HOMELESSNESS IN EUGENE: AN EXPLORATION OF OUR
CITY’S MOST PRESSING ISSUE
By
MATTHEW EGGIMAN
A THESIS
Presented to the Departments of History & Political Science 
and the Robert D. Clark Honors College 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
Bachelor of Arts
June 2020
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Matthew Eggiman for the degree of Bachelor of Arts
in the Departments of History & Political Science to be taken June 2020
Title: Homelessness in Eugene: An Exploration of Our City’s Most Pressing Issue
Approved: _ Dr. Alison Gash, Associate Professor of Political Science _
Primary Thesis Advisor
Eugene Oregon has the highest rate of homelessness of any city in the United States. 
There are a number of factors contributing to this unfortunate designation, including drug 
addiction and mental illness. While these public health concerns are often (correctly) associated 
with homelessness, they exist in every city and do not explain Eugene’s exceptional status. 
Therefore, this writing will focus on the relationship between municipal regulations, namely 
development impact fees and zoning laws, and the high rate of homelessness in Eugene. 
In order to conduct this analysis, the thesis will be broken down into Three primary 
sections. First, this writing will explore the state of homelessness on a national and regional level
in order to outline broader regional trends and contextualize Eugene’s situation. In the next 
section this essay will analyze existing development impact fees and zoning laws as well as 
relevant economic data to determine the effect local regulations are having on the homelessness 
population. The last component will be a proposal for regulatory reform aimed at curtailing the 
growth of homelessness in Eugene.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professors Alison Gash and Ocean Howell for providing me with 
guidance during my thesis process and assisting me in completing this project. Throughout the 
past six months, Dr. Gash has gone to bat for me multiple times and aided me in every way she 
possibly could. In addition to giving me invaluable advice in regards to my research, I would be 
remiss if I did not mention her zealous and altruistic efforts in helping me navigate onerous 
administrative barriers during the entirety of the Winter 2020 term. It is clear from my 
experiences with her that she cares deeply for her students and harbors a great deal of integrity. I 
would also like to thank Rory McManama, the former head of Eugene’s Community Court 
program, for inspiring me to pursue this avenue of research for my thesis project. Of course, I 
want to also thank my parents for their support every step of the way in my academic career. 
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Alison Gash, Dr. Ocean Howell, and Dr. Casey Shoop for 
serving on my Thesis Committee. 
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1..........................................................................................................................................5
Data Issues...........................................................................................................................5
National and Regional Data.................................................................................................7
Chapter 2........................................................................................................................................11
Rent and Homelessness......................................................................................................11
Zoning Laws......................................................................................................................13
Development Impact Fees..................................................................................................17
Chapter 3........................................................................................................................................22
Affordable Housing?..........................................................................................................22
Rezoning and Fee Reduction.............................................................................................24
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................28
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Largest Changes in Homelessness by State                                                                     7
Figure 2: Highest and Lowest Unsheltered CoCs                                                                            8
Figure 3: Homeless on a Single Night Against Median Monthly Rent                                         10
Figure 4: Median Rent and Homeless Population                                                                         11
Figure 5: Eugene Zoning Map                                                                                                       14
v
Introduction
Though largely overlooked in the national political discourse, homelessness continues to 
be a serious problem in a number of cities across the United States. While this writing will focus 
on somewhat abstract political and economic factors, homelessness is a deeply personal issue for
more than half a million people in this country1. While most people’s exposure to homelessness 
is the experience of walking past someone sleeping on the street, homelessness is a 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week experience for that person. The privilege to be behind a locked door is 
something most people take for granted. The obvious disadvantage of homelessness is being 
forced to sleep out in the elements or in a dangerous shelter. But homeless people are also forced
to bring all of their worldly possessions with them everywhere they go. This presents a 
tremendous source of stress for homeless individuals, as they tend to have a disproportionate 
amount of interactions with the criminal justice system.2 This is because many cities across the 
US have essentially criminalized homelessness by passing ordinances making it illegal to sleep, 
lay down, or “loiter” in public places.3 As a result, they are often obligated to attend court 
proceedings and/or jail sentences where bringing luggage is untenable.
In addition to institutional factors, life on the streets is filled with considerable hardship 
from other sources as well. Homeless people are disproportionately the victims of assault and 
robbery, as they are forced to sleep in dangerous conditions with no barrier between themselves 
and people wishing to take advantage of them.4 Unfortunately, many homeless people consider 
1 Meghan Henry, Rian Watt, Anna Mahathey, Jillian Ouellette, and Aubrey Sitler. The 2019 Annual Homeless 
Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. (Washington D.C.: The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development: Office of Community Planning and Development 2019), 1.
2 Forrest Stuart. “From ’Rabble Management’ to ’Recovery Management’: Policing Homelessness in Marginal 
Urban Space.” Urban Studies, vol. 51, no. 9, (July 2014): 1909–1925.
3 Maria Foscarinis; Rebecca K. Troth, "Reentry and Homelessness: Alternatives to Recidivism," Clearinghouse 
Review 39, no. 7 and 8, (November-December 2005): 440-457.
4 Kathrine O’Keefe. "Protecting the Homeless under Vulnerable Victim Sentencing Guidelines: An Alternative to 
Inclusion in Hate Crime Laws." William and Mary Law Review 52, no. 1 (2010): 301.
shelters to be even more dangerous than the streets, driving some individuals to purposely avoid 
shelters altogether.5 There is also a popular perception that individuals often become homeless as
a result of  a serious drug addiction, but many homeless people actually become addicted to 
drugs after becoming homeless. This is because homeless people often turn to drugs and alcohol 
as a coping mechanism for dealing with the extraordinary stress of street life, and/or in order to 
self medicate for mental health issues.6 Homelessness frequently triggers relapses in recovering 
addicts as well.7
While homelessness is obviously most unfavorable for those who actually experience it, 
high rates of homelessness also incur sizable societal costs. According to Eugene Municipal 
Court records, homeless people comprised a quarter of all individuals ticketed or arrested in the 
city during 2016 despite only comprising about 1.3 percent of the population.8 9 Homeless 
individuals also experience extremely high recidivism rates, which puts a substantial financial 
burden on local law enforcement.10 In fact, homeless recidivism has become such a problem in 
Eugene that the city has undertaken initiatives, such as the Community Court Program, which 
gives individuals convicted of homelessness-related offenses (open container, loitering, illegal 
camping etc.) community service rather than jail time, and connects them with social services 
once their community service has been completed. This initiative was designed specifically to 
reduce recidivism rates for homeless people. In 2019, the city council also passed the 1.9 million 
5 David Pirtle, James Greene, and Kathy Siebert. “Why Some Homeless Choose The Streets Over Shelters.” NPR, 
(December 6, 2012).
