Eugene Has A Choice On Implementing New Zoning

Ryan Moore’s letter in Eugene Weekly (11/18) provided an exquisite example of the empty virtue signaling that characterizes so much of the commentary from advocates of the extreme, free-market-based zoning deregulation proposed by city planners.

Following his unsupported, ad hominem attacks on “shortsighted” property owners and “bad faith actors,” Moore tries to impress with a series of “facts.” Whether overstated or not, all of these are facts about current or past problems, with which there is no general disagreement — even by the nefarious bad-faith actors.

What’s missing is any evidence and analysis at all about solutions.

I may be a shortsighted property owner, but my vision is clear enough to understand that the city can implement HB 2001 as the staff have proposed, which is extreme deregulation far beyond HB 2001 dictates, without any affordability or anti-displacement provisions. Investors would be the only parties to reap the benefits.

Alternatively, the city can implement HB 2001 with the minimum required deregulation (which would still be substantial) accompanied by affordability and anti-displacement provisions. Lower income households would then derive at least some benefit, and investors would still reap substantial financial gains from the resulting upzoning.

That is the choice, and the bad-faith actors that Moore denigrates seem to be the ones on the right side of the housing justice issue.

Vic Hariton


Comments are closed.