of Portland neighborhoods, creating upward pressure on rents and property values. As a result, there has been changes in the demographic and economic profile of residents, leading to voluntary and involuntary displacement of low-income population and community-serving small businesses (Bates, 2013). Thus, the people who were living there were displaced by other newcomers. Though the private and public developments in Portland, through renovations and upgrades of facilities, are aimed at improving the quality of life for the residents, the vulnerable groups become the victims. This is because the increased attractiveness and conduciveness of the areas led to a high demand for facilities. With the increased demands, homeowners and developers are forced to raise their costs and prices due to the higher offers they receive from high-income populations, who want to take advantage of the attractiveness of the areas to establish the business as well as residents in the regions (Bates, 2013). On the other hand, vulnerable groups like the low-income and minority are forced to move out in search of places where rent and costs of housing are lower. In Portland, Oregon, 70.5% of the residents are non-Hispanic white, 5.8% black, 8.1% Asian, and 9.7% Hispanic, showing the vulnerability of the population to displacement (Li, 2020). As noted by Ghaffari et al. (2018), after gentrification, when a household moves out of a place voluntarily, the units they occupy are renovated and changed to make them more valuable and attract higher prices. This makes it challenging for a similar household in terms of economic status to occupy, leading to the displacement of such a low-income population in the region. Moreover, those owning small businesses cannot continue operating them due to stiff competition from the larger enterprises established by high-income people that can offer quality products and services at a lower income than the small business. In addition, due to the enticing and attractive prices of the properties in the area, low-income populations owning lands are prompted to sell them at higher prices to buy cheaper ones in other places where they settle. According to the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (2023), in 2022, 77, 400 people from Oregonians moved to different places states, with the Portland area accounting for 9,300 households that moved to the north of Washington, where 30% of these households were migrants. Moreover, another 5,500 households moved to Clark County, 5900 south of California, and later, the households from Portland started to move to Arizona, Texas, New York, Colorado, Utah, Florida, Idaho, and Illinois, which have become their major destinations (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, 2023). The data paints a picture of the number of households moving out of Oregon to other places, which can be attributed to some forces that drive them out. As highlighted by Li (2020), Portland is the biggest city in Oregon, with a population of 654, 741 according to the 2019 census. Thus with 77, 400 people from the region to other places shows that gentrification is a significant problem. Causes or Factors Leading to The Problems             One of the factors attributed to gentrification in Portland, Oregon, is tree planting. According to the findings of a study by Donovan et al. (2021), tree planting by the non-profit organization Friends of Trees was linked with gentrification at the census tract level. Their study indicated that the average size of planting was 27.7, which contributed to the increase in median home sales price of 1.2%, with the largest trees planted by the Friends of Trees, leading to a $ 24, 434 median sales price increase (Donovan et al. 2021). As such, an increase in the median sales prices for the homes due to the planting of trees and existing tree cover is caused by the increased neighborhood desirability. Moreover, the findings of the study by Donovan et al. (2021) are consistent with other studies that show that trees are associated with higher sales and rental prices for single-family homes in Portland and other places. Li (2020p17) indicates that "On average, the values of properties located on streets with street tree plantings would be $6309 more expensive". This supports the assertion that tree planting led to an increase in the prices of housing. Hence, the increased prices of houses and the costs of renting make them unaffordable for the low-income population in the city (Li, 2020). The victims are forced to locate other places where they can afford, and their houses are allocated to higher-income people who can afford the rent. Besides, increasing the prices of homes in the regions makes them affordable only to people of higher economic and social class with the financial strength to buy them. The effects of these developments are that new trees make the areas desirable and attract the higher classes of people in the society, displacing the low-income earner, as housing costs in the regions become unbearable to them, pushing them away. The issue continues to persist, as noted by Donovan et al. (2021), as the newly planted trees age and grow, making the neighborhoods more desirable, increasing the housing costs and rent, and displacing more people from low income. The other factor contributing to gentrification in Portland, Oregon, is the increased costs of houses and rents. As indicated by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (2023), in 2022, more than 15, 500, or 50% of Portland households moved to places like Arizona, Washington, Texas, and New York. In these areas, the housing costs are lower than in Portland, where the average value