The bill adds up to a common-sense approach to helping more Oregonians live their American dreams.
Duplexes, triplexes and quads were legal and common, across Oregon and elsewhere, until cities started banning them from most residential land in the mid-1900s.
These neighborhood-specific bans on mid-size homes have worsened Oregon’s long-term shortage of workforce housing, driving up home costs and forcing many families to choose between two extremes: a detached home with a lawn—which often has to be far from work and amenities in order to find cheap land—or a small apartment in a commercial area.
READ MORE: 19 Questions That 2019 Will Answer about Cascadian Housing Reform
Oregon began the process of reversing these bans in 1973. Senate Bill 100, which created Oregon’s land-use boundaries, also required cities to allow more attached housing.
But simply allowing apartments in commercial areas doesn’t serve many Oregon households. And it doesn’t actually create mixed-income neighborhoods.
“Working families are just struggling to find an affordable place to live,” said Shannon Vilhauer, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Oregon, referring to the statewide housing situation, especially outside the Portland metro area. “Very few new units are being built overall. Typically the ones being built have a huge square footage.”
“I’m a real estate broker, have been for 20 years,” said Tom Anderson, a city council member in Tigard who last November backed a local reform that essentially legalizes duplexes and corner-lot quads citywide. “Who’s the missing middle? It’s your teacher at your kids’ grade school who can’t afford a house in Bull Mountain. Or firefighters or cops who have been on the job for 10 years and just got married.”
All this is why the speaker of Oregon’s House of Representatives, Tina Kotek, has proposed a logical next step: removing local bans on duplexes, triplexes and quads, while letting local governments continue to make decisions about the size and design of buildings in low-density zones.
READ MORE: Proposed bill would rein in potential lawsuits and bring more home ownership options to Washington
The text of Kotek’s bill, H.B. 2001, went public Wednesday night, along with other bills proposed for this year’s legislative session.
Here are the highlights:
- It defines “middle housing” as a duplex, triplex, quad or cottage cluster.
- It requires all Oregon cities with populations over 10,000, and counties with populations over 15,000, to allow these options somewhere in all their low-density urban zones, but gives them the power to set “reasonable” local rules. (For example, a city could say that a new duplex must have the same maximum size as a one-unit building.)
- It doesn’t require quads or triplexes to be legal on every lot. For example, a city might say quads are only allowed on corner lots, or only on lots of at least 10,000 square feet. It does, however, require that every residential lot allow at least a duplex or cottage cluster, and it requires that every option be legal on at least some lots within a given zone.
- It gives local governments state money to do the necessary planning, and also directs the state to write a model code that automatically takes effect if cities can’t come up with a local alternative by the end of 2020.
- It strikes down local laws that block tenants from living in either the main or accessory homes if there is an accessory home on site.
- It removes parking quotas for accessory homes statewide (while continuing to allow on-site parking if people want it).
- It reduces interest payments to banks and investors by requiring cities to collect impact fees on middle housing only when a building actually becomes habitable, rather than before construction begins.
There’s a lot here, but it adds up to a common-sense approach to helping more Oregonians live their American dreams. It lowers the bar to homeownership, it makes neighborhoods more renter-friendly, it gives more Oregonians the ability to prioritize the location of their home over its size, and it chips away at the invisible walls that separate our communities by wealth and income.
There’ll be plenty of debate about this bill; neither Anderson or Vilhauer, speaking earlier this week, were willing to endorse it sight unseen. But now that we’ve seen the text, most Oregonians should find a lot to cheer for.
Fran Slaggle - SE Portland
How does the bill lower the bar to homeownership? Will it allow for dividing multi-unit dwellings so units can be sold individually?
Michael Andersen
Exactly – any independently enclosed dwelling can be sold as a condo.
aliciav
But if it is sold as tandem home or condo, there are potential disagreements about who pays for maintenance and who manages it. Defining home ownership in a new way that entails more fees for management and legal counsel to establish rules, etc.
Nicole
Im confused about this only happening in urban growth areas. I am currently one address away from that area. Will this make it to where i can build townhomes on my property?
Michael Andersen
Not until/unless your property is brought within an urban growth boundary.
Spert Berling
What is the purpose of restricting this to cities with populations over 10,000, and counties with populations over 15,000. If this legislation makes sense for bigger cities, then why not apply it everywhere? Afterall, smaller cities may one day be larger cities and don’t we want them to avoid the same issues Oregon is dealing with in larger cities?
Michael Andersen
For sure – though my understanding is that when cities and counties do cross that population threshold, it would trigger this requirement. I think the idea of the population cutoff is that it’s harder for the smallest jurisdictions to scrape enough person-hours together to do the necessary planning and zoning work. However, this was the No. 1 concern raised by Vilhauer, the executive director of Habitat for Humanity Oregon: it leaves out too many small, relatively remote towns that she said are also desperately in need of more housing.
