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

[dubu]

oregon is very white and a lot of poor people and rich people probably dont like echother but its not a big deal we are used to it. the big problem is you cant make cities made for cars a place for people.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not Seattle or Portland. On the NYT 2010 maps for example, the dots are pretty mixed. In fact one of the controversies in both cities is the influx of people of all skin colors into formerly black-dominated districts...the opposite of your narrative.

1. LOL, I love the hypocrisy of places like this when it comes to race. Predominately white neighborhood seeing an influx of other races? That's awesome! Predominately black neighborhood seeing an influx of other races? That's racist!

2. These cities don't really have many black people. Blacks aren't even the largest minority in either city. This is in stark contrast to many other large cities where blacks make up a much larger percentage (often the largest percentage).

This is Philly for instance and the racial lines are pretty clear in most of the city:


Detroit is probably the most blatant of any though:

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Would you feel the same if the shoe were on the other foot and they let people build single family homes in areas currently zoned for apartments?

I mean this stupid house made it into a movie, but that doesn't meant this is good zoning.
http://www.myballard.com/images/edith_dec.jpg

Or this one, lol.
http://i.imgur.com/rj882.jpg

That's a disingenuous comparison. The law is not upzoning SFH areas to allow for large mid/high-rise apartments; it's only allowing buildings of up to 4 units. This is what a 2-4 unit building looks like:



https://torontolife.com/real-estate/...-cowan-avenue/


Hardly destroying the neighbourhood.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Well, for one thing you don't seem to understand the difference between the government ALLOWING something and the government BANNING something. If you have areas zoned for single family homes, areas zoned for duplexes, rowhomes etc, areas zoned for mid-rise apartment buildings and areas zoned for high-rise apartment buildings then everyone gets to choose their preferred area. But now the government is BANNING one of these types of zoning so people who want to live in that sort of neighborhood won't be able to.

So, should the rights of people who want to live in an area free of any possible multi-family dwellings trump the rights of property owners who'd like to develop their properties to slightly higher densities? That might be a matter of opinion, but I'd say the latter group at least has a little more substantive of an argument. "I just don't like that around me" shouldn't really count for much in a legal/political context, should it?

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I skimmed through the article and obviously didn't read the wording of zoning changes proposed, but WTS, wouldn't this be a tremendous gift to current single family home owners [voters]?

Sure sounds like it - and that's why this is a win-win for both existing property owners who'd like to be able to generate more income & value from their property, and people who'd benefit from an increase in housing stock inventory.

I'm sure there a lot of people out there like my parents for example, who are aging empty-nesters living in a 2-storey detached house. They don't really need the space on the second floor anymore, and are going to have increasing trouble getting up the stairs as they get older. They'd like to separate it into a new unit and rent it out so they can bring in some income and stay put for as long as possible, but current zoning bylaws in the area don't allow that.

[pdxtex]

its kind of a yolo moment to the socially minded policy maker though, that says look what we've done, we've ended all land use barriers to poor peoples' success. we all know this wont do sh!t to really address affordability unless they build subsidized, multifamily housing.otherwise, its just going to be market rate townhomes which will be priced at median values, even if construction costs are less. in portland the median price is already over 400k. will it increase the dynamism of the city and increase housing choice? sure, and thats good. will it have a trickle down effect and provide relief to low income families pushed out of the city? yeahhh, probably not. if they really wanted to impress me, they would go a step further and not only upzone some spots, but also up-USE them too allow small commmercial uses in a neighborhood. then were talking turkey!

[jtown,man]

This is awesome. More freedom for landowners and more density. This will be positive like 95% of the time. Why are we debated this on here? lol

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Leveled

Did a liberal beat up your dad or something? This is edging on hate speech.

Please do quote the specific parts that you considered "hate speech."

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

its kind of a yolo moment to the socially minded policy maker though, that says look what we've done, we've ended all land use barriers to poor peoples' success. we all know this wont do sh!t to really address affordability unless they build subsidized, multifamily housing.otherwise, its just going to be market rate townhomes which will be priced at median values, even if construction costs are less. in portland the median price is already over 400k. will it increase the dynamism of the city and increase housing choice? sure, and thats good. will it have a trickle down effect and provide relief to low income families pushed out of the city? yeahhh, probably not. if they really wanted to impress me, they would go a step further and not only upzone some spots, but also up-USE them too allow small commmercial uses in a neighborhood. then were talking turkey!

You're making odd assumptions. Accessory units can be very affordable. And townhouses will be on cheaper land and the market would presumably target much lower price points than the currently-common versions.

Basically you don't seem to like freedom.

[dubu]

its not going to fix the homeless problem

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mhays

Basically you don't seem to like freedom.

No need to be hyperbolic here. Every sane person should understand the need of zoning laws.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by mhays

You're making odd assumptions. Accessory units can be very affordable. And townhouses will be on cheaper land and the market would presumably target much lower price points than the currently-common versions.

Basically you don't seem to like freedom.

im on board with their plan, don't get me wrong. i just think it funny how they are trying to sell it. your a contractor though, right? would a developer really pass any savings on to their buyer even if they got the lot cheap? a tear down in a most inner portland neighborhoods will yield a four plex at most and each unit will go for at least 450k. if they were to lift some of the height restrictions, then you might be able to offer something cheaper with one of those 2 x 3 jobbees....

[mhays]

Without competition, no. But of course there will be competition....that's one of the basic points about our system. Developers will compete with each other on price.

I work for a contractor but it's not for anything relevant to this topic...more like schools, offices, apartment buildings, etc.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

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


December 14th, 2018

By Rachel Monahan

Read More: https://www.wweek.com/news/state/201...family-zoning/

Banning single family homes? Stupid

[SIGSEGV]

That's not what it says...

[mhays]

It's amazing what some people think!

New single-family houses would still be allowed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Banning single family homes? Stupid

Actually it's "banning banning non-single-family homes".

[dubu]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually it's "banning banning non-single-family homes".

sounds p cool

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's amazing what some people think!

New single-family houses would still be allowed.

This is skyscraperpage...and people still aren't getting what this is...imagine just what your average joe will be seeing when this gets out to the public's attention.

[M II A II R II K]

Oregon to Become First State to Impose Statewide Rent Control

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/u...t-control.html

.....

- Oregon is poised to become the first state in the nation to impose statewide limits on how much landlords can raise rents after state lawmakers passed a sweeping measure on Tuesday. The legislation would generally limit rent increases to 7 percent annually plus the change in the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. Some smaller and newer apartment buildings would be exempt. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 35 to 25, largely along party lines. It had already been approved by the State Senate, and Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, plans to sign the bill, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

....

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Oregon to Become First State to Impose Statewide Rent Control

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/u...t-control.html

The solution doesn't seem very well tailored to the problem (if they truly think there's a problem). The law limits rent increases to 7%/year when rents in Portland (which has had the greatest increases in the state) increased 30% in 8 years, or 3.75%/year? And it doesn't apply to < 5 unit buildings or buildings newer than 15-years-old? What's the point of this law?