Cristal Otero's Questionnaire Answers

Running for Portland City Council District 3

This candidate has not yet been rated by our members.

Question 1: In your view, what are the primary causes of the housing crisis?

Housing costs have outpaced wages for years, and Portland has not built or preserved enough homes that working people can afford.

But this is not just a supply problem. Housing has become a financial asset, and speculation, corporate ownership, rent increases, and displacement all push costs higher.

Renters carry most of that risk. A rent increase, added fees, or an eviction can destabilize a household almost overnight.

We need more housing, especially deeply affordable housing, but we also need stronger tenant protections, more rent assistance, and more permanently affordable options such as community land trusts and limited-equity cooperatives.

Question 2: What are the main policies that you would champion to address the current housing crisis?

I would start with a simple principle: Portland should make it easier to stay in your home and harder to be priced out of your neighborhood.

That means stronger tenant protections, more rent assistance, and preserving the lower-cost housing we already have. Preventing displacement has to be treated as housing policy, not just crisis response.

I also want Portland to build a much larger permanently affordable housing sector. That includes community land trusts, limited-equity cooperatives, and using public land for housing that stays affordable over generations instead of eventually returning to the speculative market.

At the same time, we need to make it easier to build more housing across the city. I support faster permitting and removing unnecessary barriers, but I do not think supply alone will solve an affordability problem.

My goal is a housing system where renters have more security, working people have realistic paths to ownership, and public investment creates affordability that lasts.

Question 3: Provide an explanation of your work around the policies listed above, and why you believe they are important?

My housing priorities come directly from my work. I spent years in direct service, including permanent supportive housing and recuperative care, working with people who had experienced homelessness, serious mental illness, addiction, and other barriers to housing.

At Multnomah County, I have worked on Supportive Housing Services, rent assistance, permanent supportive housing, and coordination across departments and housing partners. I have seen how quickly people can lose housing, how difficult it is to regain it once they do, and how much better the system works when we intervene before a household reaches that point.

That is why I put so much emphasis on preventing displacement and preserving affordability. Rent assistance and tenant protections help people stay housed now. Community land trusts, limited-equity cooperatives, and other permanently affordable models address the longer-term problem by keeping public investment affordable instead of allowing those homes to eventually return to the speculative market.

I also believe we have to build more housing. But after working in this system, I do not believe we can build our way out of the crisis without also addressing who can afford that housing, who gets displaced, and who benefits from public investment.

Question 4: Do you rent or own your residence?

Own

Question 5: If you own, when were you last a renter?

2022

Question 6: In PTU’s most recent survey of tenants, harassment of tenants by landlords was one of the top issues faced by Portland tenants. What would you do to address harassment of tenants by landlords?

I would support a clear anti-harassment ordinance with real enforcement and meaningful penalties.

Tenants should not be pushed out through intimidation, repeated unwanted entry, threats, deliberate neglect of repairs, removal of services, or false claims about their rights. When those tactics are used to force someone from their home, the City should treat that as displacement—not just a private dispute.

I would also look at making Portland's rental registration system carry real consequences for repeat offenders. Other cities license rental properties and can deny, suspend, or revoke licenses when landlords repeatedly violate housing laws. I would work with the City Attorney to determine how Portland could do the same, including restricting a landlord's ability to register additional properties after serious or repeated violations.

That system should be designed so the consequence falls on the landlord, not the tenants. We should not protect renters from harassment by creating a process that forces them out of their homes.

Right now, tenants are too often expected to know the law, document everything, find an attorney, and enforce their rights on their own. If the City creates tenant protections, it should also make sure tenants can actually use them.

Question 7: If elected, would you advocate to overturn the State of Oregon's preemption preventing municipalities from implementing local rent control, and work towards local rent control with a lower annual increase cap?

Yes

Question 8: Please share more about your thoughts on rent control.

I support rent stabilization. A tenant should not be forced to move simply because their rent can rise faster than their income.

But rent control is only one tool. I also support creating a meaningful renters’ tax credit at the state level. Homeowners receive substantial public support through the tax code, while renters—who are often paying a larger share of their income for housing—receive far less. A refundable renters’ credit could put money directly back into renters’ pockets and help households stay housed.

I would pair that with a stronger statewide limit on rent increases and more authority for cities to respond to their own housing markets. Portland should have more tools to protect tenants than state law currently allows.