Bob
It is probably tied to Comprehensive Plan periodic review, which is required for cities over 10,000.
Steven Steele
Any news on the legislation ?
Michael Andersen
Yep – it’s had a couple work sessions and some amendments that channel higher unit-count mandates toward larger cities and clarify that cities can’t use theoretical fourplexes as an excuse to never expand their urban boundaries. And I believe they’ve clarified that the text means “duplexes and/or townhomes on every lot; triplexes, quads and cottage clusters somewhere in the zone.” A few other changes. Still in committee.
Tom Armstrong
Where in the bill does it require that every option be legal on at least some lots within a given zone? My read is it only requires duplexes everywhere.
The real win could be the building code changes. Right now 4-plexes have to be built to the commercial building code – more expensive than the residential code.
Michael Andersen
Yeah, I saw the same ambiguity and came to the same conclusion as you based on the bill text. My summary of the content above is based on my conversations with Kotek’s office about their intent; if there is this ambiguity (and I agree that there is) then I think they’re likely to amend it. Meanwhile, I’ll attempt to find some further documentation of their intent.
Agreed that the building code changes are also a big deal. I didn’t mention them above because the list was getting long and I couldn’t figure out how to concisely summarize them. Got a whole big post coming out on this subject next month.
Paul T CONTE
Welcome to the Soviet Union!
This is an idiotic bill, which will exacerbate the loss of existing, lower-cost housing and work _against_ transit-oriented development, and addressing climate change.
It won’t touch any of the single-family areas that are covered by CC&Rs, but instead destabilize close-in, older, compact neighborhoods. Every developer of a new subdivision records CC&Rs and will continue to do so to provide protection to prospective buyers against this kind of devaluing their investment.
Incentives for medium- and High-Density apartments on modern transit corridors is the intelligent approach.
This is just a bumper-sticker zealot’s “feel good” measure.
Michael Andersen
I agree that private covenants (aka CC&Rs) that forbid people in a certain area (generally a rich/exclusive one) to take advantage of the zoning of their property are a potentially risky loophole here. At the moment, however, I’m told by several people that these aren’t in widespread use in Oregon. (If this is inaccurate, I’d love to know.) My understanding is that even most HOAs in subdivisions, with or without a restrictive covenant, lapse after their initial term.
In Metro Portland, we already subsidize some transit-oriented development along the corridors. (And honestly, further subsidizing this while leaving the places elites live untouched would if anything strike me as slightly more Soviet, not less…)
As for transit, one of the major obstacles to improving transit in Oregon is the percentage of neighborhoods that are so low-density that they can’t support buses of any frequency.
Generally speaking, though, I think this bill is mostly about what the *next* generation of Oregon homes will look like. Right now, with so much of our cities zoned for one unit only, it’s essentially inevitable that existing homes will be replaced with significantly larger, more expensive ones. This bill is unlikely to trigger sudden change in neighborhoods (though the most currently exclusive cities could probably write their laws so it would if they wanted to – I just don’t expect they will). But eventually, most homes will be knocked down for one reason or another, and this bill would let some of them be replaced by multiple small homes rather than huge ones when that happens.
Paul T CONTE
Let me establish as the basis for my comments that l led a neighborhood-resident-driven public process that developed a proposal for a new, “special area zone” in Eugene that applies to an older, close-in neighborhood that is almost fully built out, but which has opportunities for additional dwellings.
Based on the functional recommendations coming out of this public process, I (not planning staff) wrote the zoning code for the “Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone” (S-JW). This zone already conforms to SB 1051 requirements for fully “clear and objective housing approval criteria” and ADU requirements, as well as HB 2001 “Middle Housing” requirements. The zone allows:
* All housing forms, including:
— Single-family (attached or detached)
— ADUs (attached or detached) — without any owner-occupancy requirement
— Triplexes
— Fourplexes
— Townhouses/rowhouses
— Cottage clusters
— Multi-family apartments
* “Medium” density (effectively, 15 to 19 dwellings per net acre)
* Small lots (2,250 s.f.)
* Creation of new, small lots that are accessible only from an alley (the only zone that allows these in Eugene)
* Significant reduction in on-site parking requirements
This zone was unanimously recommended by all of the following (in time sequence):
* Jefferson Westside Neighbors membership
* Multi-family Development Committee of the ICS Task Team (see next)
* Neighborhood and development representatives on the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Force, which was established by the Eugene City Council
* Eugene Planning Commission
At the EPC and City Council hearing, the proposed zone was supported by the Home Builders of Lane County.
Ultimately, it was approved unanimously by the Eugene City Council — who (I am not making this up) stood up and applauded the neighborhood folks who accomplished this. There was no appeal and has been acknowledged by DLCD.
For our work, our neighborhood was selected as a finalist for the “Neighborhood of the Year” by the Neighorhoods USA organization.