6 Timothy Johnson and Michael Fendrich. "Homelessness and Drug Use." American Journal of Preventive 
Medicine 32, no. 6 (2007).
7 Sabryna Linton, David D Celentano, Gregory D Kirk, and Shruti H Mehta. "The Longitudinal Association 
between Homelessness, Injection Drug Use, and Injection-related Risk Behavior among Persons with a History of 
Injection Drug Use in Baltimore, MD." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 132, no. 3 (2013): 457-65.
8 Jacoby, Kenny. “Criminalizing Homelessness: Data show the unhoused are disproportionately ticketed in 
Eugene.” Eugene Weekly, (June 1, 2017).
9 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon., (2017).
10 Foscarinis et al., "Reentry and Homelessness: Alternatives to Recidivism," 440.
2
dollar Homeless Systems Implementation Plan to expand shelter space and provide additional 
affordable housing.11 These factors demonstrate that Eugene’s homelessness crisis continues to 
be a notable drain on the city’s resources.
The plight of homelessness certainly poses serious issues for individuals and the 
community, but the city’s response to the crisis has been quite limited. Though the 
aforementioned Community Court has helped address recidivism and assisted individuals in 
finding affordable housing, it’s impact has been relatively narrow and the program mostly acts as
a liaison between homeless people and privately funded charities.12 Additionally, less than half of
The Homeless Systems Implementation Plan budget will go towards shelter space, while over 
half a million dollars will be spent on hiring personnel to oversee the project.13 To be fair, the 
city has also funded a number of other projects aimed at addressing homelessness, including the 
Overnight Parking Program, Rest Stop Program, affordable housing tax incentives for select 
property owners, Dawn to Dawn program, and others. However, most of these projects are 
peripheral, and are aimed at addressing the symptoms, rather than the causes, of homelessness. 
For example, the Overnight Parking Program allocates parking spaces so people can sleep in 
their cars legally, and the Dawn to Dawn and Rest Stop programs allow people to sleep in tents 
next to the highway.14
If the City of Eugene is serious about curtailing the growth of homelessness, steps must 
be taken which mitigate some of the root causes of the issue. To that end, the city must reduce 
excessive building impact fees and rezone significant portions of the R-1 (low-density 
residential) areas surrounding downtown to R-4 (high-density residential) zones. These measures
11 Anderson, Bryan. “EUGENE APPROVES $1.9 MILLION HOMELESS PLAN.” KEZI, (October 14, 2019).
12 Eugene. “Community Court.”
13 Anderson. “EUGENE APPROVES $1.9 MILLION HOMELESS PLAN.”
14 Eugene. “FY20 Approved Budget for Homelessness and Human Services.”
3
will work to increase the available supply of housing and lower rent prices throughout the city, 
thus reducing the homeless population. 
In the next section, this writing will discuss broader issues related to homelessness, 
including the collection/analysis of data. Additionally, the following section will explore national
trends in order to contextualize Eugene’s homelessness problem.
4
Chapter 1
Data Issues
 It’s important to address the relationship between mental illness and homelessness here. 
Many homeless people suffer from debilitating mental illnesses which preclude them from 
effectively taking care of themselves and would likely remain homeless regardless of the cost of 
housing. In fact, following the process of deinstitutionalization in the 1980’s, the number of 
homeless people doubled in some areas.15  Today, it’s unclear exactly how many homeless 
people experience mental illness, with anywhere from 23 to 67 percent of homeless people 
having a mental disability.16
While issues such as drug addiction and mental health inhabit a large space within the 
conversation surrounding homelessness, economic factors are arguably more consequential 
contributors. This is the case because the proportion of people who experience homelessness due
to drug addiction or poor mental health is exaggerated in many studies. This is because 
researchers will often determine the significance of different homelessness contributors by 
surveying a representative sample of the current homeless population in a given area at only one 
point in time, as opposed to analyzing the homeless population over a longer period. Indeed, 
single night point in time (PIT) counts are the primary means by which homelessness data is 
gathered, being employed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as 
state and local-level surveys.17 18 19 This method overrepresents mentally ill individuals because 
15 Rhoden, Nancy K. "The Limits of Liberty: Deinstitutionalization, Homelessness, and Libertarian Theory. 
(Symposium: Law and Psychiatry, Part II)." Emory Law Journal 31, no. 2 (1982): 375-440.
16 Isaak, Corinne A., Kristin Reynolds, Jitender Sareen, and Jino Distasio. "The Entrepreneurship of Survival 
among Urban Adults Experiencing Homelessness and Mental Illness." Journal Of Community Psychology 47, no. 6 
(2019): 1548-562.
17 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon.
18 Lane County Human Services. “Lane County 2019 Unsheltered Point in Time Count Summary.” (May, 2019).
19 Henry, Megan, Rian Watt, Anna Mahathey, Jillian Ouellette, and Aubrey Sitler. The 2019 Annual Homeless 
Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of 
5
this group tends to remain homeless for a longer period of time. Out of all of the people who 
become homeless, only about 30 percent of them are unable to find housing within one year, and 
a vast majority of this remaining 30 percent is comprised of the mentally ill, while people who 
find housing within a year have generally become homeless for economic reasons.20 Because of 
both the prevalence of economic homelessness and the intractability of mental illness, this 
writing will focus on addressing homelessness caused by economic factors.
In addition to overestimating the number of homeless people experiencing mental illness,
PIT counts also tend to underestimate the total number of homeless individuals.21 This is 
primarily the result of the method of data collection in PIT counts. In order to ascertain the 
number of homeless people in an area, researchers will survey homeless shelters to see how 
many beds are currently occupied. Then, to determine the number of unsheltered individuals, the 
surveyors will go out and physically count how many people are languishing on the sidewalk. 
