Could Oregon Become the First State to Ban Single-Family Zoning?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

It is distorted due to overly restrictive housing policy in both metros.

Government's fault

How many projects can't happen because no more intensity is allowed in a neighborhood. How much cheaper could a project be if it be built as a right and and without so many excessive restrictions.

Once again, Government's fault

The important that I mention is metro and not just city proper. You have to allow growth everywhere in the metro.

"You" meaning who? Me? Government? Why does Government "have" to "allow" growth everywhere? Growth will occur where there is demand if property owners are allowed to build freely. This isn't a game of Sim City.

Hyper in demand neighborhoods will always be so. If surrounding neighborhoods are also allowed to grow more as well that serves as a release valve for adjacent neighborhoods.

Exactly. So if Manhattan is too expensive, you have Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, etc as "release valves". If certain neighborhoods in those boroughs are too expensive, then people live a few subway stops down, and so forth. That is the market--undistorted.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Government's fault



Once again, Government's fault



"You" meaning who? Me? Government? Why does Government "have" to "allow" growth everywhere? Growth will occur where there is demand if property owners are allowed to build freely. This isn't a game of Sim City.



Exactly. So if Manhattan is too expensive, you have Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, etc as "release valves". If certain neighborhoods in those boroughs are too expensive, then people live a few subway stops down, and so forth. That is the market--undistorted.

I am sorry you keep on missing the point. If you forcefully constrain supply then prices go up. That was is what overly strict zoning does any place. That isn't just with the biggest cities but every place. It is purely to the benefit of incumbent home owners. Allow supply to meet demand better and prices on average will be lower across the metro. All this is by design as mentioned. Rent control doesn't fix this it just raises the average price.

All your examples also have restrictive zoning policies as well which limit how much of a release value they can be. Growth can't happen or is greatly constrained where demand is because property owners are not allowed to build freely. That is the whole point. Hence the distortion.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

I am sorry you keep on missing the point. If you forcefully constrain supply then prices go up. That was is what overly strict zoning does any place. That isn't just with the biggest cities but every place. It is purely to the benefit of incumbent home owners. Allow supply to meet demand better and prices on average will be lower across the metro. All this is by design as mentioned. Rent control doesn't fix this it just raises the average price.

Yep.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

I am sorry you keep on missing the point. If you forcefully constrain supply then prices go up. That was is what overly strict zoning does any place. That isn't just with the biggest cities but every place. It is purely to the benefit of incumbent home owners. Allow supply to meet demand better and prices on average will be lower across the metro. All this is by design as mentioned. Rent control doesn't fix this it just raises the average price.

All your examples also have restrictive zoning policies as well which limit how much of a release value they can be. Growth can't happen or is greatly constrained where demand is because property owners are not allowed to build freely. That is the whole point. Hence the distortion.

I’m not missing any point.

You actually seem to be agreeing with me (and my signature).

Restricting zoning is Government imposed. It restricts supply and raises prices. Fix that, I say, instead of imposing a flawed policy like rent control.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not missing any point.

You actually seem to be agreeing with me (and my signature).

Restricting zoning is Government imposed. It restricts supply and raises prices. Fix that, I say, instead of imposing a flawed policy like rent control.

Government imposed yes but fueled by NIMBYs. But yes we are otherwise in agreement.

[muertecaza]

The predictable effect of the rent control law:

https://www.bendbulletin.com/home/70...new-rent?amp=1

Oregon’s first-in-the-nation rent-control bill may have had the unfortunate side effect of hurting some of the very renters it was supposed to protect.

Some tenants say they saw hikes of up to $300 in their monthly rent, while some received no-cause eviction notices before Gov. Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 608 on Feb. 28. The law went into effect immediately.

[10023]

And then they pass rent control to make sure no one develops multi-family. Go figure.

[subterranean]

Believe me, they are still going to build because there is still money to be made. Besides, rent control does not apply to new construction.

In addition, the City of Portland is in the process of trying to approve the Residential Infill Project that works on FAR and allows tri's and quad's that used to be allowed but are now illegal.

Portland is seeing modest homes torn down in favor of modern McMansions, so the city has put a cap on the square footage and is legalizing missing middle housing types. Should pass this year.

And to anyone who thinks there isn't a housing crisis here, you're just a dick. $400,000 homes should not be the ideal and considered approachable for the average would-be homeowner. $400,000 buys a fixer upper in some near-in neighborhoods that wouldn't even pass inspection for a COO. Which means you probably can't get traditional financing.

The median home value here is $425k, but the supply is severely restricted and prices are driven way up. $425k would be $2349/mo inclusive of taxes for a pretty crappy house. For this to be affordable, the household income of the buyer would need to be $7830/mo, or $93,960 per year. The average household income in Portland is $86,000.

However, since we are so under-built in low-income units AND high income units, low-income people, middle income people, and high income people are competing for what would otherwise be middle income housing. As a result, poor people and people of color are being pushed to the suburbs. In Portland, the burbs are cheaper and more diverse economically and racially than the central city, which poses its own issues.

Edit:Here's a 584 sq. ft. shack 5 miles from downtown for $250k