique legal position. Although they are appointed by municipalities, assessors exercise independent professional judgment, are supervised by the State Tax Assessor, are not subject to direction by the municipality in carrying out assessment duties.

This structure exists to prevent political interference in tax administration. And it means the City Council and City Manager are not authorized to direct or reverse individual exemption determinations. Even when controversy arises, the legal structure is intentionally insulated.

If there is disagreement with a determination, the proper avenue is the appeal process, not political intervention.

Why this is happening now

These exemption revocations we are hearing about in the paper arose in the context of Portland’s 2025 property tax revaluation, which requires a comprehensive review of properties on the tax roll.

Under state law, parcels owned by tax-exempt non-profits are supposed to be reviewed annually. In practice, a full annual review of every exempt parcel is administratively demanding and not always possible. From what I have been told, this recent review was likely the most thorough review of tax-exempt properties conducted in many years. (As in, no one seems to remember the last time it was done.)

When regular maintenance doesn’t happen consistently, later corrections feel abrupt. That dynamic can create the appearance of a sudden shift in political ideology or a revenue grab, when, in reality, it reflects a system catching up.

What has occurred so far

According to information provided by City staff:

Since March 2025, the tax-exempt status for 48 parcels has been revoked.
41 revocations took immediate effect.
7 are deferred to April 1, 2026.

Those revocations add approximately $46.3 million in assessed value back to the tax roll.
Using the FY2026 mill rate of $11.98 per $1,000, that equates to approximately $555,000 in anticipated annual revenue.

Additionally, the Assessor has statutory authority to issue supplemental assessments going back up to three years in certain cases. Approximately 39 supplemental assessments totaling about $189,512.57 are being issued or processed.

It’s important to be clear that these revocations do not automatically imply bad faith by nonprofits. It may reflect evolving uses of real property, administrative capacity constraints, or reporting gaps over time.

The larger issue is consistency and fairness in application of the law.

What organizations can do next

Organizations have several options:

Request an in-person meeting with the Assessor’s Office
Submit a written request for reconsideration
File an abatement and appeal to the Board of Assessment Review
Appeal further to Superior Court
In certain cases, seek a declaratory judgment

If an organization believes it can modify its use to comply with the statute, it may also simply reapply for exemption.

What this is not

This is not a City Council vote targeting nonprofits.

This is not a judgment about the cultural value of institutions like the Maine Irish Heritage Center, Maine Public, Mayo Street Arts, or others.

This is not the same thing as the proposed PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) program that the Finance Committee has been working on for two years.

The broader context

Portland has a significant amount of tax-exempt property—estimated at $4 billion. When exemptions are granted appropriately, they reflect legitimate public benefit and help relieve the burden of government. But, when exemptions drift beyond statutory standards, the funding needed to deliver core municipal services shifts to homeowners and businesses.

Portland’s nonprofit sector plays an outsized role in civic life, in part because our private-sector base is relatively thin and public investment has fluctuated over decades. Many nonprofits provide services that are valuable and loved by many, but that does not eliminate the need for statutory compliance. Allowing exemption standards to drift for years without review undermines public trust, erodes our tax base, and ultimately creates sharper corrections down the road.

What comes next?

When you elected me to serve in City Hall, I made it clear that I would fight for tax fairness. That means making sure our laws are applied consistently, transparently, and without political interference.

It is evident to me that the Assessor’s Office has undertaken a more comprehensive review of exemptions than has occurred in many years. The fact that this feels sudden to many organizations suggests that past oversight may not have been as regular or as visible as it should have been. Going forward, our responsibility is to ensure that review is consistent and predictable.

I believe the best work of the Council right now is to insist on:

Clear, proactive communication about process and timelines;
Better public education about the difference between federal nonprofit status and municipal property tax exemption;
An honest discussion about our capacity to conduct regular reviews;
Respect for the established appeal process.

Portland values the services nonprofits provide. We love our cultural institutions. We must also insist that tax law be applied consistently and fairly.

If you would like to understand your organization’s specific situation, I encourage direct engagement with the Assessor’s Office and use of the established appeal pathways.

The standards are written in state law. A fair process exists. This is a complex issue, but it is not a mysterious one.

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Monday, March 2, 2026

Tonight’s Drone Vote: Why I believe regulation is the responsible path

Over the past several weeks, I’ve received many messages and calls urging a “no” vote on the Portland Police Department’s request to purchase a drone. These concerns are thoughtful, deeply felt, and they deserve a clear response.

