91ÊÓƵ

Last time I discussed the likely zoning changes of Portland’s anticipated Residential Infill Project (RIP). Recently I also discussed California’s proposed Senate Bill 827, which would have essentially opened up large areas of single-family housing in cities across the state to much denser multifamily redevelopment. Though the bill died in committee, it did end up sparking a serious debate about the limitations of single-family zoning and how best to address it.

In San Francisco, a group called YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) Action has sprung up in the last few years in support of allowing higher-density housing everywhere, with tremendous support from the techies who have poured into the Bay Area, causing housing prices to soar. Many of their basic tenets are similar to those supported by the American Planning Association (APA), including support for densification as critical to addressing housing affordability and encouraging all cities in a region to accommodate multifamily housing. However, APA advocates for this to happen through local and regional planning that requires thoughtful, inclusive processes for determining how and where this type of development can happen. The planning process needs to place a high value on creating denser living in close coordination with transit services, and ways to protect lower-income groups from being displaced.

The Oregon Planning Program’s Goal 9 has always required cities with populations greater than 2,500 to perform a housing needs analysis and then provide for housing types to meet that need, specifically including multifamily. So, theoretically, Portland and other cities should already be zoning for that need, but implementing programs to supply housing that’s affordable to all is the real issue. YIMBYism at least advocates providing access to housing that’s affordable, but they ignore the critical planning needed to make it work appropriately for everyone.