Over the past several years, the discussion and then eventual passage of Oregon House Bill 2001 has had NIMBYs on hyperdrive. While each city now has the ability to shape some of the particular policies it implements, the basics of the bill mean that cities in Oregon can no longer allow neighborhoods to be built that allow only single-family homes. Under the new bill, duplexes, triplexes and other multi-family homes must be allowed on any lot that is currently zoned for those single-family homes. NIMBYs have cried foul about the parking, congestion and overall chaos that they believe will ensue when their neighborhoods are allowed to be denser. We see this as a thinly veiled form of racism.
As the City of Bend gets closer to adopting the code changes that reflect the stipulations in HB 2001, expect more heated discussions. Elements of the new code—approved by the Bend Planning Commission July 26—have already been widely discussed, and widely misinterpreted. One of those misinterpretations has come around parking. Some believe that the new code seeks to eliminate all requirements around parking spots in new home developments. That’s not true. While the new code does seek to reduce the number of parking spaces required for certain units, no unit will be required to have zero off-street parking.
And while the new code would also reduce the minimum lot sizes required for things like triplexes or quadplexes, leaving less room overall for yards or excess parking, the thinking behind the new code, according to comments from Bend City Councilor Melanie Kebler, is that developers will now need to be less concerned about fitting in all the required parking in a development and more focused on the housing itself. We need more focus on housing itself.
In the massive housing crisis that we find ourselves in—one in which a quarter of Bend’s population is severely cost-burdened and spends half or more of its income on housing—parking is the least of our worries. Now, with the eventual adoption of this code by the Bend City Council, someone in the duplex next door may park on the street in front of or near your house. So what? If it means fewer people forced to live in tents, motels or cars in front of someone else’s home, we’ll take it. This is reality.
Similarly, we welcome with relish the part of Bend’s proposed code that limits (to one per complex) the number of short-term rentals that can be put into any of the new plexes that get built. Short-term rentals were not addressed in the bill that came from the state, but Bend added that to its proposed code changes anyway. Good—if not restrictive enough. Bend needs housing for locals who want to live here, and shouldn’t roll out the red carpet for more armchair hoteliers who want to enrich themselves populating residential neighborhoods with visitors.
Still, one element of Bend’s new proposed code does give us pause: the fact that it doesn’t mess with existing codes, covenants and restrictions, commonly called CC&Rs, in neighborhoods with a homeowners’ association. While existing HOAs can’t retroactively put a covenant banning multi-family homes in place now, the ones that already have a single-family home policy in place won’t have to roll it back. This is going to foster a level of ultra-exclusivity in the places where those policies are already in existence—and don’t expect any HOA to be benevolent enough to do away with those policies if they already have them in place.
For decades, government housing policies such as redlining and exclusionary zoning were tools that made the dream of home ownership—or even the possibility of living in a decent neighborhood—beyond reach for many, and particularly for Black and Brown people in America. Oregon is out front in passing HB 2001, being the first state to pass a bill of this nature. Again, good. Our state’s history of Black exclusion laws requires we now do as much as possible to correct history’s failings.
Over the next several months, as the Bend City Council decides on whether to approve these changes, much is going to be said in public meetings and in less-formal settings about the merits of the changes.
Locals can belabor the finer points of parking minimums or other particulars of the city’s new codes, but like it or not, HB 2001 is here to stay. Be ready for change.
Related Stories
New Code Changes: Some Will be Welcome. Others Will Require a Change of Mindset.
This article appears in Jul 28 – Aug 4, 2021.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I do not agree with your opinions in this article. Not one. Apparent you either do nothing own a home or you live in an HOS community. Perhaps you enjoy cars blocking your mailbox or driveway. If so, move to NYC or Boston if street parking is for you. I live in Bend to avoid these annoyances.
And this has NOTHING to do with racism. Ridiculous panacea point.