You can read about the S-JW Zone here:
Trust the Neighbors – Residential Zoning
The foundation of the S-JW comprised faithful pursuit of Statewide Planning Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement; evidence-based decision making; and a “social learning”-based public process.
Paul T CONTE
Now for further comment …
Regarding your related comments:
* “further subsidizing this while leaving the places elites live untouched would if anything strike me as slightly more Soviet, not less” and
* “one of the major obstacles to improving transit in Oregon is the percentage of neighborhoods that are so low-density that they can’t support buses of any frequency”
The first has no justification other than to punish “elites” which is, frankly, more like the way a “Trumpist” would think. What social good will “punishing” elites accomplish? Create a disincentive to other members of society from becoming “elites,” whatever that means? And, just who earns your scorn as an “elite”? A working family that owns a $230,00 single-family home on a 6,000 s.f. lot? Who pays for subsidies for transit-oriented development? And, for that matter, do residents who own one of the million-dollar condos on a Max line also deserve scorn as “elites.”
I hope you get my point that evidence-free “elitism” is dysfunctional. Yet, that’s actually what seems to power so many of the zealots who are attacking homeowners in single-family neighborhoods.
So let’s try to keep to arguments that rest on evidence and rational analysis, remembering that “facts always trump [ugh!] speculation.”
The fact is that only densities well above what can be accomplished by opening SF neighborhoods to “Middle Housing” (“MH”) can support transit that gets people out of their cars and reduces average Vehicle Miles Travelled (“VMT”). Our neighborhood is immediately adjacent to a “rapid transit” route on W. 6th and 7th Aves. in Eugene, 10 minutes from downtown. This couplet is a 3 or 4-lane in each direction major transportation corridor that is developed mainly as low-rise commercial and 2-story, low-rent apartments. If the funds were available, this area could support enough high-density housing to accomodate all of the forecasted increase in Eugene’s population, and our neighborhood supports subsidized housing in the area (as well as other areas).
So, if you just have to “stick it to the man” (i.e., your “elites”), then tax them enough to subdize high-density (re)development on this corridor and solve the problem while you do it.
* * * * *
Regarding CC&Rs: (a) You lack any evidence, but specutalate. Typical. (b) You’re wrong as far as Eugene, where we’ve identified many CC&Rs among old and new subdivisions. Shouldn’t proponents of HB 2001 be able to provide the data?
* * * * *
You speculate: “it’s essentially inevitable that existing homes will be replaced with significantly larger, more expensive ones” and “eventually, most homes will be knocked down for one reason or another.”
Where is the slightest shred of evidence for this ridiculous claim? I live in a relatively small, 1929 “working family” home. My neighborhood is mostly 1920s-30s vintage. I grew up in Virginia where neighborhoods from pre-bellum days through the early 1900s are healthy and vibrant.
This ridiculous claim was a glaring “tell” that you are just making it up as you go. Try some serious research and public engagement for a change!
Michael Andersen
Paul, you’re reading a lot of hostility into my one use of the word “elite.” My point is only that nobody should expect to live in a neighborhood that doesn’t change, especially to the extent that its failure to change is damaging the lives of others. That’s not about punishment.
Thanks for the information about CC&Rs. Like I said, I think it’s a valid criticism of the bill.
I find your argument that most homes will remain standing … forever … to be as confusing as you seem to find my claim that most homes will eventually be knocked down. In any case, the reason old homes tend to get replaced by bigger ones is that it isn’t profitable to knock down a livable structure unless you’re creating a bunch of new value on site. Unless we allow more homes on a site, the only way to create new value on a site with an old one-unit building is with a larger one-unit building. So over the long run (assuming a growing economy) one-unit zoning is a one-way street toward exclusion.
Sounds as if that neighborhood zoning plan you worked on in Eugene came up with some pretty good outcomes!
Paul Conte
@Michael
It’s hard not to read hostility into “while leaving the places elites live untouched would if anything strike me as slightly more Soviet, not less.” This is especially the case since you’ve repeatedly dismissed good folks as “NIMBYs” an the kind of canard that we might expect from “Trumpist’s,” not folks who care about community.
Re how long homes stand. The evidence is simply there to see. Obviously, there are cases otherwise. I don’t argue for immutable one-unit-per-very-large-lot as “immutable.” I do argue for respecting the covenants of zoning that do not abridge civil rights. I also argue for working in neighborhoods to see the opportunties of beneficial change. My neighborhood was almost lost from the out movement of post-1950’s families and disinvestment. Those of us who bought trashed rentals because it was all we could afford saw that the neighborhood need a way to maintain “on-ramps” for younger households and “landing pads” for older households. We also saw the need for medium and high-density housing, including subsidized, in the right locations. We are still working on some very ideal locations in the neighborhood to get the city to work with us to increase density on a publicly-owned site and help one of the “affordable housing” organizations build “family-friendly, multiple-generation” housing. The people who are making all this happen are mainly owner-occupants of modest housing, that may, in fact, be the only dwelling on thelr modest-sized lot. There is absolutely no need or ethical right to force the provisions of HB 2001 on these folks.
