Eugene Weekly : Viewpoint : 11.16.06

Snob Zoning

Choices coming on infill and downzoning

BY DAVID HINKLEY

I fear that elitist snob zoning is raising its ugly head in Eugene. "Snob zoning" is the development of a set of zoning restrictions to preclude the construction of selected "undesirable" types of development. In this particular case, this snob zoning is in the form of a call for infill development standards, in the name of "protecting a neighborhood's residential character," and the undesirable types of development to be zoned out are affordable rental housing in the form of duplexes, four-plexes and other types of small apartment buildings.

Apparently, the advocates of this snob zoning proposal do not believe that apartments are residential, that the needs of Eugene's renters are important or that Eugene's continuing need for affordable rental housing should be considered. They also do not seem to care that by down-zoning R-2 neighborhoods to R-1 or lower density standards they are forcing the expansion of the UGB.

In some ways a snob zoning movement should have been expected. Home owners, particularly those who purchased single family homes in medium density residential areas (zoned R-2), are understandably worried about the form of new development in their neighborhoods and its possible negative impacts on their property's value and lifestyle. Those who failed to practice due diligence by investigating the zoning classification and its implications before purchasing their property have been understandably surprised by unexpected, but legal, development on the part of nearby neighbors. While fear of change and the unknown is understandable, avoiding change should not be the guiding principle of land use planning in Eugene. And while a community should not coldly disregard the plight of those who failed to properly investigate before making their largest investment decision, the mitigation of their situation should not be at the cost of needed affordable housing and expanding the UGB.

Change is normal. Healthy human societies are dynamic, not stagnant. Eugene Skinner's tiny cabin with its single room and outside privy falls as far outside the current norms for acceptable housing as our current housing will likely be for our grandchildren and their progeny. It is no more reasonable for us to attempt to freeze community housing and development standards at current levels than it would have been for Mr. Skinner and the Eugene's founders to have frozen them at theirs.

Eugene is already developing a hollow core. Eugene is becoming denser at its periphery then it is at its center. This is the result of changes in the real estate market. Because of rising land costs, residential lots in new developments tend to be much smaller then those of 50 to 100 years ago. As a result the density there is greater than in Eugene's central core. While an understandable result of the intersection of market forces and a limited land supply, this is not a particularly good form for a city. It costs much more to provide services to homes at the edges of a community then its core.

If permitted, the same market forces that have created the hollow core will over time begin to fill it in. For while the inter-city lots may be large in comparison to newly created single family lots, they are the right size for the development of small apartment buildings and row houses: the same types of development that will provide us with the basic affordable housing required to meet the needs of our growing community.

I am not saying that Eugene should not develop infill standards, but rather that instead of attempting to stifle or halt change through the imposition of restrictive development standards, a set of design standards to mitigate the impact of infill development needs to be developed. Density and livability are not mutually exclusive and the presence of renters does not destroy a neighborhood. A variety of housing types in a neighborhood adds to its diversity and can allow the return of working class families. Done well, infill can improve a neighborhood and bring back life and vitality to the core of the city, as well as preserving the value and marketability of existing properties.

This year's city budget contains funding for hiring a planner to develop residential infill standards for possible adoption by the City Council. Only time and public participation will determine the form these standards will take. It is important that the motivation behind these or any standards is only to develop infill and design standards to control the rate of change in established neighborhoods and to mitigate its impacts, and not an attempt to "freeze" the current configuration of a neighborhood. We need understand that fear and demagoguery are a poor foundation for any attempt to insure Eugene has successful, desirable neighborhoods and ample affordable housing.

As a community we have a choice: We can embrace change, welcome and guide it, or we can attempt to stand in its way and watch it run us over. How we chose to respond to changes in Eugene is an important aspect of that choice.

David Hinkley is renter. His is also a community activist, neighborhood leader, vice president of Friends of Eugene, board member of Eugene Neighbors, Inc., freelance researcher and policy analyst.