Eugene’s housing crisis isn’t abstract. It’s measurable – in rising rents, dwindling vacancies and the growing number of people who can’t afford to live in the community they serve. But too often, our political response remains symbolic: well-meaning rhetoric paired with procedural hesitation.

Over the past year, the Eugene City Council has faced key decisions on housing that align with the city’s own stated goals: infill near transit, density in job-rich areas and incentives to unlock private development where costs are otherwise prohibitive. Yet again and again, progress stalls – not just because of overt opposition, but from what Tobias Peter and Major Ethan Frizzell at the AEI Housing Center call “policy-induced underbuilding.”

Their recent report, Displacement by Design, outlines how exclusionary zoning, misaligned incentives and discretionary review processes create systemic barriers to housing – especially for working- and middle-class residents.

The Station House development is a recent case in point. This six-story project in the Market District would deliver 124 homes, ground-floor retail and structured parking. To pencil out, it needed a 10-year tax exemption under Oregon’s Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption program. The Council approved it 6 – 2 – but not without resistance. Objections ranged from obstructed views and bird migration to budget impacts and aesthetic concerns.

These may seem like small details. But they add up. And they reveal a deeper contradiction: We say housing is a human right, but balk when projects generate profit. As Bloomberg CityLab has observed, even in progressive cities, support for housing often crumbles when market-rate developers are involved – what some researchers call a deep suspicion of market-rate development. That dynamic can stall needed construction, even when the goals of equity and inclusion are widely shared.

If we’re serious about solutions, we have to treat homebuilding as a civic good—not just when it’s subsidized, but when it’s functional. That means calling out obstruction when it happens and asking an even harder question: Who’s left to build?

No new housing has broken ground in downtown Eugene without MUPTE or a similar incentive since at least two decades. The program, enabled under Oregon law, provides targeted tax relief to help projects overcome feasibility barriers in high-cost urban areas. Supporters of Station House emphasized the long-term benefit: The property currently generates around $58,500 in annual taxes, which will continue through 2036. After that, the city estimates it will bring in more than $1.1 million annually. As Councilor Mike Clark put it: “It’s a simple choice.” Without the exemption, the project doesn’t get built.

And without projects, Eugene’s housing goals remain aspirational.

We also need to stop treating obstruction as accidental. When councilors block housing over vibes or views, that’s a political choice – with consequences. And it should come with accountability. As Peter and Frizzell argue, our housing crisis stems from exclusionary zoning, regulatory barriers and policy-induced underbuilding—not individual failure.

But obstruction is only half the story. The other half is absence – not just of land or capital, but of builders.

Greg Brokaw, a local architect, recently told me that two centrally located parcels are coming on the market. It’s unclear whether even one developer will step up. Market-rate housing is extremely difficult to finance under current conditions – high interest rates, rising costs and scarce labor. And there simply aren’t enough experienced developers to take on these projects.

This goes beyond zoning. It’s cultural. We’ve become a society of talkers, not builders. As Brokaw put it, “We are becoming digital warriors instead of down-to-earth doers.”

Meanwhile, the cost of inaction grows. As of this spring, average rent in Eugene has climbed to $1,832 – a 4.5% increase over the past year. One-bedroom apartments now range from $1,200 to $1,500 a month, pricing out many low- and middle-income residents. That’s not just a data point. It’s a barrier to stability for thousands of households.

So yes, we need clearer rules, faster permitting, and fairer taxes. But we also need to re-legitimize development itself—as a civic act, not a private indulgence. And we should look to creative models like “Homesteading 2.0,” which aim to revive small-scale infill through access to capital, reduced red tape and targeted subsidies for first-time homebuilders.

We might also learn something from cities unlike our own. Houston’s not a blueprint for Eugene. But it proves what’s possible when cities prioritize supply. That’s worth learning from, even if we wouldn’t raise our kids next to a vape shop and a tire fire.

And we need to name names.

When housing gets blocked, who blocked it? When we say we need more homes, who’s actually building them?

Until we answer both, we’re not solving the crisis.

If we believe housing is a human right, then building homes must be treated as a public good, even when the private sector is part of the solution.

Not in theory. Right here. Right now.

Joshua Purvis is a writer and nonprofit professional in Eugene. He serves on the city’s Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Review Panel and the board of the Southeast Neighbors Association.

Joshua Purvis is a civic strategist in Eugene. He is co-chair of the city of Eugene’s MUPTE Review Panel and co-chair of the Southeast Neighbors Association.