is $ 200, 000 which is 36% lower than the area they moved from (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, 2023). The other 17% of the households, or 5, 200 that moved from Portland, moved to Clark County, where the values of homes are within 10% of the Portland. These statistics show that the rents and housing costs in the region are unbearable for the low-income population, forcing them to move out to other areas, where the prices are lower and they can afford. Since their houses are rented to other people with financial muscles, the low-income population from the Portland area is replaced by the high-income class who can afford to pay the high rent costs as well as buy the costly homes. Cultrera et al. (2020) argue that after renovations and upgrades, affordable houses are replaced with expensive ones, affecting the financial landscape and social fabric of the areas. This has been the case with Portland, where increased prices of houses and rent costs have impacted the people from low-income areas as life has become unbearable to them, "Home prices rose dramatically in Albina, and the rest of Portland and 10,000 out of 38,000 African Americans living in Portland had to move to the fringes of the city" (Kolmes (2022p7). Another aspect contributing to these rising prices is the improved attractiveness that pressures homeowners to renovate their homes and houses to compete with other players in the sector who have already changed their homes (Cultrera et al., 2020). They succumb to the pressure in the market, as the homeowners want their houses to be competitive and sell like others. Hence, the low-income owners occupying them are forced to vacate to allow for their innovations. However, after the changes, the prices become too high for them to return to their previous houses, forcing them to move out and relocate to other regions that are cheaper. Consequently, their houses are replaced with higher-income people who can afford the high rents charged. Jaquiss (2022) traces the issue of gentrification in Portland, Oregon, to between 1960 and 1980, when the city of Portland and the state bought 1,000 houses in the Albina district and demolished them to pave the way for developments. Most of these houses were owned by black people who were displaced from the area. Memorial Coliseum, Legacy Emmanuel Hospital, and Portland Public Schools were some of the facilities constructed in the neighborhood (Jaquiss, 2022). The businesses owned by the black people and other social amenities were eliminated from the region, though there were critics that the victims were under-compensated. However, the bone of contention is the costs Portland has been incurring to address the gentrification and displacement that breached the historically white neighborhoods to white. This is an implication that poor planning by the city and state governments contributed to the issue, where their strategy to improve the facilities and infrastructure in the regions disadvantaged the minority people, making them dislocate to other places. As pointed out by Kolmes (2022), the 1994 Portland Community and Neighborhood Planning Program was aimed at addressing the inequalities from the 1980s comprehensive plan in the city, but its implications accelerated the gentrification and displacement of the African-American population from the region (Kolmes, 2022). The changes that took place in Portland made it more attractive, with global admiration. Since there was no solid urban planning, the local people in the area bore the consequences, as they were forced to locate other places and were displaced by others. As such, poor planning and policies in Portland disadvantaged the minority people as they were not well protected from the dominance of the majority population that is economically stable who used their financial muscles to displace them in their neighborhood, which became too expensive for them. For example, the banks' lending practice in the 1980s discouraged homeowners in the North and inner Northeast of Portland from renovating their homes (Steve, 2014). This created room for the private developers who were attracted to the area, contributing to the phase-out of the local people due to the economic tide that followed. Alternative Policy Solutions and Their Feasibility From the analysis of gentrification and displacement issues in Portland, Oregon, one of the contributing factors to the issues is the high costs of housing (Kolmes, 2022). Moreover, all the other factors that contributed to the problem made housing in the region unaffordable, forcing people to relocate to other areas, and the houses they occupied were allocated to different classes of people from higher incomes. Thus, one of the solutions to mitigate gentrification is the development and implementation of policies that set the maximum amount of rent that should be charged in some of the areas in Portland city, with others remaining unregulated. This policy will help protect households from low income from being displaced by higher incomes due to inflated housing costs that make them unaffordable. As noted by Molloy (2020), rent control is an effective method to enhance the affordability of rental housing. As such, the policy will prevent the developers and homeowners from renovating and changing the status of homes in the region to increase costs. Thus, with the policies, the homeowners can still change their houses, but the rent they charge is regulated. This will make them renovate and upgrade the homes in certain zoned areas to levels that meet and suit the standards of the people, without overcharging them. The policy will be effective in that with controlled and lower housing