3 ms·

>You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. This is not the stated goal of many, many, density/zoning/transit advocates. Bills have been introduced,

>You should be able to buy the kind of home you want. This is not the stated goal of many, many, density/zoning/transit advocates. Bills have been introduced, stillborn, in Oregon, Washington, and California to ban single-family homes in certain areas by "forward thinkers".

haroldp 2y ago
I'm not responsible for what anyone else's goals. And I have never seen anyone advocate for making suburban houses illegal. I just want it to stop being literally illegal for people to use the land they own in safe and reasonable ways.
jjulius 2y ago
As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, implemented. To me, it reads a lot less as a ban, and a lot more as allowing the option for people to increase density on a property if they choose to do so. Do you have more information on where single-family homes were banned in the state of Oregon? I mean, I live in a city with well over 25,000 residents and am currently watching a single-family development being built along my commute. >Towns and cities with over 10,000 residents were required to allow duplexes on land zoned for single-family homes by June 2021. >Towns and cities with over 25,000 residents were required to allow up to four-unit buildings as well as cottage clusters—four or more detached units with a shared courtyard—in residential zones by June 2022. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-...
voisin 2y ago
Mostly it isn’t about banning single family homes - it is about allowing for things out than single family homes - i.e not requiring them. I admit that some diehards want to band them outright but I think the majority just want zoning to be looser so NINBYs can’t veto any extra density.

haroldp 2y ago

I'm not responsible for what anyone else's goals. And I have never seen anyone advocate for making suburban houses illegal. I just want it to stop being literally illegal for people to use the land they own in safe and reasonable ways.

jjulius 2y ago

As a resident of Oregon, I am asking moreso from the perspective of ignorance and wanting to know more about this, so I'd love some insight here. From what I can tell, the following is what was "banned" or, in other words, implemented. To me, it reads a lot less as a ban, and a lot more as allowing the option for people to increase density on a property if they choose to do so. Do you have more information on where single-family homes were banned in the state of Oregon? I mean, I live in a city with well over 25,000 residents and am currently watching a single-family development being built along my commute. >Towns and cities with over 10,000 residents were required to allow duplexes on land zoned for single-family homes by June 2021. >Towns and cities with over 25,000 residents were required to allow up to four-unit buildings as well as cottage clusters—four or more detached units with a shared courtyard—in residential zones by June 2022. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/eliminating-single-family-...

voisin 2y ago

Mostly it isn’t about banning single family homes - it is about allowing for things out than single family homes - i.e not requiring them. I admit that some diehards want to band them outright but I think the majority just want zoning to be looser so NINBYs can’t veto any extra density.