Does Eugene really have an affordable housing crisis? Yes, but . . .

Image from the City of Eugene's Missing Middle Housing Types Handbook

Paul Conte—former chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Association—is a well-known opponent to upzoning of single-family residential zones and a persistent and formidable thorn in the side of advocates for more diverse housing choice within well-established, historically stable neighborhoods. Paul’s aggressive defense on behalf of the homeowners he chooses to represent has garnered him considerable notoriety and animus within the local planning and development community.

This past June, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2001, which requires upzoning of single-family neighborhoods by June 30, 2022 to allow a greater diversity of housing options and increase density through the introduction of “missing middle” types. HB 2001 applies to Eugene and Springfield, but excludes nearby commuter towns with a population of 10,000 or fewer, including Coburg, Junction City, Veneta, Creswell, Pleasant Hill, Harrisburg, Monroe, Lowell, and Oakridge. The bill also exempts all existing subdivisions with applicable Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (thus, residents of many wealthier and newer developments would not be required to bear their share of the burden of increased density, which is unfair to other neighborhoods that do not have CC&Rs).

Paul emailed me a couple of messages with the hope I would share them with my fellow local architects. Fundamentally, he believes most architects and advocates for densification of R-1 zones (such as WE CAN) don’t understand the real nature of the housing crisis and why mandating the introduction of missing middle typologies within R-1 neighborhoods may be misguided. I found the points he made in his messages persuasive but also deserving of our skeptical examination, so I am happy to share them here.

One of his emails included the following letter to Eugene mayor Lucy Vinis and the members of the city council on August 13:

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

While you have time to catch your breath on break, you may want to take a calm look at a question for which there seems to be little debate regarding the answer:

Does Eugene really have an "affordable housing" crisis? 

The "conventional wisdom" from some quarters seems to be "Yes! And we need more ADUs, more 'Missing Middle Housing' and fewer 'barriers' in the code."

Well, the first part of the answer is valid—Yes, we do have an affordable housing crisis. 

But what follows in the conventional wisdom is patently wrong. The chart below (also attached as a larger PDF page), using the City staff's own data drawn from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (see attached), shows that there is no shortage of "affordable" housing in Eugene, except for low-income households.

Lest anyone is skeptical of this chart, I created it using the exact method used for the following chart in the National Low Income Housing Coalition in their March 2019 report: The GAP -- A Shortage of Affordable Homes. 

So, to the councilors who want to do more than support a "feel good" attack on decent, single-family homeowners, stop the current staff nonsense and focus all your energy on subsidized apartments on major transit corridors. Start by taking the steps to "activate" MUPTE on the W. 6th and 7th Ave. segment of EmX.

The very simple fact is that above the Very Low Income (VLI) and Extremely Low Income (ELI) categories, there is no shortage of affordable housing either nationally or in Eugene. (Not surprisingly, the city planning staff's slick handout obscures the central fact and gives the false impression that the "housing crisis" affects a wide range of household incomes.)

The second simple fact is this: The discrepancy between income and the price—not cost—of market-rate housing is what causes VLI and ELI households to be severely housing cost burdened. Market-rate "middle housing," including market-rate fake "ADUs" (i.e., with no owner occupancy) is no solution at all for the real housing crisis in Eugene. These "YIMBY" diversions aren't even a so-called "one tool in the toolbox"—as market-rate housing, ADUs and plexes do not provide the truly "missing" dwellings, which are subsidized apartments, but instead will cause harm from redevelopment and price increases arising from speculation.

Thank you.

Paul Conte

Given the passage of HB 2001, Paul may be tilting at windmills by lobbying the mayor and city councilors; nevertheless, the issue is whether his arguments carry merit and therefore worthy of our consideration.