costs, many people in the city will be able to continue living there, as well as attract low income populations from other regions in the city (Molloy, 2020). However, to ensure the place is balanced, some areas should be exempted from the policies to allow the homeowners and developers to renovate the houses and let the market forces determine the prices. This solution is feasible and can be adopted to prevent further gentrification by protecting the areas occupied by low-income populations. It will prevent the homeowners in their areas from renovating their houses with the intention of raising their costs to displace those who cannot afford them. Furthermore, the policies will protect these vulnerable populations from forceful evictions and being forced to sell their properties (Molloy, 2020). In this case, the policies will tighten the procedures and processes of buying properties in the areas occupied by low-income populations to discourage private developers from investing in their areas. Moreover, the policies will not affect the areas occupied by a higher-income population, whose pricing will be determined by the force of demand. However, implementing this solution will require multiple government-level approvals and participation since the various levels of government are involved in developing and implementing housing policies in the country (Hoffman et al., 2020). This solution will be effective in protecting and safeguarding the interests of all the people in the state. Furthermore, due to the transformation and change in the economic status of Portland, Oregon, the prices of houses have increased, discouraging low-income people from other regions from moving into the city as they cannot afford (Donovan et al. 2021). Thus, in addressing this issue, which has contributed to gentrification and displacement, the state government of Oregon should invest in affordable housing programs. Through this program, the state government should buy land in various parts of Portland city, and construct affordable houses that low-income people can afford to rent since the amount charged will lower. Through this approach, many people from other regions will manage to seek employment opportunities in Portland and settle there since houses will be affordable, which is one of the issues. According to Zheng et al. (2020), migration plays a critical role in economic development; however, housing conditions due to low-income migrants discourage people from moving into new areas. Thus, affordable housing has been one of the strategies employed by various governments to address the issue of high rental costs and house prices (Zheng et al., 2020). The move makes the houses in the city affordable to low-income people, encouraging them to move to the area and creating a balance of low-income and higher-income populations. This aspect makes the solution feasible and possible and is not hard to implement. This solution will require multilevel government approval and participation as they will be involved in its implementation through resource mobilization and implementation. Additionally, in the affordable housing solution, the Oregon state government should be involved in constructing houses for sale with key considerations of the vulnerable groups. In this approach, the government should develop housing facilities whose prices are subsidized for vulnerable groups (Reid et al., 2020). Besides, in supporting these groups, the government should enable the vulnerable groups to access low-interest or interest-free housing with better terms to enable them to access and fund their housing. This solution will make it easier for more low-income people to move into the areas. The solution will require multiple government-level approvals and participation. However, with the good and dedication it is an easier solution to adopt, and they are possible to resolve the gentrification problem. In achieving this objective, the government can reduce taxes and subsidize the costs of construction materials in the state to decrease the costs of building houses, leading to lower prices. As noted by Reid et al. (2020), escalating costs of construction materials have made it challenging for the government to implement affordable housing. In this effort, all the levels of government and the stakeholders in real estate should collaborate to make the solution work. They should sign an agreement on the maximum prices they should attach to their houses, as well as the costs of construction materials the business should sell to make homes affordable and address gentrification in the region. As noted by Bates (2013), public agencies should develop the capacity of both the residents and developers to take part in inclusive and equitable developments. This can be achieved by involving all the stakeholders in developing the solution and ensuring that the needs of all the parties are considered for their satisfaction. For example, involving the developers in deliberation on the subsidies needed for the houses to become affordable will make them support the government's agenda to address the housing issues to resolve gentrification in Portland city. Evidence of The Effectiveness of Policies Used to Address the Problem As one of the areas in Portland affected by gentrification, Albina has benefited from the affordable housing strategy employed that involves building new subsidized apartments, where preference is given to families that were displaced while other families are helped to buy homes and return to their old neighborhood (Jaquiss, 2022). This affordable housing program is sponsored by Albina Vision Trust, partnering with POIC and RAHS, at a total development cost