Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
latimes.com
Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
1–10 of 278 posts
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#2> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases
Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent...
https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont...
> in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many of its residential neighborhoods
But this is good. Allowing to build new homes will obviously help with the housing crisis. Usually decision makers just won't allow enough new construction, so its effect will usually stay too small.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#3Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact.
It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gated communities. It's a great wrong -- in particular, the impact it has re: school districts -- that it is long past time be rectified.
That said, there is much more to be done. While going from SFH's to fourplexes or small apartment buildings is usually fine by itself, greater levels of density usually need changes to infrastructure and transit service and other parts of zoning to accommodate the increased population.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#4Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…
Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#5Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…
> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact.
This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the intent is more along the lines of- "We want to live in a place where kids can walk to their friends house without an adult escort and/or play kickball in the street. We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent high density housing to maintain that lifestyle"
There are lots of poor neighborhoods that are single family housing (the entire south side of Chicago comes to mind). The issues greatly impacting San Francisco should not be generalized like this- most places do not have them.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#6Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…
Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.
How is the desirability of homes in single family neighbourhoods inconsistent with the fact that they tend towards creating haves and have-nots in the market for housing?
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#7Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…
Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.
If they're indeed so greatly desirable then there wouldn't be this weird fixation with banning literally every other form of housing (something which has caused the homelessness crisis, as well as making rent pathologically high).
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#8> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…
> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse.
I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system.
Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like:
* buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases
* buildings 5-10 years old, allow up to 2x inflation
* 10+ years old, allow only at inflation
This would (in theory?) encourage the construction of new rental units by allowing investors to recoup their costs sooner and counter the risk of any unforeseen expenses. But as the buildings get older, and costs (theoretically) become more predictable, stabilize prices for renters.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#9> Lawmakers passed a first-in-the-nation cap on rent increases Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent... https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-rent-cont... > in an effort to spur new homebuilding, became the only state to eliminate single-family-only zoning in many…
> Unfortunately, rent control will have the opposite effect of what Oregon thinks, and only make housing scarcity worse. I always found it odd that rent control always seems to be an all-or-nothing policy: either things are tamped down on, or it's a laissez faire system. Does any locality have a "hybrid" approached. Something like: * buildings 0-5 years old, allow up to 3x inflation rent increases * buildings 5-10 ye…
A tiered system much like you describe is exactly what Oregon passed. New developments are largely unrestricted.
Re: Oregon passed sweeping housing crisis laws
#10Good. Mandatory single family home zoning should not exist, anywhere. It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. It's one thing to accept the free market causing this sort of segregation as the collective result of individual choices, quite another to suggest that the government ought to be using regulatory power to help enforce the creation of invisibly gate…
Really an appalling point of view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods; in fact, they are greatly desirable to most.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with single family neighborhoods
Do they not, by their very nature, enforce low-density housing? Is that not a bad thing to enforce in places with too few dwellings?