His second email to me related a cautionary question & answer with a senior planning commissioner (Alissa Luepke Pier) in Minneapolis reflecting upon that city’s historic zoning reform, which upzones its single-family neighborhoods to allow diversification of housing types within them. Paul views the commissioner’s comments as a “damning critique” of legislation that Oregon’s HB 2001 emulates:

“The policy took as its starting point that more units automatically equals more affordability, and there wasn’t any interest in delving into whether or not that was actually a factual equation on which to base major decisions. The policy does not cite any research to support its assertion, nor does it even lay out any aspirational goals regarding the extent of the impact they hope to achieve (such as in anticipated added units, or even in theoretical decreases to housing costs). Without any sort of concrete metric, it is impossible to analyze the policy's effectiveness in achieving its goal of improved housing affordability. That is convenient when what one is proposing is a vague, one-size-fits-all solution with no real statistical support linking it to its presupposed conclusion.

“We don’t have any safeguards for this proposed policy, and once we enact these rights, they’re grandfathered in forever. There is no contingency plan, no method to test effectiveness, and no metrics for success. The consequences of a policy like this on a community like mine are far too harmful to be glossed over in the name of innovation. Let me be clear: Adoption of this policy without adequate safeguards will cause great, long-term harm to low income families and communities of color, and there is no way to undo the damage once Pandora’s box has been opened.

“We’re seeing investors come in, run the housing stock into the ground, treat the tenants like garbage, and immediately take all their rental income—money that could be invested in the community—out of the neighborhood. This is an immediate capital flight from the community, leaving local residents without the expendable income to invest in local opportunities or support local businesses.

“To summarize: In an effort to alleviate the affordable housing crisis, the city is offering my community smaller, crappier housing for no less money, with the added insult to injury of making it harder for them to buy a house and build generational wealth within their own community. It’s shocking to me that we’re patting ourselves on the back for this.

“Question: As of the last few years, the largest residential real estate owner in metropolitan California is the global equity firm Blackstone. Are similar changes in residential ownership happening in Minneapolis?

“Yes. I’ve heard from realtors specializing in North Minneapolis that they are being contacted by firms on the West Coast, in Florida, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere who are looking to buy up multiple parcels at a time, sight unseen. Those interests are chomping at the bit for this policy to pass. It saddens me that we would take ownership opportunities away, not only from the immediate community, but from the region as a whole, in favor of global investors.

“If you are enacting change in the name of others, it seems morally irresponsible not to examine that change from every possible angle and study its impact on those same communities before pushing it through. We can brand it with whatever buzzword we want, but if the end result is just a perpetuation and exacerbation of housing and economic inequities, should it really be lauded as “innovative?””

So if not in established R-1 neighborhoods, where can we provide expanded housing opportunities while fulfilling the affordability, compact urban development, and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene, not to mention HB 2001? The recalcitrance of concerned owners of single-family homes has proven to be a considerable obstacle. Is overcoming that obstacle necessary to responsibly address our community’s growth and change? If we do nothing will we effectively be accepting financially gated neighborhoods in our midst, contrary to our better natures?

I previously asserted the recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older neighborhoods unique, but also demands creative, inspired design. This may be the reason why it is elusive: the making of good, deferential architecture that respects its context isn’t always assured, and resistance to change is human nature. Regardless, it’s clear our housing stock needs diversification to adequately address the myriad ways Eugene is changing. Certainly, managing change by densifying established neighborhoods will only work if it is the outcome of a community and neighbors-driven process that dives deeply into issues of structural form, market demand, affordability, and traffic impact. Lacking such a process, the inevitable results will be continued resistance. 

One argues with Paul at their own peril, because he is always well-armed with selected facts to back his position. If you’re not likewise prepared and able to riposte effectively, scoring points is difficult. I don’t entirely understand what makes Paul tick and what his motivations are but I know well-enough to avoid taking him head-on because, as a preternaturally skilled debater, he is capable of talking circles around me and most everyone else.

My guess is Paul considers me a useful fool, which is why he asked me to forward his thoughts on this subject. The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the affordable housing crisis is real. Where folks differ is on how to address the problem—whether the solution includes upzoning of R-1 zones or providing MUPTE-like incentives outside those neighborhoods along major transportation corridors instead, or both. I’m sure Paul would appreciate hearing your opinions.