This data-collection system inevitably results in the number of unsheltered homeless people 
being underestimated. In reference to the number of homeless people in the state, the Oregon PIT
count for 2019 even explicitly states that, “This number should be understood as an absolute 
minimum number of people experiencing homelessness in Oregon.”22 This systematic 
underestimation has other implications as well. First of all, municipalities with higher 
unsheltered populations will underestimate their homeless populations more severely. 
Additionally, shelter-all communities are more likely to record increases in homelessness 
whereas communities with inadequate shelter space may be entirely deaf to spikes in the 
Community Planning and Development, (2019).
20 Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Brendan O’Flaherty. How to House the Homeless. (New York, Russell Sage 
Foundation, 2010, 111).
21 Glynn, Chris, and Emily B. Fox. "Dynamics of Homelessness in Urban America." Annals Of Applied Statistics 
13.1 (2019): 573-605. Web.
22 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon., 2019.
6
homeless population.23 Therefore, any numerical data on homeless populations presented in this 
writing should be interpreted as a low estimate (as the essay relies on PIT counts), especially in 
regions with high unsheltered populations. 
National & Regional Data
In order to properly analyze the homeless crisis in Eugene, it is important to first 
understand national broader homelessness trends. According to the national HUD PIT count, 
there were 568,000 homeless people living in the United States as of January 2019. Though 
homelessness is decreasing in most of the country, 2019 saw an increase of three percent from 
the previous year, driven by dramatic spikes in homelessness in certain states, with California 
(+16.4%) and Oregon (+9.7%) topping the list of fastest-growing homeless populations.24 
   Figure 1: The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.
Though the growth of Oregon’s homeless population between 2017 and 2019 was also 
exceptionally high at 13.2 percent, Lane County’s homeless population growth far exceeded 
23 Hanratty, Maria. "Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area Housing Market 
Factors, Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates." Housing Policy Debate 27.4 (2017): 640-55.
Web.
24 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 1-13.
7
even that number, increasing 41.6 percent during the same period.25 Unsurprisingly, Lane County
also contains a disproportionate amount of Oregon’s homeless population at 13.7 percent, despite
comprising 8.7 percent of Oregon’s total population.26 27 28
In addition to a growth in the total homeless population, the number of unsheltered 
individuals is also on the rise. The HUD report breaks down it’s data on a continuum of care 
(CoC) level. CoCs are usually divided by county, such as Lane County’s CoC. However, a few 
CoCs encompass multiple counties, usually in less densely populated areas. Much of the growth 
in unsheltered homelessness occurred in “largely urban” CoCs like Lane County (+6.6%) and in 
“major city” CoCs (+4.9%), while homelessness rates in “rural” and “suburban” CoCs remained 
fairly steady or decreased respectively.29 Conversely, the number of sheltered homeless 
individuals has been gradually decreasing for the last five years, so the growth in the national 
homeless population has been driven entirely by an increase in the unsheltered population.30
Oregon has the one of the highest proportions of unsheltered homeless individuals of any 
state at 63.9 percent, second only to California at 71.7 percent.31 These proportions are well 
above the national average, which sits at 37 percent.32 Furthermore, Oregon has the highest rate 
of unsheltered families with children of any US state.33 Lane County’s position is even more 
severe than Oregon’s, with the highest proportion of  unsheltered homeless individuals of any 
CoC in the state at 75.4 percent.34 This proportion has been on the rise since 2016, and increased 
25 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon. 2017.
26 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon. 2019.
27 World Population Review. “Oregon Population 2020.”
28 World Population Review. “Lane County Population 2020.”
29 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 17. 
30 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. ii, 1.
31 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 13.
32 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 1.
33 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 37.
34 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 19.
8
6.3 percent between 2018 and 2019.35 As of 2019, Lane County also had the second highest 
percentage of unsheltered homeless people of any largely urban CoC in the country.36
            Figure 2: The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.
The data outlined above paints a worrying picture for policymakers concerned with 
homelessness, particularly in California and Oregon. The high numbers of unsheltered 
individuals in each state indicates that municipalities in the region are severely under equipped to
handle the mounting homeless population. The presence of high rates of homelessness isn’t 
necessarily a prerequisite for unpreparedness either, as New York City has the highest number of
homeless people of any CoC in the country, yet has the second lowest proportion of unsheltered 
individuals.37
Moreover, the high unsheltered populations on the West Coast may predispose 
policymakers in the area to greatly underestimate the true extent of the crisis. However, even 
with these likely deflated numbers, Lane County still consistently ranks amongst the top CoCs in
almost every homelessness metric measured by the HUD PIT count. When broken down to the 
city level, Eugene actually has the highest rate of homelessness of any city in the United States, 
35 Lane County Human Services. “Lane County 2019 Unsheltered Point in Time Count Summary.” 2.
36 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 19.
37 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 13, 18.
9
and it is the smallest city of the top ten with the highest rates of homelessness.38 Eugene doesn’t 
just have a “big city” homelessness problem, it stands alone. The next section of this writing will
explore some of the unique contributing factors which have put Eugene in this exceptional 
position.
38 Henry et al., The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. 18.
10
Chapter 2
Rent and Homelessness
The idea that homelessness is linked to inadequate zoning laws and excessive 
development impact fees is predicated on the notion that rent prices and homelessness also share 
a relationship. Therefore, it’s crucial that this writing sufficiently analyzes the relationship 
between high rent costs and homelessness. Understanding this relationship is somewhat intuitive,
as an increase in rent price beyond one’s means to pay it will leave that person with no other 
option than to move in with someone they know or become homeless. Because the former option
is not available to everyone, rent increases are strongly associated with increases in 
homelessness.39 40 41 The following figure is a graphical representation of median rent prices and 
homelessness on a state level using data collected from the 2008 HUD PIT count and the 2007 
American Community Survey. 
            Figure 3: Ellen, et al.. How to House the Homeless. 113.
39 Ellen et al., et al.. How to House the Homeless. 112.
40 Berlin et al.. “Homelessness: Why Nothing Has Worked--And What Will.”
41 Hanratty, Maria. "Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area Housing Market 
Factors, Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates."