Michael Andersen
Thanks, Paul. Obviously we disagree, but I appreciate the chance to talk about all this. And I apologize for any implication of a desire for punishment. That isn’t my motivation or intent.
One last question for you: What is it about this proposal, to allow modest population growth and diversity of housing types in desirable neighborhoods, that reminds you of the time your neighborhood was “almost lost” to the depopulation and abandonment triggered by suburban flight? Obviously, both of these scenarios would increase the chance of relatively lower-income people and tenants living near you at some point. But that’s not the proposal here, and you say you don’t have a problem with mixing incomes … so what’s the connection?
Paul Conte
@Michael
“What is it about this proposal, to allow modest population growth and diversity of housing types in desirable neighborhoods, that reminds you of the time your neighborhood was “almost lost” to the depopulation and abandonment triggered by suburban flight?”
Good question.
I hope all reading this will not ignore the fact that I support all forms of housing and occupancy with the qualifiers being:
a) The resulting development is ethical
b) Decisions are based on substantial evidence
c) The resulting development does no significant harm (*)
d) The immediately impacted community is legitimately empowered in decisions (not necessarily making the final decisions or having veto power)
e) And, ideally, the resulting development provides significant benefit for the immediately impacted neighborhood, the larger community and/or some large scope.
(*) In exceptional circumstances an essential “good” may require some level of “harm” to some people. The extreme example is soldiers dying for a just defense of many human lives, and where there is no better alternative. “Housing affordability” does not come close to this threshhold because there are many, many ways to address it more effectively; for example through subsidized housing. “Climate change” certainly meets the threshold of a serious emergency that must be addressed. But, not only are there better alternatives than HB 2001, HB 2001 would actually make matters worse.
The provisions of HB 2001 that would cause absolute “harm” include:
i) Prohibiting requirements for off-site parking for ADUs
ii) Allowing an applicant to recover attorney’s fees
iii) Requiring/pushing for more dwellings across all “single-family” neighborhoods — except existing and new subdivisions with CC&Rs
(i) Unless only occupants who don’t own cars can live in an ADU, the car has to be stored somewhere. That means impacting the on-street parking that may be necessary in older neighborhoods where there isn’t always on-site parking for the current residents.
(ii) Just like “SLAPPs” (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), allowing only the applicant to recover attorney fees will a) Provide a huge disincentive for cities to deny non-conforming applications, and b) shut down any appeals, no matter how valid, by ordinary individuals because even a slight risk of being on-the-hook for huge attorney fees would prevent such appeals. Note that LUBA already can award attorney fees for “meritless” appeals, so the system has protection against abuse.
(iii) Dispersing dwellings will:
— create a higher volume of VMT than would requiring/pushing for more dwellings on good transit routes, thus worsening the impact on climate; and
— will likely lead to a replacing existing dwellings that are somewhat “affordable” with more expensive dwellings; and
— will worsen the inequitability of housing because wealthier households will be able to chose where they live, including in areas where CC&Rs prohibit ADUs and Middle Housing,
The provisions of HB 2001 that would potentially cause harm include:
v) Requiring that at least a duplex be allowed on every lot.
vi) Potential interpretations of what are “reasonable” regulations could have significant negative impacts
vii) Disallowing an owner-occupancy requirement for ADUs could have significant negative impacts
All of these could destabilize some older areas without CC&Rs. Note that in the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone that residents developed, we very carefully crafted criteria for density, lot size, number of dwellings, scale and massing, parking, etc. to allow maximal flexibility while preventing significant negatie impacts on existing property owners and residents.
We don’t have an owner-occupancy requirement, but in areas right around UO, this is an essential requirement to maintain a healthy ballance of owners and renters in the older single-family neighborhoods. (My neighborhood doesn’t have the same economic pressure to displace owner residents.) Just as my neighborhood is better because we have more than half of the dwellins available for renters, we’re also better and more resilient because we have people who have lived in the homes they own for many years.
Finally, HB 2001 is a radical violation of Statewide Planning Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement. Tom McCall would be turning over in his grave. The reason Goal 1 was the very first goal was because the underlying principle is that you can trust Oregon citizens to do the right thing if provided the opportunity and resources. Tina Kotek and her fellow zealots don’t trust me or my neighbors — or anyone but themselves to do the right thing and do it effectively.
Obviously, it’s appropriate for the Federal government to, for example, enforce fair housing laws and other laws to protect the inalienable rights of citizens. But HB 2001 is not at all at that level. Instead it embodies a principle that “we know best” how to dictate residential development to accomplish what “we have determined are the right goals.”