of $ 49.1 million (Metro, 2023). Besides, the sources of funding include Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), Metro Affordable Housing Bond, Metro Transit-Oriented Development funds, Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Weatherization, permanent loan, SDC waiver, CET exemption, contributed developer fees, donation of land (Metro, 2023). The main objective of this affordable is to counter intentional displacements of black people through urban renewal, freeway sitting, and long-term gentrification. Through this affordable housing program, houses constructed are a mixture of one, two, and three bedroom units to serve the people in the city. Though there have been critics of this strategy, many people have benefited from the solution. According to Jaquiss (2022), 94 families have bought homes through the program, while 4,00 families moved back to rent the new, city-subsidized apartment in Albina. The data shows that many families have benefited from the program, as they have purchased the houses and others rented, preventing them from being displaced by other groups. This shows the effectiveness of the Albina affordable housing program in addressing gentrification, as it enables the people to continue living in the neighborhood despite its change in economic status. As Zheng et al. (2020) indicate, housing is one of the factors that prevent people from migrating into an area, as they fear becoming homeless and being exposed to other issues. Thus, addressing this through the development of affordable housing has seen many people take the opportunity to buy houses and rent the affordable apartments constructed. Moreover, as indicated by Jaquiss (2022), 3, 782 people have applied for the 400 rental slots available in the affordable apartments. Hence, the statistics are evident enough that the affordable housing program in Albina has been effective in resolving the issue of gentrification in the region. Notably, there is a higher demand for these affordable houses than there is supply, indicating that many stakeholders should join the move to help build many affordable homes to address the problem. The solution will help many people from the lower classes settle and start various economic activities to sustain them. Potential Obstacles to Solving Gentrification The first obstacle to addressing gentrification is the unplanned growth of the city, which is represented by an imbalance of physical growth, where some parts of the city fail to move with the others in terms of development (Thompson & Willis, 2020). This makes it challenging to address the issue, as the people from the areas experiencing high growth rates are affected and displaced due to the changes in the economic status, creating a vicious cycle of problems that is challenging to address. For example, the stakeholders involved address the issue of affordable houses in one part of the city, the demand issue develops in another area due to imbalance growth and development, and the problem continues persisting in such a manner. Secondly, the capitalistic nature of the society prioritizes the free market and puts less emphasis on the social interventions aimed at protecting people and land from exploitation (Thurber et al., 2019). Thus, the actions of the people in the society are aimed at increasing their profit without caring about their implications on the low-income and middle classes, who are the majority. Hence, their action will result in hiked prices and increased costs of life in the affected city, leading to the displacement of the people who cannot afford to stay there. Thirdly, with the population growth and migration of the people to the urban areas, such as Portland, Oregon, more pressure is put on the social amenities and houses, increasing their demand. As a result, the prices and costs will always rise in response to the demand (Thompson & Willis, 2020). Thus, some people will be displaced in areas where prices are not regulated, leading to gentrification. Recommendation for A Specific Course of Action to Remedy From the analysis, poverty significantly contributes to the issue of gentrification as the vulnerable population cannot keep up with the elevated costs and standard of life in Portland, Oregon, due to improved economic status in the neighborhoods. Thus, a specific course of action needed to remedy the problem is economic empowerment of the vulnerable population, specifically the minorities who are the victims. After the transformation of the city, the economic aspects made the people relocate to other areas as they could not afford the lifestyle in the area. Due to the low incomes that cannot sustain them in the areas, they are forced to move to other regions voluntarily when their incomes can sustain them. Moreover, their minority status makes them more vulnerable in terms of being taken advantage of by high-income people; for example, homeowners are enticed with more money to sell their properties. Due to their inferiority complex, they give in and sell their properties to buy cheaper ones in other less developed places. However, with economic empowerment, the local people's level of income will increase. The people will be empowered with resources and supported to start businesses and other revenue-generating activities to sustain them in the region. With economic empowerment, the people can afford to pay the increased rents charged in the areas. In addition, others will manage to afford to buy the homes as their revenue-generating activities thrive. Additionally, those with an inferiority complex will be empowered more, such that they cannot give in easily to sell their properties even if offered more value, since