11
It’s worth acknowledging that this data is somewhat dated and represents the relationship 
between median rent and homelessness on a national scale. However, the same principle applies 
to Eugene contemporarily. The graph below displays the relationship between median rent and 
homelessness in Eugene using data collected from Oregon’s 2019 PIT Count Survey and the 
Zillow Rent Index.42 43
          Figure 4
This graph shows a clear correlation between increasing rents and homeless population growth in
Eugene. Given the city’s extreme homelessness problem, it might be surprising to learn that up 
until 2016, the city’s homelessness rate was actually decreasing. However, once median rent 
prices began to increase in 2014, this trend began to slow until it entirely reversed course, 
leaving the city with a homeless population growing at an exponential rate.44 45
Zoning Laws
42 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon.
43 Zillow. Zillow Rent Index.
44 Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time Estimates of Homelessness in 
Oregon.
45 Zillow. Zillow Rent Index.
12
Though a myriad of factors contribute to determining rent prices in a given area, local 
zoning laws play an important role in that process. Furthermore, zoning laws can also dictate the 
layout of a city, and in some cases, make life more comfortable for a city’s residents by keeping 
noise and pollution out of residential areas, providing walkable spaces for pedestrians, and 
making the city more aesthetically pleasing. Because zoning laws are so influential, inadequate 
zoning laws can have serious detrimental effects on a community. Specifically, restrictive zoning
regulations create an artificial scarcity of housing which leads to rent increases and results in 
greater amounts of homelessness.46 47
Housing prices, just like any other commodity, are affected by the law of supply and 
demand. If a city government passes restrictive zoning laws which impede profitable property 
development or limit urban density, such as arbitrary height limits for buildings, mandating the 
construction of parking garages, or instituting excessive minimum lot size requirements, the 
government can create an artificial scarcity of housing. This artificial scarcity drastically raises 
housing prices, and can be a major driving force behind gentrification.48 49 Restrictive zoning 
laws have negative effects beyond simply raising the price of existing housing. These regulations
can also inflate the housing prices of neighboring cities that do not have these regulations, as 
well as reduce the value of currently undeveloped areas within overregulated municipalities.50 
Additionally, the increased housing prices and gentrification caused by excessive regulation has 
eliminated traditional homeless shelter space and made it substantially harder to construct new 
shelters due to the opposition of local residents.51 Furthermore, heavy regulation actually 
46 Berlin et al.. “Homelessness: Why Nothing Has Worked--And What Will.”
47 Ellen et al., et al.. How to House the Homeless. 112.
48 Ellen et al., et al.. How to House the Homeless. 117.
49 Berlin et al.. “Homelessness: Why Nothing Has Worked--And What Will.”
50 Ellen et al., et al.. How to House the Homeless. 116.
51 Triplett, William. "Ending Homelessness." CQ Researcher, 18 June 2004.
13
discourages the construction of new housing in general, despite inflated property values, thus 
exacerbating the imbalance between the supply and demand of housing.52
There are other specific  indicators which demonstrate this trend is present in Eugene. If 
the housing supply does not grow to match demand, rents in a city become highly price elastic. 
This means that the price of a commodity (in this case housing) will increase or decrease more 
dramatically than changes in demand. This trend is evident in Eugene, as the population has 
increased 8.2 percent since 2012, while the median rent has increased 55.8 percent during the 
same period.53 54
In regards to housing policy, another important aspect of zoning regulation is the urban 
growth boundary (UGB). This regulation’s definition is in its name, as the urban growth 
boundary determines the limits of urban sprawl and helps protect natural and agricultural land 
from urban development. Though not always synonymous with the “city limits” of a 
municipality, these happen to overlap substantially in Eugene. Extending the UGB could 
potentially increase the available supply of housing in a city, assuming that the incorporated land
is zoned for residential development. Despite the fact that a 2007 State mandate ordered Eugene 
and Springfield to establish their own UBGs in order to accommodate population growth 
(Eugene and Springfield previously shared a UGB), and the Eugene City Council has made plans
to modestly extend the UBG, the newly incorporated lands will not be zoned for residential 
development of any kind.55
In addition to UGBs, residential zoning regulations are also key to controlling the supply 
of housing in a city. Assuming a city’s UGB remains stagnant (Eugene’s UGB has gone mostly 
52 Ellen et al., et al.. How to House the Homeless. 117.
53 World Population Review. “Eugene, Oregon 2020.”
54 Zillow. Zillow Rent Index.
55 Eugene. “Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).” Planning Division.
14
unchanged since it was first established in 1982), creating greater urban density through rezoning
is one of the only ways to increase the total supply of housing.56 In Eugene, there are four 
primary residential zones: low density residential (R-1), medium density residential (R-2), 
limited-high density residential (R-3), and high density residential (R-4).57 Figure 5 is the zoning 
map for Eugene. It illustrates the extent to which R-1 zoning predominates the city’s landscape. 
It’s also worth pointing out that the orange areas on the periphery of the city are agricultural land
and not R-4, as the colors on the map are similar.
Figure 5: Eugene. “Eugene Zoning Map.” Planning Division.
R-1 zones are designed for single-family dwellings, and are not subject to any minimum 
density restrictions. Additionally, buildings within R-1 are limited in height to 30 feet, have a 
minimum setback of 10 feet from the street, are only allowed to cover a maximum of half the lot 
on which they are located (with a maximum lot coverage of ten percent for alley access lots), and
56 Eugene. “Growth Management and Population.”
57 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, 9.2700-9.2730 January 21, 2020.
15
have at least one parking space.58  Certain R-1 zones are subject to specific regulations which 
further limit density, as areas within the boundaries the Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount 
Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association are not allowed to have dwellings 
which house more than three unrelated individuals or have more than three bedrooms (unless 
issued a special permit from the city).59 Additionally, buildings in R-4 zones are subject to a 
building height restriction of 30 feet if they border R-1 housing, which many of them do.60 All of
the guidelines above are intentionally designed to ensure low density in and around R-1 zones. 
The prevalence of R-1 zoning in Eugene is one of the most significant barriers to fostering 
greater urban density in the city, as R-1 areas inhabit more space within Eugene than any other 
designation (either residential or commercial) by a huge margin.61 
As demonstrated by the map above, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones in Eugene are extremely 
restricted in size, but even the most dense residential zoning is limited in several ways. For the 
portion of R-4 housing which does not border R-1 zones, buildings are limited to 120 feet, which
equates to roughly eight storeys. R-4 buildings are also limited to 112 units per acre, but can 
have as few as 20 units per acre. Though they are not technically limited in terms of lot coverage,
buildings in R-4 must allocate at least 20 percent of their development site to “outdoor living 
areas.” R-2 and R-3 buildings are also subject to this stipulation.62
Despite rising rent prices and a growing homeless population, most of Eugene’s 
residential landscape remains off-limits to high density residential development. From a political 
perspective, these housing conditions are somewhat understandable, as a number of politically-
active homeowners associations fiercely oppose high density development in their 
58 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, Table 9.2750.