Thank you for your thoughtful article appreciate your point of view. Our communities need to understand where SF zoning came from. it started in Berkeley CA to exclude minorities from owning property and it grew from there. Understanding history to better understand the current situation is critically important. Thank you again for your well written article.
shredie79, no one is forcing you to park on the street. You can have as many parking spaces on your own property as you want. And it’s already illegal to block driveways and mailboxes.
“We see this as a thinly veiled form of racism.” …is that a joke? Not wanting overpopulated neighborhoods has absolutely nothing to do with “racism”. As a homeowner I have experienced the quality of my neighborhood go DOWN because of not only traffic congestion, but also the riff raff that multi units naturally bring. Brown, black, white or purple, doesn’t matter. It’s detrimental to the quality of our neighborhoods.
Keep drinkin the kool aid, Source.
I applaud State and City efforts to increase affordable housing for our working neighbors who find themselves out-bid by newcomers. But there is NOTHING in the City’s proposed adoption of HB2001 that guarantees any middle or infill housing will go to them – white, black or brown – and won’t be sold to the highest bidder, as it is now. By law Bend has until mid-2022 to shape and adopt its HB2001 policy. We could collectively use the time to rectify this.
I appreciate your recognition that the burden of infill will not be equitably shared across Bend; existing HOAs can preclude infill.
I was not surprised to learn that the Orchard Neighborhood requested the HB 2001 public information meeting on July 22. The established neighborhoods in NE Bend and Midtown – with their larger lots and wider streets and no HOA protections – are prime candidates for infill. I’m happy to scootch over for my working neighbor. Not so much so a private equity firm can add to its portfolio at my expense.
I found this link with its objective information on the topic very helpful.
“Oregon remains one of the fastest growing states in the country, but state and local growth management policies, as well as community opposition, have made it challenging to accommodate the state’s population growth through traditional methods. This has resulted in increasing housing affordability problems across the state. During a public hearing on the bill in the Oregon legislature, the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative Tina Kotek, noted, “This is about allowing for different opportunities in neighborhoods that are currently extremely limited.” The principles underlying HB 2001 are generally in alignment with the national movement frequently referred to as “Yes in My Back Yard (YIMBY),” which calls for increasing housing of all types to alleviate shortages in markets throughout the country.”
https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/cd/page/ho…
If someone parks in front of your house – big deal??? Really, how about if I want to have people at my house to visit but there is no parking anywhere in the neighborhood because we build houses with no parking. If you think this is not a big deal, you really need to talk to police departments across the country about one of the biggest complaints/problems they receive from citizens. It’s lack of parking. A 2-bedroom house/apartment can have 4+ people living in that and they all have cars. What then?? It’s cities with their greed to appease developers and tell them they can reduce parking. Well, they don’t have to live in that neighborhood. This isn’t about racism – not everything is. This is about quality living. I know we need housing but don’t dismiss people’s concerns and call it racism. That’s biased reporting at it’s best.
Just drive the neighborhoods off of Portland and Newport in Bnd, and you will see what can happen when there is no place to park. HB2001 needs to be modified to provided off street parking for 2 vehicles per family dwelling. For example, a duplex should have 4 off street parking spots. Thats how it should be and we need to make sure our representatives make the appropriate changes to this bill to make sure it is in place. I agree, out of state investors are always coming in here trying to make a fast buck and leave a trail of mess behind them. Its not about affordable housing, its about sensible housing for a growing population. Look at the neighborhood off Wilson and the train tracks, lots of multi family units, tons of vehicles parked along the streets. Its unsafe and unnecessary. Build to accommodate or dont build!
This editorial is abrasive in tone, to say the least. The sad thing about reduced parking requirements is that once units are built, there is NO going back. Have you visited residential neighborhoods in West Seattle, for example? A car can hardly get through the streets, much less a fire truck or ambulance. And there is no fix to be had. All built out. Too late.
Ms Keebler uses photos of our downtown garage at 8 am to show parking availability. The city cites parking consultants from eastern cities that have robust public transit. This scam is being foisted upon us and all of Bend will pay a hefty price in future. We will see more economic and social division, not less.