Thread by @CSElmendorf

THREAD: Was Oregon's heralded statewide 4plex bill just for show?

That's the upshot if recently proposed implementing regs are adopted in their current form. 1/9

The statute (HB 2001) requires cities with population > 25,000 to allow designated "middle housing" types "in areas zoned for residential use." 2/9

Cities must adopt a state-approved middle-housing zoning plan by specified date, or else apply default zoning rules issued by state agency. In principle, this solves problem of cities "allowing" 4plexes on paper but making them impossible to build in practice. 3/9

The pending regs establish the default zoning rules, as well as criteria for state approval of cities' middle-housing plans. But buried in the approval criteria is a "performance" loophole that threatens the entire venture... 4/9

This loophole allows cities to use the standards of an existing residential zone if *3% of new housing in that zone* has been "middle housing." 5/9

Consider how this would play out in an exclusionary suburb that already "allows" townhomes--in a zone where virtually nothing can be built owing to fees, parking requirements, yard requirements, height limits, FAR limits, architectural standards, permitting vetopoints, etc. 6/9

Assume 1000 lots in the zone. Over past decade, 10 lots were redeveloped, 9 for SFH and one for townhomes (yield: 3 townhomes). The redevelopment rate is trivial (0.1% annually), but b/c > 3% of what got built was middle housing, this zone would qualify for safe harbor. 7/9

And it's not just this zone that's exempted. Under draft regs, city may exempt its other residential zones from the state's default upzoning by applying the same standards to them. 8/9

I know nothing of the backstory here, but there's a lesson for enthusiasts of statewide upzoning bills: don't lose track of the state admin law ball... 9/end @ProfSchleich @RickHills2 @DBRodriguez5 @dilleradollar @MiriamSeifter @dillonliam @mlevinreports @cayimby @anniefryman