IF Kate asked you (should she sign HB2001)? (Portland, Salem: real estate, rentals)

[5gables]

Requires cities with population greater than 10,000 or within Metro to allow duplexes in lands zoned for single-family dwellings within urban growth boundary.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...verview/HB2001

She might already have signed and it's just not updated yet.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I'm in CA, but this caught my eye because I just read another thread where development is going to be allowed in tsunami zones, right? Which I think is insane. I lived in Crescent City a couple years ago, and the entire downtown was wiped out in the 1960's by a tsunami. Then another one came in the 2000's, and even after a lot of work was done to prevent damage, the harbor and a lot of boats had major damage.

So, when I saw this threat I thought - it looks like some major developers are bribing legislators in OR.

I just did a quick scan of the site you linked to and clicked on one of the links about impact and people should read this:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...Document/41996

Says that planning departments can't deny these "middle housing" units, which I'm guessing are duplexes? - based on there not being enough street parking. Also says they don't have to be owner-occupied, among other things that scream that this is all about developers. So, these towns can't prevent parking issues, possible traffic issues and all of the costs that could entail. What about affecting other utilities and infrastructure like sewers, water, electricity, etc.?

Also says there's a housing emergency? In all towns in OR of over 10,000 people? That's a pretty small town, really. Can they all be facing housing emergencies?

It also says that if the developer is denied, then sues and wins against the city, that the city has to pay their attorneys fees! So, some big developer comes to town and brings an army of lawyers - can the small town afford to fight them in court? Or do they just roll over?

This is garbage, in my opinion. In CA we'd have a revolt.

On it's face, without digging any deeper, this looks like the sweetest sweetheart deal of the century. So, based on not really knowing all of the facts, but just a quick look at this, I'd say HELL no.

[ccjarider]

Potentially degrades existing neighborhoods and does nothing to solve the alleged "affordability crisis."
One would think Oregon leadership wants the state to be like Detroit.
Lot's of cheap housing - no "affordability crisis" there.

Who votes for these knuckleheads??

[leastprime]

Yes. But I no longer live in Oregon.
Seattle is pushing for MIL cottages, renting out basements, banning McMansions. ...

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I think you should have made your poll public, OP, lol. The numbers all of a sudden became skewed.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by leastprime

Yes. But I no longer live in Oregon.
Seattle is pushing for MIL cottages, renting out basements, banning McMansions. ...

Seattle has a few more people than 10,000. Why do you think this makes sense for towns of 10,001 in all parts of OR? With all of the pro-developer provisions?

[Johnny Z]

I'm not sure, need more information before I'll decide.

[Silverfall]

So here's the deal... As someone that does real estate daily and who also invests (has rentals), this is a good start in my view.

1) There are some really large old homes that are in working-class neighborhoods that can't support a higher end value for those properties. It is the best use of that home to be divided into smaller more affordable units for residents (think basement unit, first-floor unit, and second-floor unit). You can't turn them into triplexes or fourplexes now, even though they would be great old, charming units. This law would allow investors to do that. Those old homes just get dilapidated because you can't get the rents in those neighborhoods to support the cost of maintaining an old large home. This allows some of our older, larger housing stock, to be better maintained. The exterior aesthetic does not need to change.

2) Cottage clusters are sorely needed. There are some old cottage clusters in our older neighborhoods, and being able to develop more of them would be very helpful. I'd like to see the cities develop codes so that these newer units blend with the neighborhoods, personally.

3) If you have a home on the property, it already taps into city water and sewer. The city of Salem already doesn't charge SDC charges (except the parks and rec one), for adding an ADU. The reason is that the SDC charges are around $20-$35,000. They know that investors won't be able to add units when they are charged for something they are already tapped into. Construction labor costs are really high right now.

4) Currently, the zoning requires that for an SF home there needs to be a two car garage/carport spot for cars. A duplex requires 4 parking spots on the land (meaning off street), and a fourplex is 6. This requires the lot to be of a certain size which greatly hampers developing more dense housing. The problem is that personal car ownership is on the decline. The Millenials and Gen Z are trending towards using public transportation and Uber/Lyft rather than owning their own car. As such, having off street parking isn't as important as it used to be. Right now, developers can't develop units without having off street parking which means fewer density options. That is why they are talking about removing the parking requirement. Right now, you don't need an off-street parking spot for an ADU.