What’s doubly egregious is that HB 2001 is so wrong-headed anyway, not refelecting any evidence — just the kind of “feel good” slogans (like “Missing Middle Housing” when “missing” is not generally true, and pushing MMH in establish, but non-transit-oriented neighborhoods is not necessarily a good idea.
The Legislature should shelve HB 2001 and work on incentives for developing dwellings and mixed-use along well-served transit corridors. Then we could have an intelligent discussion about how best to accomplish that.
Nicole
Im confused about this only happening in urban growth areas. I am currently one address away from that area. Will this make it to where i can build townhomes on my property?
Paul T CONTE
Let’s get the facts straight. Below are the claims above, and the truth:
*It doesn’t require quads or triplexes to be legal on every lot. For example, a city might say quads are only allowed on corner lots, or only on lots of at least 10,000 square feet. It does, however, require that every residential lot allow at least a duplex or cottage cluster, and it requires that every option be legal on at least some lots within a given zone.
HB2001 does not speak to these claims at all. In Eugene, scumbag developers have appealed both the “on every lot” and the “reasonable” regulations. As far as I know, these issues are unresolved.
* It gives local governments state money to do the necessary planning, and also directs the state to write a model code that automatically takes effect if cities can’t come up with a local alternative by the end of 2020.
I may have missed this, but I read HB2001 to authorize funds only to DLCD, which is one of the great flaws.
* It strikes down local laws that block tenants from living in either the main or accessory homes if there is an accessory home on site.
HB2001 is actually much more radical. It bars _any_ owner occupancy requirement. Eugene’s code for ADUs in single-family zoning requires only that an owner occupy the primary dwelling OR the ADU. Answer me this Tina — what does is the “accessory” relationship of an ADU, if not the owner resides in one of the dwellings? In Eugene, we would call that “two-family zoning.” (Not to say there’s anything wrong with some zones allowing 2 dwellings on a standard lot — I live in one such zone. But let’s be forthright. An “ADU” shouldn’t be the “stealth” way to upzone “single-family” zones to “two-family zones.”
— Paul
Michael Andersen
Thanks, Paul. I agree the facts are worth getting straight.
To your first point: the appeal you’re referring to applies to ADUs legalized under SB 1051 a couple years ago, not this bill. 1051 calls for “at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling.” This bill doesn’t use the same language.
To your second point: You’re right. Kotek’s “outline” summary and bill text seem to differ on this point. I’ve asked them to clarify.
To your third point: The accessory relationship is that an ADU is smaller. In zones that currently allow duplexes, we don’t forbid tenants from living in both homes. Why would we discriminate against tenants on ADU lots, except on the basis of a desire to minimize the number of tenants in a given area? I don’t personally think treating tenants and homeowners equally under the zoning law (the zoning law!) is a radical proposition. (This matters, by the way, because who would build an ADU and allow it to be home to a long-term tenant if, in so doing, they were forfeiting their right to rent out their own home at some future point? An anti-tenancy requirement significantly reduces the usefulness of an ADU to both the homeowner and the regional housing market.)
Paul T CONTE
First point: HB 2001 requires: “the development of at least one middle housing type on each lot, subject to reasonable local regulations related to siting and design.”
Typical of Kotek’s incompetent writing of statute, this is ambiguous. Take a simple case, if code allowed one SF dwelling on “tiny” lots of, say 2,000 s.f., could a “siting regulation” require a lot to be at least 3,000 s.f. to have an ADU?
If the law would mean “yes,” then “Bye-bye” allowing small lots with minimal setbacks.
Third point: Your explanation would mean, of course, that all ADUs would have to be smaller than the “primary” dwelling, which is of course, neither in the statute or functional. “Smaller” in no way implies “accessory.” Take a minute to check your dictionary.
You entirely miscast the role of an ADU. The starting point is that it is valid to have zoning that is intended for one household per lot. Some SF zones were revised to allow a “granny flat” for related family members, caretakers, etc. who were “accessory” to the primary household. Other zones were provided for “two family residences” — that was the “R-2” zone that Eugene added in 1938, and which was the initial zone for where I live.
HB 2001 is an unethical expansion of SB 1051 in its imposition that forces single-family zones to become “two-family zones” with out any involvement of community members. You need to learn about more about the ethics of upzoning. Please read: Zoning and the Neighborhood Commons
Michael Andersen
Paul, I fail to see an analogy between the introductory example in “Zoning and the Neighborhood Commons” (a marble grinding business setting up in the middle of a residential neighborhood) and this situation (two to four households sharing a lot in a residential neighborhood).
I also don’t see how a proposed action in the state legislature is something happening “without any involvement of community members.”
Paul Conte
I’m glad that you read the article. I don’t think a single planner in Eugene has stopped for a minute to consider the ethical issue of imposing an impactful change in zoning without the consent of the affected property owners. This is not a one-sided issue, obviously. But it warrants serious consideration.