We also need to build more housing, particularly permanently affordable housing. I do not see these policies as competing with each other. We can increase supply, limit destabilizing rent increases, and directly reduce housing costs for renters at the same time.

The question I keep coming back to is simple: can the people who live here afford to stay here? Our housing policy should be judged by that.

Question 9: If elected, would you support the right of tenants to collectively bargain their leases?

Yes

Question 10: Please share more about your thoughts on tenants' right to collectively bargain.

I support tenants’ right to collectively bargain.

We call a lease a contract, but for most renters there is very little negotiation involved. The landlord sets the rent, fees, rules, and lease terms, and an individual tenant can usually accept them or move. Collective bargaining gives tenants another option.

Tenant unions should be able to negotiate over rent increases, fees, repairs, building conditions, services, and other terms of tenancy. That is especially important when dozens or hundreds of tenants are dealing with the same corporate owner or property manager.

For collective bargaining to mean anything, tenants also need protection from retaliation and a process that requires landlords to recognize and bargain with an organized group of tenants. Otherwise, we are protecting the right to organize without giving tenants any leverage once they do.

I see this as a basic question of power. Property owners already organize, hire attorneys, lobby government, and negotiate collectively through industry associations. Renters should be able to organize around their shared economic interests too.

Question 11: Other local tenant groups have launched a Renter’s Bill of Rights campaign. Have you pledged to support the Renter’s Bill of Rights?

Yes

Question 12: Please share more about your thoughts on Renter’s Bill of Rights. What are two or three policies that you are particularly passionate about?

I support the Renter’s Bill of Rights. The pieces I am most passionate about are the ones that give renters meaningful leverage, not just rights on paper.

First, tenants facing eviction should have a right to legal representation. Losing your home can have enormous consequences, yet tenants often enter eviction court without an attorney while landlords have experienced representation. That imbalance matters.

Second, landlords should not be able to raise the rent while serious code violations remain unresolved. If someone is paying rent, they have a right to a safe and habitable home. I would pair that with stronger enforcement so tenants are not left to chase repairs on their own.

Third, I support overturning Oregon’s prohibition on local rent control so Portland can set stronger protections when local conditions warrant them. I also support a refundable renters’ tax credit at the state level, because limiting future increases does not help enough with rents that are already unaffordable.

For me, the common thread is enforceability. A renter’s right is not very meaningful if exercising it requires money, a lawyer, or months of fighting with a landlord.

Question 13: How would you ensure that policies and processes which affect tenants meaningfully include impacted renters, and reflect the diversity of the tenants affected?

I would involve renters before a policy is mostly written, not after the major decisions have already been made.

Tenant unions should have a formal role in shaping policies that affect renters. They organize people around shared housing conditions, hear patterns that individual complaints can miss, and can bring renters into the process who might never show up at a City Hall hearing.

I would also make sure that process includes culturally specific organizations, disability advocates, immigrant and refugee communities, low-income renters, and people who have recently experienced eviction or housing instability.

Participation also has to be practical. That means paid participation, interpretation and translation, accessible meeting formats, childcare, and both in-person and online options.

Most importantly, the City should show what it heard and what changed as a result. I do not want renters brought in simply to validate a decision that has already been made.

Question 14: Would you refuse or return campaign contributions from Multifamily NW's Equitable Housing PAC, The Good Landlord PAC, More Housing Now! PAC, or similar real estate industry PACs?

Yes

Question 15: Are there other ways, besides those you have already mentioned, that you will champion housing affordability, expand tenant rights, and fight displacement?

Yes. I want Portland to put much more emphasis on housing for people at 0–30% of area median income, because that is where the market fails most completely and where displacement risk is highest.

That means using public land, housing bonds, and other subsidies to create deeply affordable housing rather than relying primarily on projects aimed at moderate-income households. I also support expanding permanent supportive housing and rental assistance for people with extremely low incomes who cannot afford even “affordable” rents without ongoing subsidy.

I am especially interested in limited-equity cooperatives, community land trusts, and other models that can keep housing permanently affordable for very low-income residents instead of allowing public investment to disappear when a property is later sold.

I would also support acquisition funds that allow the City, nonprofit housing providers, and tenant groups to purchase existing lower-cost apartment buildings before they are lost to speculation or redevelopment.

If we are serious about preventing displacement, we have to focus resources on the people with the least financial cushion. For households at 0–30% of area median income, even a relatively small rent increase can mean losing their home.