HB 2001 sailed through both chambers with support on both sides of the aisle, but critics claim it won’t solve any housing problems.
It was the zoning bill that almost wasn’t.
As Republican lawmakers fled the Capitol last month in hopes of derailing Oregon’s cap and trade bill, the walkout provided more than just drama. More than 100 bills already approved by the House faced legislative oblivion from the Senate walkout.
Introduced by House Speaker Tina Kotek, the legislation sought to put an end to single-family only residential zoning. HB 2001 would require that any residential zones which previously allowed only single-family housing to include duplexes, triplexes, town houses and quadplexes.
The city of Minneapolis passed similar legislation last year, which may have served as a blueprint for the new statewide model.
Lauded by affordable housing groups and free trade advocates alike, HB 2001 passed the House in a vote of 43 to 16, and was among a few dozen which made it to the Senate floor with time running out. It passed the Senate in a vote of 16 to 9.
The bill long list of supporters includes business groups such as the Oregon Association of Realtors and Oregon Home Builders Association, as well as affordable housing advocates, including 1000 Friends of Oregon and Habitat for Humanity of Oregon.
According to advocates, the legislation reverses policies aimed at keeping communities of color away from homeownership, as well as increasing the share of affordable housing in Oregon. It could also assist small homebuilders, whose success relies on generating a small number of high-value homes each year.
"Statewide, we have a shortfall of over 150,000 homes, and we're currently only adding one home per three new households," wrote Madeline Kovacs, senior outreach associate of the Sightline Institute policy think tank, saying that HB 2001 “strikes an appropriate balance between local control and the need for statewide action.”
But those opposed say the legislation will not create the housing opportunities it purports to.
“I think if [legislators] had actually looked at the bill, they would have found a lot of problems with it,” says Paul Conte, former chair of Eugene’s Jefferson Westside Neighbors Organization.
According to Conte, HB 2001 takes power away from communities in favors of real estate developers, and encourages city growth where it is least needed.
“In general, compact development is more efficient, but you need to increase development along transit lines,” says Conte. “[These units] aren’t going to help the people who can’t afford to go to the doctor or put food on the table. You need subsidized assistance for multifamily developing.”
While the bill may not solve all of Oregon’s affordable housing woes, Business for a Better Portland says it will incentivize builders to create more affordable housing units. Zoning regulations mean that families making 140-250% of median income can afford to live in single-family zones, encouraging developers to build units at the higher end of the market. Adding duplexes and quadplexes could allow families making 70-120% of the median income to buy homes.
According Business for a Better Portland Executive Director Ashley Henry, current zoning regulations result in middle-income earners competing with low-income earners for housing. HB 2001 would “increase the supply of middle-range housing, relieving pressure throughout the market.”
Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of land use nonprofit 1000 Friends of Oregon, says the legislation’s bipartisan support was due to the shared interests of housing advocates and real estate developers to create middle housing options
“It’s become more clear to a wide range of individuals that the exclusively detached single-family residential zones exclude most Oregonians from being able to purchase a house,” says McCurdy.
“Two-thirds of Oregon households consist of one or two people. Well, over 50% of the residential zoning in Oregon is exclusively for detached single-family housing. So if people want to age in the neighborhood, if they want to start a family in a smaller living situation, it’s hard,” she says.
To subscribe to Oregon Business, click here.
Latest from Sander Gusinow
- UO Officially Buys Concordia University’s Portland Campus
- CBN Ban Goes Into Effect Friday
- Study: Oregon’s Bioscience Sector Produced $15.6 Billion in Output in 2020
- KEEN Grants $10K to Oregon Tradeswomen for child care and other services
- Providence St. Vincent Reaches Tentative Agreement with Nurses’ Union
Chris Tuesday, 13 August 2019 13:52 Comment Link
So I went out and read the bill. So many issues but I think the following example speaks volumes to why this bill was not well thought out.
Location: Lake Oswego
Population: Just under 40,000
Home of the 2015 Street of Dreams
Should one of these luxurious homes burn down. A saavy developer could now build a quad-plex, tri-plex, or duplex in the place of the once single-family dwelling thus causing a very likely drop in the home values of the rest of the street of dreams.
While I know the vast majority of people struggling to afford a new home could care less if some rich people lose value in their homes in Lake Oswego, it does show that we are in a whole new world of unintended consequences. Maybe that's a good thing...then again, maybe not. The law specifically discards concerns about impacts to parking when converting single family to multi-family. That's the tip of the iceberg compared to the much bigger concerns if whole neighborhoods of what was once single family homes become multi-family. All infrastructure from water, sewage, electrical, etc will have to be upgraded at who's costs? Higher density will cause sharp increases in various school districts causing the need for new schools and/or re-drawn maps. There are probably many more issues I have missed that would be caused by this sort of transformation.
Why not open up the UGB where people actually want to live and not in highly dense urban areas?