91ÊÓƵ

A few months ago I discussed the pros and some cons of the city of Portland’s Residential Infill Project (RIP), but House Speaker Tina Kotek has also weighed in with House Bill 2001. This bill would essentially do statewide what RIP would do in Portland – eliminate single-family zoning in most cities. As I mentioned in the discussion of RIP there’s much to like about these proposals. They address a serious historical wrong that has kept most minorities from being able to live in the best neighborhoods.

At the state level this legislation has similar elements to RIP, and though evolving through the amendments process, it still causes planners some problems. One of the major tenets of good comprehensive planning is to analyze a city’s unique characteristics, its history, demographics, natural setting, etc., and make recommendations for how the city should plan for growth and redevelopment given all of the various physical, environmental, social and economic needs of that place.

Oregon has a sophisticated system of planning (the Land Conservation and Development Commission’s goals and guidelines) that places extensive guidance and controls on local governments as they determine their future development. The Housing Goal (No. 10) has not been adequately enforced or funded at the state level for decades and could be used to incentivize and in some cases require cities to revise the way they approach housing regulations. This would involve requiring all jurisdictions to revise their housing needs analyses and implement new codes to assign the types of housing in the places that make the most sense, and provide state funding for both these local efforts and the accompanying state agency review process to ensure compliance. Merely requiring that cities allow these types of housing without the necessary funding and planning to implement it intelligently is counterproductive.