The passage you question isn’t central to the main point. It was merely a true and extreme example to make the final point in the paragraph:
” Consider this example, which is a true story from Houston. In a quiet residential neighborhood, a new neighbor moves in and promptly opens a loud marble-grinding business in his backyard. This forces neighbors to contemplate either expensive (and probably only partly effective) sound-proofing of their homes, or moving out. As a long-time neighborhood resident put it: “He’s cutting and grinding and polishing all day. It’s nuts.”[85] Most people would feel the long-time resident has a legitimate grievance, and that merely compensating him for any decreased market value of his home is not an adequate remedy. Clearly one’s home is more than a monetary investment.
Here is the “core” of the essay:
“Neighborhoods are not just made up of individual parcels, but include collective resources comprising a neighborhood commons,[91] and the property rights of an urban neighborhood dweller typically consist both in specified rights in an individual dwelling and inchoate rights in a neighborhood commons. This commons consists of open-access (but use-restricted) communally-owned property, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, playgrounds, and libraries. It also includes restricted-access but communally-owned property, such as public schools, public recreational facilities, and public transportation facilities.
“It further includes privately-owned “quasi-commons” to which the public generally is granted access, but with privately-imposed restrictions as to use, cost, and duration. These generally include restaurants, nightspots, theaters, groceries, and retail establishments. It will include (risking the appearance of an oxymoron) “private commons,” like churches, temples, private schools, political organizations, clubs, and fraternal and civic organizations. These are essentially private associations, but are characterized by some substantial degree of open access to members of the community. Finally, the neighborhood commons will include other intangible qualities such as neighborhood ambiance, aesthetics, the physical environment (including air quality and noise), and relative degrees of anonymity or neighborliness.
These features together make up the “character” of a neighborhood. They are what give the neighborhood its distinctive flavor. A purchaser of residential property in an urban neighborhood buys not only a particular parcel of real estate, but also a share in the neighborhood commons. Typically, differences in the neighborhood commons may be as crucial to a decision to purchase as differences in individual parcels.”
As I’ve not only said, but actually “walked the talk,” any particular form and other attributes of residential development may be beneficial when appropriately sited and well-designed. But simply imposing that all of the “middle housing” forms be allowed everywhere is on the face of it absurd. (We native gardners say that “a weed is just a flower in the wrong place.” Some of my favorite native plants in our yard are actually “weeds” to other folks.)
Also, as I think anyone would agree, we can rule out exclusions based on race, culture, etc. However, as the fact that CC&Rs are legal makes clear, there is no recognized violation of constitutional, civil or human rights in established zoning districts retaining limits on the housing forms to one dwelling per lot. In addition, there is no prohibition against allowing which ever forms are legal and conform to federal and state policies (including meeting projected housing “need” for projected population increases) and appropriate in new zoning districts. Finally, there is no prohibition on the state or jurisdiction imposing a minimum density on new zoning districts.
Thus, the State and local jurisdictions have plenty of options for addressing resource-efficient growth and housing affordability without upzoning single-family neighborhoods without their consent. Thus, there is no ethical justification to upzone these neighborhoods.
There are examples where such action is justified; for example, in locating a fire station that is essential to public safety. No such case has been made for forced upzoning single-family districts. In fact, the evidence suggests that such action would do more social harm than good, unless it were carefully constrained to areas well-served by adequate public transit and where development exploiting the upzoning was required to produce housing that was “affordable” by some reasonable metric.
Eben Fodor
This is a way to put tiny, but expensive apartments into single-family neighborhoods. Why would that make sense? These tiny units will cost much more on a square foot basis, and many be far too small for most people who might want a bit of storage space. If we’re really talking about more-affordable “workforce” housing as Sightline claims, then the most economical and cost-effective housing is conventional apartments in two to five-story buildings, and condos in similar configurations. Townhouses are also very cost-effective. All of these conventional types are currently allowed and could be utilized to a much larger extent in most cities.
All the estimates I have seen show middle housing in established neighborhoods being more expensive than the existing housing they replace. Why is the Legislature wasting our time on this BAAD bill? (Build Anything Anywhere Development)
Michael Andersen
Prosperous parts of Oregon face a choice between gradually replacing their one-unit buildings from the early to mid 20th century with nothing except McMansions, or making it legal for some of them to be replaced by multiple smaller, cheaper homes instead.
Like the article says: this would allow more people to prioritize home location over home size, if and only if they want to. If nobody wants to live in them, then they won’t get built. Problem solved.
Paul T CONTE
You’ve reduced this to an absurd, and unsupported outcome. I’ve lived in the reality of what HB 2001 leads to and it’s 3-story triplexes in the backyards of low-end SF dwellings, looming five feet from the neighboring households small back yard. Result? Economically mobile households move out; the block becomes destabilized and the pressure on outer development increases.
You can hypothesize all you want. Come to my neighborhood and see how well your theories hold up.