59 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, 9.2751 19(1).
60 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, 9.2751 3(a).
61 Eugene. “Eugene Zoning Map.” Planning Division.
62 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, Table 9.2750.
16
neighborhoods and would certainly make it a priority for any such development to take place.63 
Later on, this writing will explore the beneficiaries of Eugene’s current housing policies, but the 
next section will analyze another important factor restricting housing development in Eugene: 
development impact fees.
Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees (DIFs), also referred to as building impact fees, are present to 
some extent in many cities across the US. These fees are levied by local governments on 
property developers building new projects in their city. DIFs can mitigate the costs a city takes 
on when a new project is built, such as hooking the building up to the power grid and connecting 
other public utilities. They can also be a substantial source of revenue for a city (assuming new 
properties are being constructed). Much like restrictive zoning laws, excessive DIFs can put 
upward pressure on rents and limit the supply of housing.64
DIFs are theoretically supposed to be a progressive tax, as they are often directly levied 
on large corporations responsible for developing a property. In reality, DIFs operate as a 
regressive tax on renters. This is the case because after paying the fees associated with the 
development project, property owners simply translate those costs onto their tenants in the form 
of higher rents.65 This fee-driven rent increase causes an increase in rent prices in existing 
properties as well because the market rent is inflated by these DIFs.66 As a result of inflated rent 
63 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 9, 9.2751 19(1).
64 Huffman, Forrest E., Arthur C. Nelson, Marc T. Smith, and Michael A. Stegman. "Who Bears the Burden of 
Development Impact Fees?" Journal of the American Planning Association 54.1 (1988): 49-55. Web
65 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 55.
66 Lawhon, Larry Lloyd. “THE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND GROWTH ON THE 
PRICE OF HOUSING IN HIGH GROWTH COLORADO COMMUNITIES: A COMPARISON OF TWO 
CITIES.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 21, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–9. JSTOR, 
www.jstor.org/stable/43031055. Accessed 2 Mar. 2020.
17
prices, developers in high DIF zones also tend to build more luxury housing and neglect the 
construction of lower quality units which might be accessible to low-income individuals.67 This 
is all assuming that developers choose to build in a heavily taxed area at all, as high DIFs 
increase the developers risk of constructing a new building by increasing the price of the initial 
investment. Developers often respond to this increased risk factor by further increasing rents or 
refusing to build altogether.68 All of these effects caused by high DIFs can effectively price low-
income tenants out of heavily taxed residential areas, thus fuelling gentrification if it’s viable for 
low-income individuals to move, or putting them out on the street if it’s not.69
Cities such as Eugene are uniquely sensitive to the upward price pressure caused by 
DIFs. In some cities, high rents will encourage residents to seek a substitute for their current 
dwelling. This is easier if there is a large supply of similar quality housing in neighboring 
municipalities which are not subject to high DIFs. However, in small urban areas which are 
relatively isolated from other major population centers, such as Eugene, there is a lack of local 
substitutes. This greatly increases the costs associated with moving, as a tenant might have to 
move hours away to find comparable housing, which would likely require them to seek new 
employment opportunities as well. These conditions result in increased incentives for residents to
remain in their current community and makes them willing to pay higher rents if they are able.70 
This trend is compounded further by Eugene’s high student population. There are several 
colleges located within the city, including Northwest Christian University, Lane Community 
College, and the largest college in the area, the University of Oregon, which currently serves 
22,760 students (13.3% of Eugene’s total population).71 72 College students are essentially a 
67 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 52.
68 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 55.
69 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 52.
70 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 50.
71 World Population Review. “Eugene, Oregon 2020.”
72 Admissions. “Quack Facts.” UO Facts.
18
captive audience and are generally insensitive to changes in rental pricing. This is evidenced by 
the steady rates of enrollment in the University of Oregon since 2012, in the face of the dramatic 
rent increases in Eugene.73
Sadly, Eugene charges developers enormous DIFs for building new housing in the city. 
The Flats @ Chase, a privately owned development providing housing for students which is 
currently under construction, had to pay 6.6 million dollars in fees to the city on a project valued 
at 18.4 million (the latter number excludes the cost of DIFs). The city effectively raised the cost 
of this project by 35.9 percent.74 The Flats @ Chase contains 85 units total, so Eugene’s DIFs 
have added 77,647.06 dollars per unit to the cost of construction. Though the cost of DIFs vary 
widely from city to city, the standard per unit cost of DIFs for multifamily housing in most 
municipalities averages around 20,000 to 30,000 dollars.75 As of this writing, there is no 
indication that the city is planning on reducing the cost of its onerous fees. On July 1 of this year,
the city is planning to actually raise the Construction Excise Tax (one of the many DIFs imposed
by the city) by 66 percent from its current level.76 Eugene also has a transient room tax, which is 
designed to extract fees from tourists to the city, but also applies to low-income individuals 
living in trailer parks and mobile homes and increases rents in affected areas by 4.5 percent.77
Eugene’s excessive DIFs make it substantially more difficult for private developers to 
build profitable rental properties within the city. When also taking into account the city’s zoning 
regulations which heavily favor low-density development, it becomes extremely difficult to 
expand high-density development anywhere in Eugene. Excessive DIFs and restrictive zoning 
laws have made housing in Eugene artificially scarce, overpriced, considerably sparse, and 
73 Office of the Registrar. “Course Enrollments by Headcount (Fall 1994 - Fall 2017).”
74 Morris, Shayla. “The Flats @ Chase Project Costs.” March 2, 2020.
75 Raetz, Hayley, David Garcia, Nathaniel Decker, Elizabeth Kneebone, Carolina Reid, and Carol Galante. 
“Residential Impact Fees in California.” Terner Center, 7.
76 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 3, 3.732.
77 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. Chapter 3, 3.772.