For me, this decision is not about whether drones are “good” or “bad.” It’s about how we regulate their use here in Portland, and whether that regulation is under strong local control.

I’m weighing several things at once: community trust in a moment of federal overreach and fear; the reality that drones are already being used here in Portland; and my responsibility as a policymaker to regulate what already exists in practice.

Trust and Context

The recent ICE surge changed the emotional climate in our city. Even though that surge has been scaled back, a lot of fear and uncertainty remain. For many residents, distrust of surveillance and law enforcement has been a lived reality for generations. I know that policing and technology can disproportionately impact immigrant and Black and brown communities, and any expansion of law enforcement tools must be considered in that broader context.

That is precisely why I have spent the past two years working with City staff to strengthen the guardrails around this policy. If this technology is going to exist, it must operate under strict constitutional limits, clear use restrictions, and meaningful transparency.

What the Policy Now Requires

The current Standard Operating Procedure is significantly stronger than the original draft. It:

Prohibits passive or warrantless surveillance
Requires prosecutorial approval and a warrant (or recognized legal exception) for criminal investigations
Limits use to defined public safety situations
Mandates documentation and public reporting of each deployment
Bans facial recognition
Restricts enhancement technologies

The vote the council will take tonight will not give police a blank check, rather it proposes a tightly regulated framework designed to prevent misuse.

The Reality: Drones Are Already Being Used

Portland police already use drones by borrowing them from surrounding municipalities. When that happens, the other municipality’s policy governs the use. The data collected may be stored outside Portland’s control, and we have limited oversight over retention, deletion, or potential sharing.

Public Safety Considerations

Drones also have legitimate public safety applications. They can help locate missing persons more quickly, including people with dementia who may wander into wooded areas, assist with fire scene assessment without placing personnel at additional risk, and provide aerial visibility in hazardous or high-risk situations where distance can reduce escalation.

When properly regulated, this tool can protect both the public and first responders.

If a tool can help find someone faster, prevent unnecessary danger, or reduce escalation, I believe it should be available, under strict regulation and meaningful oversight. And I believe that here in Portland we are capable of being a model for that kind of regulation.

Governance in a Changing Technological Landscape

Trust in government is fragile right now, particularly for communities that have long experienced over-policing and surveillance. I take that seriously.

At the same time, technology will continue to evolve whether we welcome it or not. I believe it is our responsibility as policymakers to ensure democratic oversight keeps pace with that change. If we step back from setting rules, enforcing limits, and governing responsibly, we don’t strengthen trust, rather we erode the civic institutions that allow communities to shape their own future.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and continued conversation.

-Kate

ksykes@portlandmaine.gov 207-558-5764

Thursday, October 30, 2025

Reflections on the District 5 Community Meeting

Last night, I had the honor of hosting residents of District 5 for a community meeting at Casco Bay High School. We were joined by City Councilors Ben Grant (At-Large), Pious Ali (At-Large), Mayor Mark Dion, State Senator Jill Duson, State Representative Sam Zager, Superintendent Ryan Scallon, City Manager Danielle West and more than City Staff representing many different departments. This annual event offers residents the opportunity to raise concerns, ask questions, and hear directly from the elected and appointed officials working on their behalf. For me, it was a chance to listen, learn, and take the pulse of our community.

Below are a few of the major themes that emerged and some reflections I want to share as your District 5 Councilor.

Emergency Shelter at 166 Riverside: The Right Service, the Wrong Fit

The most urgent concern raised by Riverton residents involved the city’s plan to open 166 Riverside as an emergency warming shelter this winter. Many neighbors voiced fears about increased crime, public drug use, and the disruption of neighborhood safety and cohesion.

I understand these concerns and expressed similar ones myself, especially around the location of the shelter, which is far from where unhoused individuals are currently living, and not set up for this kind of use.

Meeting the needs of unhoused individuals trying to survive on our streets is not just a Portland issue. It is a county issue, a state issue, and a federal issue. I have and continue to encourage constituents to contact our Cumberland County Commissioners, the County Sheriff’s office, and State lawmakers across Maine to demand action. No single level of government can shoulder this crisis alone; but every level must be part of the solution.

It is long past time for a political reckoning on this issue. Taxpayers deserve more than the rhetoric we hear from both political Parties. Democrats must recommit to long-term fiscal responsibility, and prove to the public that strategic, preventative investments reduce the need for high-cost emergency interventions. And Republicans must recognize that simply cutting services in the name of budget discipline does not save money in the long run. It simply shifts the burden, pushing people into jails, emergency rooms, and shelters that were never built to serve as housing, healthcare, or recovery programs.

