Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Theotar t1_j5r8lpf wrote

What this mean?

8

DoserMcMoMo t1_j5s205z wrote

From what I gather, some areas have too many houses, but not enough livable area to meet demand. So instead of building houses (single family residence), they would build a small apartment that could home four- to- six families in a similar footprint. That's the ELI5 of it

32

Theotar t1_j5s81oy wrote

Thank you for helping me out! Wonder if this might lead to slowing down housing inflation a bit.

6

IllustriousFeed3 t1_j5ubbjc wrote

You would think, but there have been too many new people moving into Washington over the past 15 years and construction just did not keep up. I think we are way behind. I joke, but we really just need large scale Soviet era apartments built (and rented at fair rates) just to offer affordable housing and to our citizens.

5

Chronfidence t1_j5rhtuv wrote

Read the article.

−14

Theotar t1_j5s7dqv wrote

My adhd, dyslexia, and covid brain fog make it a challenge. Reall helps if I can get my fellow Reddit users to help out by doing a brief description for me.

−9

MoiJaimeLesCrepes t1_j5s8fcp wrote

it's really unclear that this would pass. It's an attempt to force higher density new constructions in urban environments.

I haven't heard of state-wide mandates for higher housing density.

In my opinion, densifying is not a bad thing, but the infrastructure isn't necessarily made to support it, so this could cause a lot of really bad traffic jams.

I can also see that people will go further and further out to get the single family homes they crave causing more exoburbs and suburban sprawl.

so, I applaud the sentiment, but I doubt that the measure will pass, and, if it does, that this won't generate a lot of problems.

3

edc582 t1_j5scvox wrote

Oregon passed legislation very similar to this in 2019. It probably hasn't been long enough to determine whether or not it has been worth it, but I don't really see the downsides. Yes, it could make traffic worse, parking worse, etc... but the idea is that you eventually reach a density where that is less important as transit becomes more feasible. They more or less needed to enact this since they have very strict land use laws and the urban growth boundary system (not a bad thing, but if you can't build out, you must build up).

As for applying it to the whole state, I think that's good as well. There are plenty of smaller communities that are in dire need of housing. Being able to build duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes is a good thing since it is impractical to buy several houses and try to put up a larger apartment complex. There is reason to believe there's less pushback from neighbors when we pursue infill projects like this.

Banning single family exclusive zoning doesn't mean single family homes don't get built, it just means landowners are free to pursue building more dense units per plot. It won't be without its problems, but housing costs are not sustainable now and it won't get better until we can build more. On balance I think it will be a positive for the state.

Oregon SFH Ban

5

Chronfidence t1_j5ucdgg wrote

They have adhd, dyslexia and covid how tf are they going to read all of that

1

therealsmokyjoewood t1_j5we7kx wrote

This isn’t state mandated density. This is the state forbidding local zoning laws from banning density; I.e protecting the right to density.

Just think how Roe. V. Wade wasn’t ‘state mandated abortions’; it was a ruling that prevented states from banning abortions.

1

Chronfidence t1_j5uc9b1 wrote

Law allow 1 big house become 6 small house. Some 1 big house owners no want 6 small house next door and it makes them cry.

1