19
unresponsive to population growth . These conditions have resulted in skyrocketing median rent 
prices which have put a squeeze on low-income renters and lead to increasing rates of 
homelessness for those unable to accommodate the higher cost of living in the city. Though low-
income individuals have suffered the most from the shortage of housing and regressive DIFs, all 
renters in Eugene are adversely impacted by the greater share of their paychecks going towards 
paying for housing.
If high DIFs and restrictive zoning laws have a negative impact on renters and contribute 
to homelessness, it’s fair to ask who benefits from the status quo. The answer is middle to high 
income property owners in the city. This is because high DIFs and housing shortages increase 
property values for homeowners and allow landlords to charge their tenants inflated rental prices.
Building upkeep costs remain fairly steady regardless of rental market forces, so artificially 
inflated rental markets can lead to windfall profits for landlords without additional investments 
to improve the quality of their property. If the laws changed to make it easier to develop more 
housing in the city, then rents would decrease across the board, building upkeep cost would stay 
the same, and landlords would experience smaller profit margins.78 The next section of this 
writing will analyze current government strategies for addressing the homelessness crisis and 
outline other possible solutions to Eugene’s dire housing situation.
78 Huffman et al. "Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" 52.
20
Chapter 3
Affordable Housing?
Expanding affordable housing is frequently discussed as a solution to homelessness 
across the country. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, affordable and public 
housing are two different things. Affordable housing is defined as housing which costs tenants 
no more than 30 percent of their monthly income. These units are privately owned and are 
usually incorporated into a larger apartment complex which contains a majority of units priced at
the market rate. Conversely, public housing is owned by the government, managed by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and exists for the express purpose of providing
homes to low-income individuals.79
The housing initiatives that the Eugene City Government has pursued thus far have 
focused on the expansion of affordable housing opportunities in the city. For example, the city 
has opted to extend modest tax incentives to local developers through measures such as the Low-
income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption. Though this strategy is a step in the right 
direction, the initiative is extremely limited in scope as it applies primarily to property already 
held by non-profit organizations and fails to completely offset the costs of new affordable 
housing construction.80 
However, the city is also in talks to extend tax incentives aimed at private developers 
who designate a portion of their property for affordable housing as part of the High Density 
Residential Downtown Redevelopment Strategy (RDRS).81 These tax incentives are essential to 
maximizing the beneficial impact of additional affordable housing. This is the case because if the
79 Beaver, Alex. “What is the Difference Between Affordable Housing and Public Housing?” Olympia 
Management Inc., 2020.
80 Eugene. “LITE and LIRHPTE” 2014.
81 Eugene City Council. “Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary.” Planning and Development, October 24, 
2016.
21
city were to simply mandate that private developers provide a certain number of affordable units,
the cost of those units would simply be translated onto the rest of the units in the development, 
which could price out middle-income individuals who cannot afford the increased cost but are 
too wealthy to apply for the affordable units. Mandated affordable housing allocation can be 
even more detrimental in developments where units are sold rather than rented. This is because if
a prospective renter is wealthy enough to qualify for a loan to pay for an affordable unit, they are
not poor enough to qualify to buy the unit in the first place. Areas subject to these kinds of laws 
often have so called “affordable” units sitting vacant.82 It is important to mention that the RDRS 
has not yet gone into effect, and the City Council continues to deliberate on the issue. Part of the 
plan involves constructing 1000 new high density homes around the downtown area, an aspect of
the measure that has actually garnered a fair amount of public support.83 
Despite the necessity of this tax incentive for developing profitable, affordable housing, it
has been vehemently opposed by members of the community surveyed by the city council.84 This
is likely the case because such a tax break might be perceived as the City Government giving tax 
dollars to large businesses, which is honestly a fair interpretation. In proportion to its size, 
Eugene lacks a sizable tax base from which to extract funds for public projects, including 
affordable housing initiatives and adequate homeless services. In 2018, Lane County 
commissioned the “Lane County Shelter Feasibility Study,” in order to make recommendations 
on implementing affordable housing and additional shelter space. The study found that the 
poverty rate in Eugene is 44.1 percent higher than the national average, the percent of people 
over 65 is 19.9 percent higher than the national average, the proportion of working age people in 
the labor force is 6.6 percent below the national average, and the proportion of people under 65 
82 Hamilton, Emily. “The year of housing reform.” Vox, The Weeds. February 20, 2020.
83 Eugene City Council. “Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary.”
84 Eugene City Council. “Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary.”
22
on disability assistance is 41.5 percent higher than the national average.85 The report even 
suggested that the city solicit private donations in order to cover the costs of its proposed 
projects.86 These findings indicate that the Eugene government is unequipped to deal with the 
financial burden of providing sufficient social services to address the city’s homeless crisis.
Rezoning and Fee Reduction
In addition to the RDRS, the City Council has also amended parts of the city code in 
order to promote greater urban density. In May of 2017, the minimum density per acre 
requirements for R-2 buildings was changed from 10 to 13. Though this action was a positive 
measure, it’s impact on homelessness and housing affordability will likely be somewhat limited. 
This is because the updated statute does not apply to any lot under 2,780 square feet or any 
exclusively affordable housing development, and R-2 zones inhabit a relatively small portion of 
land in Eugene.87 88 However, the existence of the RDRS and this update to the City Code 
indicate that the City Government has finally begun to realize that promoting greater urban 
density is a promising solution to the city’s housing shortage. The State Government has also 
reflected this perspective in passing House Bill 2001 which allows homeowners to build 
accessory dwellings within single-family residential zones. This bill has the potential to 
substantially increase the supply of housing across the state and will likely have a noticeable 
impact on rental prices in Eugene given the city’s high amounts of R-1 land and large proportion 
of student renters. While this bill has yet to go into effect in Eugene, the City Government will 
be required by law to implement it into the City Code by June 30, 2022.
85 Technical Assistance Collaborative. “Lane County Shelter Feasibility Study.” December 2018, 10-11.
86 Technical Assistance Collaborative. “Lane County Shelter Feasibility Study.” December 2018, 32.
87 Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. January 21, 2020, Chapter 9, Table 9.2750.