5) A good example of the problem that this is trying to correct is the 5 new homes being built on a busy street (Liberty) in south Salem. That property should have housed 10-row houses/townhomes with a one car garage, but instead, there are 5 single family homes on an insanely busy street that cost $300,000 each. It's a total misuse of that space. I like the urban growth boundaries, personally as I don't like the sprawl you get without them. I don't like the lack of reasonableness when it comes to developing certain parcels of land though.

The zoning requirements are set by the state and overseen by LUBA, and having the flexibility for development is really important. There are some properties that could be denser and still blend with the neighborhoods, but investors can't do it because of current zoning laws. This allows local cities to create codes to allow this type of development.

Just to be clear, investors have to do an application that has to get approved by the city. The city can easily create an "aesthetic blending code" to make sure that developers are doing something that is coherent to neighborhoods. It does NOT have to ruin neighborhoods, but it does require that the city make the investor/developer think about that blend and have it be part of the application process. This law allows cities to create the codes. It is up to the cities to not ruin neighborhoods, and they can require that the units blend.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

So, when I saw this threat I thought - it looks like some major developers are bribing legislators in OR.

I just did a quick scan of the site you linked to and clicked on one of the links about impact and people should read this:

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/201...Document/41996

Bribing, no. Trying to have more flexibility when needed, yes.

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Says that planning departments can't deny these "middle housing" units, which I'm guessing are duplexes? - based on there not being enough street parking. Also says they don't have to be owner-occupied, among other things that scream that this is all about developers. So, these towns can't prevent parking issues, possible traffic issues and all of the costs that could entail. What about affecting other utilities and infrastructure like sewers, water, electricity, etc.?

Middle housing are 2-4 units. I addressed the current off-street parking requirements for development in my previous answer. Yes, cities can consider parking issues and traffic issues in their codes.

The issue with the water and sewer is not charging developers for something they already have. Would you want to pay again for something you already have? Does that make sense to you to charge people twice?

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Also says there's a housing emergency? In all towns in OR of over 10,000 people? That's a pretty small town, really. Can they all be facing housing emergencies?

There is a housing emergency. The homeless population is growing and more specifically, the working homeless population is growing. A 10% increase in rents, means the homeless rate will increase by 13.6%.

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

It also says that if the developer is denied, then sues and wins against the city, that the city has to pay their attorneys fees! So, some big developer comes to town and brings an army of lawyers - can the small town afford to fight them in court? Or do they just roll over?

We have a special board here called LUBA, which is the Land Use Board of Appeals. It has been an Oregon law for a long time that the prevailing party can recoup attorney's fees. 1) It helps to prevent nuisance lawsuits by individuals that don't understand the zoning laws and choose to represent themselves forcing cities to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars defending their decisions, and 2) It helps to keep cities following the state codes. For example, there is a section of land off a street called Kuebler in my city and Costco wants to move their building there. The land is properly zoned for the use. The city didn't approve the application because the neighborhood that is right behind that land doesn't want it there. So, the developer is appealing that decision to LUBA. I expect that the Costco will go in as it is the proper use for the zone by the state zoning codes.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

I say no because it should be up to the individual towns what they want to allow for their zoning. Not every town is the same situation. This is another case of Portland wanting what Portland wants and then imposing it on the entire rest of the state without having the slightest clue or interest in how it affects other areas.


In Bend, which is the major population center east of the Cascades, the city council keeps making lot requirements smaller and smaller. You can barely fit a house, let alone two dwellings. ADU's are already allowed, except that it is impossible to fit one onto the tiny lots.


Roads and utilities are already stretched past their capacity. Increasing sewer capacity is extremely expensive. Increasing water availability is nearly impossible, Already the city has taken away old established water rights from farmers to obtain more water for city dwellers (and breweries).


Even with more duplexes, with the cost of systems development fees, building permits, environmental and other studies, and utility hook-ups, building more duplexes will not provide any inexpensive housing. You can't build it and rent it for substantially less than it costs to build.