Guy vernon
Micheal thank you for putting some of your life energy into a much needed project . It’s seems you have good understanding of the problem and have given some very helpful comments. These and other changes need to be made as soon as possible. I would suggest all cites and counties of any size should be required to make these changes . When the state made similar requirements for ADUs they gave the local government a template to follow so there is very little cost involved if you follow their template ( which was very well written). There seems to be a stigma against renters . Renters are almost fifty percent of our population,is it even reasonable not to allow them the opportunity to live in the same neighborhoods as owners ? If this is not discrimination/segregation I am not sure what is . Most of our zoning/Development codes are out dated and need to be overhauled to reflect the needs of the way citizens live today ( which is much different than when these codes were written). Keep up the good work and thank you again. People are always opposed to change even if it is in their best interest. You never know when you may become a renter .
Paul T CONTE
@Guy Vernon
“When the state made similar requirements for ADUs they gave the local government a template to follow so there is very little cost involved if you follow their template ( which was very well written). ”
You are being sarcastic, aren’t you? DLCD’s “ADU Guidelines” were an extreme overreach purporting to reflect SB 1051. They didn’t provide a shred of advice on addressing the ethics and effects of a substantial change in the wide variety of SF neighborhoods with many different contextual factors that must be considered.
Kurt Chiapuzio
Great idea, thinking a corner lot would cost 250,000. Putting on a cluster of small homes will bring the costs way down and provide much needed middle housing.
Paul T CONTE
@Kurt Chiapuzio
” a corner lot would cost 250,000. Putting on a cluster of small homes will bring the costs way down”
Your assumption is way off from reality. Go talk to any builder, and see if “cottage clusters” pencil out to affordable housing. I love them, and my neighborhood supports them, but the ones that get built are expensive, “boutique” alternatives for young, well-off singles and “DINKs.”
Fred T.
Paul, I don’t know where you live, but I’m seeing plenty of affordable, sensitive infill housing in various towns in Oregon. I’m not a fan of tiny houses in the current sense as they are usually too expensive, to limited, and unfriendly to families or even to couples, but the mid-size (500 sf – 1200 sf) houses that I’ve seen added to existing single family lots can be very affordable and are nothing but a benefit to the neighborhoods and towns that they are being built in. Single family houses on 6,000 sf to 8,000 sf lots are expensive dinosaurs for city governments as they are expensive to provide services to, in most cases costing more to service than the property tax revenue they generate.
I agree with Eben Fodor in the sense that densification through apartment building is extremely important. But I’m not seeing it succeed at creating middle/lower income housing except where large subsidies are being applied, and at the edges of cities where land is less expensive. Once land costs push the apartment rate above a certain threshold, it almost has to become high-end housing to pencil out, absent any external subsidies. So affordable housing is pushed to the fringes, and those who have the least means end up with the longest commutes.
I’m currently designing two small infill projects in two different towns in Oregon. In both cases, the density increase actually improves the livability of both the existing and the new unit. Since there is no land cost is involved other that permits and fees, it can be considerably more affordable than it would be otherwise.
Paul, your long history of opposing density increases and transit improvements in existing neighborhoods is well known. I don’t understand or agree with the logic you present, but I respect it as your opinion. I would hope that you would be able to do the same for the rest of us.
Paul Conte
@Fred T.
Like Eben, I always identify myself and own my comments. Since you feel free to misrepresent my track record, I’d request you let us know who you are and what evidence you can share to support your characterization of my ” long history of opposing density increases and transit improvements in existing neighborhoods” — which is in fact patently false.
“I agree with Eben Fodor in the sense that densification through apartment building is extremely important. But I’m not seeing it succeed at creating middle/lower income housing except where large subsidies are being applied, and at the edges of cities where land is less expensive. Once land costs push the apartment rate above a certain threshold, it almost has to become high-end housing to pencil out, absent any external subsidies. So affordable housing is pushed to the fringes, and those who have the least means end up with the longest commutes.”
You are wrong again. In fact, in Eugene, there are several very nice subsidized apartments close in and which are a positive contribution to the neighborhoods. Get out sometime and look around, as I have done with various folks involved in providing subsidized housing.
Anyone with a whiff of planning competence (which is lacking in Eugene’s closeted planners) would understand that the W. 6th/7th Aves. EmX couplet is exactly ripe for “MUPTE” tax breaks for workforce housing. That seems to escaped your analysis, as well.
My actual history is one of working to create _evidence-based_ projects and policies that support efficient use of resources and strong communities. I wonder if you could match it?
Paul Conte
If you care to understand a different, respectful, ethical and effective approach to guiding a neighborhoods evolution to allowing more homes (including all forms), please watch this 14-minute video:
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4,a>
You will also get an opportunity to meet a couple of the “elite” residents who own and live in very modest single-family homes.
I’m happy to answer any questions.