88 Eugene. “Eugene Zoning Map.” Planning Division.
23
While these new regulations will hopefully slow the growth of homelessness in Eugene, 
more drastic actions must be taken to reduce the homeless population. The City Council should 
rezone all R-1 residential areas north of East 19th Avenue, west of the UO main campus, south 
of the Willamette River/Division Avenue, and east of River Road/Chambers Street to R-4 
housing. These boundaries were selected due to the area’s proximity to downtown (commercial 
zones), convenient access to public transit, and close proximity to existing R-2, R-3, and R-4 
zones. The space’s closeness to downtown and it’s access to public transit would encourage 
residents in this area to walk, bike, or take the bus to work, thus reducing the need for excessive 
parking infrastructure. The area’s proximity to other higher density zones is important for 
aesthetic reasons, as these new high-density residences would not appear as an island of 
skyscrapers in the midst of a sea of houses, but would be incorporated into the existing urban 
environment. 
This measure would allow for significantly greater urban density in the outlined area, 
dramatically increase the city’s supply of housing, and reduce rents across the city by mitigating 
the current housing shortage. The rent reduction that would accompany an increase in R-4 
housing would ease the financial strain of housing costs on low income individuals and make it 
easier for people who are currently homeless to afford housing. This writing does not 
recommend expanding the UGB however. While it’s possible that such a step would increase the
available supply of housing, there’s no guarantee that newly incorporated lands would be zoned 
for residential development. Additionally, expanding the UGB is a long, arduous, and 
complicated process, involving both local and state agencies. UBGs are typically changed once 
every decade or more, and expanding the UGB raises environmental and agricultural concerns.89 
89 Eugene. “Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).” Planning Division.
24
For rezoning efforts to maximize their positive impact, Eugene must also reduce its 
residential DIFs by eliminating the Construction Excise Tax, Electrical Permit Fee, Mechanical 
Permit Fee, Plumbing Permit Fee, Service or Feeder Permit Fees, Renewable Energy Systems 
Fees, and Zoning Plan Check Fee. Most of these charges scale with the square footage or value 
of the building, so larger construction projects would not have to factor these variable costs into 
their budget. For a building like The Flats @ Chase, eliminating these fees would reduce its 
construction cost by roughly a quarter of a million dollars.90 While this reduction still leaves 
Eugene’s per unit DIFs well above the average, it would not be feasible to slash DIFs by almost 
40 percent given local political opposition to even minor development tax breaks. Ideally, the 
city should cut DIFs to the point where developers are paying per unit fees within the average 
range, but it’s unlikely any City Council Person would endorse such a measure at present. 
However, even limited DIF reductions will help curtail the adverse effects of Eugene’s current 
level of taxation and encourage more developers to pursue projects in the city. 
There’s also the concern that eliminating these DIFs would lead to a reduction in funds 
for the already cash-strapped city. This is hardly an issue, as no new permits for R-4 housing 
have been issued in over a year.91 In fact, reducing barriers to new development and encouraging 
the expansion of R-4 housing would provide residential space for thousands of additional Eugene
residents who would live, work, and pay taxes in the city for years. The only group who would 
be any worse off as a result of an expanded housing supply would be Eugene’s landlords. This 
could be interpreted as one of the plan's advantages as well, because the costs of cheaper housing
would be distributed progressively.
90 Eugene City Council. “Construction and Development Fee Schedule.” July 1, 2019.
91 Eugene. “Building Permit Search Results.” Planning and Development Department.
25
Conclusion
The fact that Eugene has the highest rate of homelessness of any city in the US indicates 
that decisive and substantial action be taken to address this growing problem. While the City 
Government has taken small steps to increase urban density and is talking about further 
subsidizing affordable housing, it continues to raise development impact fees, which have many 
of the same adverse effects as low-density zoning. The City Council can and should be doing 
more to combat the growth of homelessness and end the city’s housing shortage. While Eugene’s
government crawls toward an adequate response to homelessness, thousands of Eugene residents
are left sleeping on sidewalks, under bridges, and in alleys every single night. 
Of course, the entire homelessness issue cannot be laid at the feet of Eugene’s 
government. Homelessness rates are on the rise all up and down the West Coast, and there are a 
myriad of issues intersecting with homelessness, such as drug addiction, mental illness, sexual 
assault, racism, and healthcare, which the Eugene City Council has very limited control over. But
the City council can help people who have become homeless for economic reasons, as instituting
policies which lower rent prices will help get people off the street and improve the financial 
situation of all renters in the city.
It’s crucial that these measures be enacted as soon as humanly possible, because the 
plight of homelessness is about to get much worse. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US 
unemployment rate has hit its highest levels in the history of this country. The US Department of
Labor’s phone lines have been overrun with desperate people trying to collect their 
unemployment benefits. Already, businesses are closing left and right, and entire industries 
might never recover from the economic abyss into which the US has descended. Hundreds, if not
thousands of small businesses have gone under, and former industry giants such as JC Penny 
26
have filed for bankruptcy. The economic situation is so dire that the current Republican 
administration has signed off on direct cash subsidies for almost every adult in the country, an 
unprecedented move. 
Along with the extreme likelihood that there’s an impending explosion of homelessness 
on the horizon, homeless individuals are unable to self isolate and spend their entire life in 
public. For those lucky enough to find shelter space (an increasingly remote possibility in 
Eugene), they are also highly susceptible to infection as many homeless shelters have dozens or 
even hundreds of beds in close proximity to one another with no physical barrier separating one 
person from another. Furthermore, homeless people are unable to afford medical treatment which
a COVID-19 infection might require, so the mortality rates will likely be higher amongst the 
homeless population. Essentially, COVID-19 will have a much greater impact on the homeless 
population and is creating untold numbers of additional homeless people.
Though a certain proportion of homeless individuals will never be able to effectively 
support themselves, people who become homeless for economic reasons are almost always able 
to get off the streets if given an opportunity. This latter section of the homeless population is the 
demographic this writing’s proposal is designed to help, and is also the demographic being put 
on the streets by the economic repercussions of COVID-19. The absolute last thing the Eugene 
City Council should be doing is keeping laws in place which erase opportunities for people 
struggling to find a home.
27
Bibliography
Admissions. “Quack Facts.” UO Facts, https://admissions.uoregon.edu/uo-facts
Anderson, Bryan. “EUGENE APPROVES $1.9 MILLION HOMELESS PLAN.” KEZI, 
October 14, 2019.