they will be made to understand the economic potential of the areas, which can make their properties attract more value. Also, with economic empowerment, such people cannot be forcefully evicted easily as they will have the financial muscle to seek justice to defend their rights. Conclusion The analysis shows a direct relationship between gentrification and displacement, as the latter results from the implications of gentrification. In Portland, Oregon, gentrification has been a great issue attributed to various factors that made the neighborhoods more attractive and desirable for investment and living by people with high incomes. As a result, the prices of houses have increased, contributing to the displacement of people who cannot afford them, leading to gentrification. Some alternative solutions that can address the problem include implementing policies that set the maximum amount of rent that should be charged in some of the areas in Portland city, affordable housing programs, and reducing the taxes and subsidizing the costs of construction materials in the state. The affordable housing program is one intervention in addressing the problem that has been effective in Albina, where many households have benefited. However, population growth, urban migration, the capitalist nature of the society and unplanned urban growth are some obstacles in addressing gentrification. Economic empowerment of the local people is one of the actions that should be taken to address the problem and caution people against disruptions due to development and changes in the city's economic status.     References Bates, Lisa K., (2013). "Gentrification and Displacement Study: Implementing an Equitable Inclusive Development Strategy in the Context of Gentrification". Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations https://www.portland.gov/bps/planning/adap/gentrification-and-displacement-studies Cultrera, L., Byrd, R., & Derrick, M. (2020). Voices of cully: Experiencing the home amid gentrification. http://dspace.calstate.edu/handle/10211.3/216931 Donovan, G. H., Prestemon, J. P., Butry, D. T., Kaminski, A. R., & Monleon, V. J. (2021). The politics of urban trees: Tree planting is associated with gentrification in Portland, Oregon. Forest policy and economics, 124, 102387.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102387 Ghaffari, L., Klein, J. L., & Angulo Baudin, W. (2018). Toward a socially acceptable gentrification: A review of strategies and practices against displacement. Geography Compass, 12(2), e12355. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12355 Hoffman, J. S., Shandas, V., & Pendleton, N. (2020). The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: a study of 108 US urban areas. Climate, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012 Jaquiss, N. (2022, May 25). The City of Portland Tried to Undo Gentrification. Black Portlanders Are Conflicted About the Results. Willamette Week. https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/05/25/the-city-of-portland-tried-to-undo-gentrification-black-portlanders-are-conflicted-about-the-results/ Kolmes, S. A. (2022). Intended and Unintended Consequences of Two Paradigms of Urban Planning, and Their Social Justice and Human Health Impacts, in Portland, Oregon. Environments, 9(10), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9100130 Li, L. (2020). The Effect of Urban Tree Planting on Residential Property Values and Gentrification (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). https://www.liqing-li.com/publication/NYCtree.pdf Metro (2023). Albina One N Broadway -Portland -Albina Vision Trust -POIC + RAHS. (n.d.). https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/2023/10/31/affordable-housing-bond-project-summary-Albina-One-20231031.pdf Molloy, R. (2020). The effect of housing supply regulation on housing affordability: A review. Regional science and urban economics, 80(C), 1-5. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Overview-Talk-Panel-5.pdf Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (2023, December 7). Where Did People Leaving Portland Go?  https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2023/12/07/where-did-people-leaving-portland-go/#:~:text=Households%20take%20into%20consideration%20things Reid, C., Napolitano, A., & Stambuk-Torres, B. E. A. T. R. I. Z. (2020). The costs of affordable housing production: Insights from California’s 9% low-income housing tax credit program. Berkeley, CA: Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275118318407 Shaw, K. (2008). Gentrification: What it is, why it is, and what can be done about it. Geography Compass, 2(5), 1697-1728 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00156.x Steve Suo (2014, August 24). Roots of gentrification: Key moments in North and NE Portland’s transformation during the past 24 years. Oregon live. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2014/08/roots_of_gentrification_key_mo.html Thompson, S., & Willis, K. (2020). Gentrification and Its Implication in the United States. Urban and Regional Planning and Development: 20th Century Forms and 21st Century Transformations, 337-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31776-8_21 Thurber, A., Krings, A., Martinez, L. S., & Ohmer, M. (2019). Resisting gentrification: The theoretical and practice contributions of social work. Journal of Social Work, 21(1), 146801731986150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017319861500 Zheng, S., Song, Z., & Sun, W. (2020). Do affordable housing programs facilitate migrants' social integration in Chinese cities? Cities, 96, 102449.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102449