Paul Conte
Oops! I garbled the link tag. Here is the URL:
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4
And (hopefully) as a correct link:
<a href="https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4"https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4
Paul Conte
Corrected link:
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4
Paul Conte
Correct URL:
https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/2011-national-neighborhood-of-the-year-jwn-suna-wun.mp4
Paul Conte
A few questions about the legislative intent of HB 2001.
HB 2001, like SB 1051, is incompetently written. In fact they’re both bad jokes because neither one meets the standard for “clear and objective” standards that are imposed on local jurisdictions. (And believe me, I’m a fan of C&O standards because in Eugene, the planners, hearings officials and planning commissioners stretch any discretionary language to the extreme to approve developers’ applications.)
I’d like to know if you can share any well-supported explanation of the following elements of HB 2001:
* SECTION 2. (1)(a) “Cottage clusters” means groupings of no fewer than four detached housing units per acre with a footprint of less than 900 square feet each and that include a common courtyard.
>> Units per acre is a measure of density, not a count of units. Does this provision set minimum number of units as 4? Does it set minimum density as 4 units/acre? What comprises a “common couryard”; e.g., do all units have to face the courtyard?
And here’s the “tell” that someone who didn’t even understand “cottage clusers” wrote this cr*p: Two of the best examples of “courtyard clusters,” right in my neighborhood have a few structures that comprise two side-by-side cottages.
* Where are the definitions of “duplex,” “triplex,” and “fourplex.” You can’t just rely on “attached,” because that is also not clear and objective. In practice, these are significant terms that need to be defined.
* How is an “area zoned for detached single-family dwellings” defined? The proper term of art is “district,” but that’s not the issue. It’s the application of “for” that is ambiguous. In Eugene Code, each class of zoning and each specific zone has a “purpose” statement. For example, Eugene Code has five “residential zones” and this class, as well as each zone, has a purpose. Only one zoning district (“R-1 Low-Density Residential Zone”) is actually zoned “for” detached single-family dwellings, i.e., “The R-1 zone is designed for one-family dwellings with some allowance for other types of dwellings.” The other residential zones, as well as agricultural, commercial and special-area zones, allow detached single-family dwellings. So … do the dictates of HB 2001 apply to (e.g.) agricultural and commercial zones? What about zones e.g., 3 of Eugene’s commercial zones) that allow detached single-family dwellings, but not “by right”?
* How is allowing “the development of at least one middle housing type on each lot” to be applied?
>> What if a jurisdiction has been “ahead of the curve” and allows “tiny lots” for a single dwelling — are these also now required to allow at least a duplex? Is it allowed that a “reasonable” siting regulation can prohibit any dwelling on some lots, e.g., lots without vehicle access, lots that are below a certain size, lots in a landslide area, etc.? (There are also potentially some gnarly issues with the language for ADUs in SB 1051, but that’s too complex to unwind here.)
* How is “subject to reasonable local regulations related to siting and design” to be intrepreted?
>> Can a “reasonable” regulation override one of the other provisions, especially when public safety may be the basis? Can a minimum lot size be a “reasonable” siting regulation? If so, how does the statute intend to determine the limit (i.e. how large would the minimum lot size have to be before it was “unreasonable”)? Can a maximum density be reasonable? If so, can the number of bedrooms be a factor in calculating “effective density”? How is “reasonableness” to be adjudged for mac building heights, setback and setto requirements, “open space” requirements, vehicle use area maximums, parking space minimums, etc., etc., etc.?
* What the heck is intended by this grammatical mélange: “A city or county may not by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or detached single-family housing, multifamily housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manufactured
homes”? There’s no clarity in the stream of conjunctions and disjunctions (and’s/or’s).
* “An applicant whose proposal to develop middle housing under this section is denied is entitled to attorney fees if the applicant is the prevailing party on an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.”
>> Who would pay such award for fees — only the “Respodent” or also “Intervenors for Respodent”? Why is the “trigger” “is the prevailing party”? An applicant can “prevail” by a LUBA remand decision that (e.g.) requires the City to adopt missing findings. On remand, the City can supply those findings and again deny the application, which either isn’t re-appealed or which LUBA affirms on the second appeal. Thus, the application is never approved, but the applicant collects attorney fees nonetheless. Again, another example of the ignorance of whoever wrote this cr*p.
I’ll be interested in your response. Look, I’ve repeated that I support MH forms when there are sensible (and clear and objective) regulations, and the land use process isn’t stacked in favor of developers. HB 2001 is just a piece of garbage that shouldn’t be supported by intelligent folks who believe that evidence and details matter.
Kelly Tadlock
What choices are their for Disabled low income mobility impaired folks beyond token messages about triggers and incentives? How does this bill address these housing needs for the most vulnerable? It seems more like Developers are replacing ADA and Universal Design with $$$greed.
Michael Andersen
Kelly, I’m actually working on a post about this. Among the things worth noting: Unlike 1-3 plexes, 4-plexes are required by federal law to include one or more universally accessible homes.