Beaver, Alex. “What is the Difference Between Affordable Housing and Public 
Housing?” Olympia Management Inc., 2020, 
https://olympiamanagement.net/2017/08/difference-affordable-housing-public-housing/
Berlin, Gordon and William McAllister. “Homelessness: Why Nothing Has Worked--
And What Will.” The Brookings review 10.4 (1992): 12. ProQuest. Web. 7 Sep. 2018.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Brendan O’Flaherty. How to House the Homeless. New York, 
Russell Sage Foundation, 2010.
Eugene City Council. “Construction and Development Fee Schedule.” July 1, 2019, 
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/46876/Construction-Fee-Schedule-
July-2019
Eugene City Council. “Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary.” Planning and 
Development, October 24, 2016, https://eugene.ompnetwork.org/sessions/998?
embedInPoint=1&embedOutPoint=3906&shareMethod=link.
Eugene City Council. The Eugene Code. January 21, 2020. 
https://eugene.municipal.codes/.
Eugene. “Building Permit Search Results.” Planning and Development Department, 
https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/BuildingPermits/SearchByDateReceived
Eugene. “Community Court.” https://www.eugene-or.gov/3337/Community-Court.
28
Eugene. “Eugene Zoning Map.” Planning Division, 
https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/Maps/ZoningMap.
Eugene. “FY20 Approved Budget for Homelessness and Human Services.” 
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/47934/FY20-Approved-Budget-for-
Homelessness-and-Human-Services.
Eugene. “Growth Management and Population.” 
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3282/Growth-Management-and-Population
Eugene. “LITE and LIRHPTE” 2014, https://www.eugene-or.gov/1401/LITE-LIRHPTE.
Eugene. “Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).” Planning Division. https://www.eugene-
or.gov/2988/Urban-Growth-Boundary
Glynn, Chris, and Emily B. Fox. "Dynamics of Homelessness in Urban America." Annals
Of Applied Statistics 13.1 (2019): 573-605. Web.
Hamilton, Emily. “The year of housing reform.” Vox, The Weeds. February 20, 2020, 
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/67498767.
Henry, Megan, Rian Watt, Anna Mahathey, Jillian Ouellette, and Aubrey Sitler. The 
2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: Office of Community Planning and Development, 
2019.
Hanratty, Maria. "Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area 
Housing Market Factors, Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates." 
Housing Policy Debate 27.4 (2017): 640-55. Web.
29
Huffman, Forrest E., Arthur C. Nelson, Marc T. Smith, and Michael A. Stegman. "Who 
Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?" Journal of the American Planning 
Association 54.1 (1988): 49-55. Web
Isaak, Corinne A., Kristin Reynolds, Jitender Sareen, and Jino Distasio. "The 
Entrepreneurship of Survival among Urban Adults Experiencing Homelessness and 
Mental Illness." Journal of Community Psychology 47.6 (2019): 1548-562. Web.
Jacoby, Kenny. “Criminalizing Homelessness: Data show the unhoused are 
disproportionately ticketed in Eugene.” Eugene Weekly, June 1, 2017.
Johnson, Timothy P., and Michael Fendrich. "Homelessness and Drug Use." American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine 32, no. 6 (2007): S211-218.
Lane County Human Services. “Lane County 2019 Unsheltered Point in Time Count 
Summary.” May, 2019, 
https://lanecounty.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3585797/File/HSD/PIT%20Count
%20Summary%202019.pdf
Lawhon, Larry Lloyd. “THE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND 
GROWTH ON THE PRICE OF HOUSING IN HIGH GROWTH COLORADO 
COMMUNITIES: A COMPARISON OF TWO CITIES.” Journal of Architectural and 
Planning Research, vol. 21, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–9. JSTOR, 
www.jstor.org/stable/43031055. Accessed 2 Mar. 2020.
Linton, Sabriya L, David D Celentano, Gregory D Kirk, and Shruti H Mehta. "The 
Longitudinal Association between Homelessness, Injection Drug Use, and Injection-
related Risk Behavior among Persons with a History of Injection Drug Use in Baltimore, 
MD." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 132, no. 3 (2013): 457-65.
30
Morris, Shayla. “The Flats @ Chase Project Costs.” March 2, 2020.
Pirtle, David, James Greene, and Kathy Siebert. “Why Some Homeless Choose The 
Streets Over Shelters.” NPR, (December 6, 2012).
Office of the Registrar. “Course Enrollments by Headcount (Fall 1994 - Fall 2017).” 
https://registrar.uoregon.edu/statistics/headcount
Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time 
Estimates of Homelessness in Oregon. 2017.
Oregon. Housing Community Services Department, Issuing Body. Point-in-time 
Estimates of Homelessness in Oregon. 2019.
O'Keefe, Katherine B. "Protecting the Homeless under Vulnerable Victim Sentencing 
Guidelines: An Alternative to Inclusion in Hate Crime Laws." William and Mary Law 
Review 52, no. 1 (2010): 301.
Raetz, Hayley, David Garcia, Nathaniel Decker, Elizabeth Kneebone, Carolina Reid, and 
Carol Galante. “Residential Impact Fees in California.” Terner Center, 
http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Residential_Impact_Fees_in_California_August
_2019.pdf
Rhoden, Nancy K. "The Limits of Liberty: Deinstitutionalization, Homelessness, and 
Libertarian Theory. (Symposium: Law and Psychiatry, Part II)." Emory Law Journal 31, 
no. 2 (1982): 375-440.
Stuart, Forrest. “From ’Rabble Management’ to ’Recovery Management’: Policing 
Homelessness in Marginal Urban Space.” Urban Studies, vol. 51, no. 9, July 2014, pp. 
1909–1925, doi:10.1177/0042098013499798.
31
Technical Assistance Collaborative. “Lane County Shelter Feasibility Study.” December 
2018, https://lanecounty.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3585797/File/HSD/Lane
%20County%20Final%20Report_1.14.19.pdf
Triplett, William. "Ending Homelessness." CQ Researcher, 18 June 2004.
World Population Review. “Eugene, Oregon 2020.” 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/eugene-population/
World Population Review. “Lane County Population 2020.” 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/or/lane-county-population/
World Population Review. “Oregon Population 2020.” 
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/oregon-population/
Zillow. Zillow Rent Index. 2020. https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
32