A functional society invests in its people. Not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is the smart thing to do.

Development in Riverton: Growing with Intention

We also discussed Belfort Landing, an approved 50-unit housing development near Talbot School. This is a market rate development that complies with the Green New Deal’s environmental and inclusionary zoning requirements that 25% of units be affordable to people making 80% or less of the Area Median Income. This is precisely the type of infill development we need in District 5. It is located along a public transportation corridor, walkable to schools and amenities, and designed to accommodate Portland families, the teachers, essential workers, and young parents that will help our city thrive.

Some neighbors have expressed concerns about density, traffic, and safety for children walking to school. Those concerns are valid, and they have been heard and responded to by both the Planning Department and Planning Board. The project is proceeding because it meets our zoning and development standards, which were themselves developed through a rigorous democratic process.

Good community decisions happen when we set fair and inclusive rules, elect representatives to make decisions in the common good, and then hold them accountable to those decisions. That is what the city’s zoning reform efforts (ReCode), the Comprehensive Plan, and State level policies like LD 2003 have accomplished, and we must abide by those rules.

I support this development, and I also support the efforts of the neighborhood to organize a Friends of Riverton group to help guide future development in a community centered direction. Those efforts will be most successful when they align with our broader, democratically decided goals for housing, equity, and sustainability and add value to that by partnering with local developers and business owners to bring more people and amenities to the area. We need more housing in District 5, not less. And we need it to reflect the investments that taxpayers past and present have made in our transportation corridors, utilities, and infrastructure, as well as the vision and values of the current residents.

Rising Property Taxes: A Call for Equity

This year’s tax assessments have hit some District 5 residents especially hard, and I want to acknowledge that pain. For many homeowners, it has meant rebalancing budgets, tightening spending, and worrying about the future.

The City Manager encouraged homeowners who have concerns about the accuracy of their assessment to email her directly at: citymanager@portlandmaine.gov to get information on how to appeal.

On the Council I am working through the Finance Committee on two concrete solutions:

Expanding the Senior Tax Equity Program to include residents of all ages.
Advancing a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program that asks large nonprofits to contribute to the cost of city services.

A Word on Social Housing

One of the most promising initiatives moving forward in Portland right now is Social Housing, and it could be a game-changer for how we solve our housing crisis at scale. The establishment of the Social Housing Task Force marks a turning point in how we think about housing not just as a commodity, but as essential public infrastructure, just like roads, bridges, schools, and fire stations.

The basic idea is this: we use public funds to build and permanently own mixed-income housing that serves low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents. This housing is off the speculative market. It is not beholden to profit margins or outside investors. It is publicly owned, permanently affordable, and aligned with our values and our needs as a city.

When we invest in social housing, we stabilize families, reduce emergency shelter use, relieve pressure on rental markets, and lower the demand for crisis-level public services. The public pays less over time because we are solving problems upstream, not scrambling to manage them after the fact.

Unlike subsidizing private development, which requires continual reinvestment to maintain affordability, social housing is a one-time capital investment that pays long-term dividends. It generates revenue through rent, maintains affordability in perpetuity, and gives the city a real asset—public housing stock that is aligned with our goals.

This approach also allows us to build at a larger scale. We don’t have to wait for the right developer with the right margins; we don’t have to negotiate inclusionary zoning percentages. We can grow in accordance with our own vision for equitable housing development, not according to the bottom line of private capital. That means we can build near schools, near transit corridors, in walkable neighborhoods like Riverton and Deering Center, and build it responsibly.

In fact, social housing is one of the only solutions on the table that addresses every major issue that came up at our District 5 meeting:

Concerned about the shelter system? Build more deeply affordable, stable housing so fewer people ever need emergency shelter in the first place.

Concerned about rising property values and taxes? Invest public dollars in housing to increase supply and reduce reliance of shelters, emergency services, and jails to fill gaps in the social safety net.

Concerned about neighborhood integrity? Plan and design housing that is community-centered, transit-connected, and aligned with long-term infrastructure and land use goals—guided by us as a city, not just the priorities and limitations of the private market.

Social housing allows us to build what we need, where we need it, for the people who need it most—and to do so responsibly, transparently, and in alignment with the values of our city.

That is how we take control of our housing future.

Thanks to everyone who attended the meeting last night, and I look forward to sharing more about the work of the Social Housing Task Force in the weeks ahead.