Written comments oppose city approach to HB 2001

by John Q. Murray

Public comments overwhelmingly oppose the city’s third try at a middle housing ordinance.

As posted on the city website Nov. 21, 96% of all written comments—148 of 154—opposed the latest HB 2001 package. With two comments seen as neutral, just four supported the city, with half of those coming from Mayor-elect Kaarin Knudson.

On Nov. 11, Ann Wright, who moved here from a city that implemented an “eerily similar” middle housing code, explained why she is opposing the latest middle housing ordinance: It was a disaster for everyone except the developers.

“We had sewage spilling out onto our driveway due to too many structures attached to an aging system,” she wrote. “Then, we had boil water notices because said sewage got into the drinking water. And of course the water cost went through the roof—but to this day there are still regular boil water notices. But that was fine because there wasn’t enough water for everyone anyway some days.”

She said taxes skyrocketed because locals, rather than developers, were “left on the hook” for the infrastructure repair and maintenance costs. “I’m not even touching upon the traffic, pollution and roads and highway repair/maintenance nightmare… I am also not including the ugliness of it all, both physically and emotionally – razing entire neighborhoods for gigantic apartment buildings and displacing a lot of young families and retired folks that could not afford to move.”

Entire elementary schools closed due to the displacement of families from these neighborhoods, she recalled. Many of these families ended up homeless, because they could not afford the new housing going up.

“Then there’s the transitory population issue; the folks who move to places for a job that lasts one to three years. They don’t get involved in the city, or vote in local issues, nor do they invest in or care about the community— they’re just looking for their next gig. And by the way, housing never went down in price after adding 500,000 units. It’s all market rate; in other words, still unaffordable. And the infrastructure is still failing.”

Eugene embarked on an ambitious attempt to provide incentives that went beyond required state mandates. Mayor-elect Kaarin Knudson called the city’s unanimous adoption of middle housing code amendments “a decision of lasting importance.”

Another supporter remarked on the uncertainty, cost, and aggravation to developers as the city has struggled to comply with state law. Dylan Lamar, architect and developer of Springfield’s C Street Co-op, wrote: “Both of my current projects have occurred during the recent remands, and have followed the state model code as a result. This has not substantively changed the design or construction of the homes, but what it has done is waste a substantial amount of taxpayer money in the form of a more complicated permit review process demanding more time from City officials. It has also wasted a lot of my time jumping through hoops.”

Comments expressing opposition asked the city to adopt the state’s model code, asked the city to provide clear and objective information about the city’s infrastructure capacity, and offered personal observations, including thoughts about Eugene’s reputation as “an ugly city”:

• Lawrence Siskind: How many times do we have to go through this process? The requirements exist for reasons that were and are important to the state legislature. Why the city planners choose to ignore them is the question that should be asked.
• David Burkett: Please stop pursuing a World Record for Remands.
• Tom Bruno: Isn’t this third attempt to dodge the substantive requirements of Goal 11 headed for a third appeal and remand?
• Stephen Johnston: It is well past time to stop the unfounded overreach that has characterized the city’s handling of this issue.
• Dan Soeby: Why is this such a mess and being so poorly done?
• Wayne Gaddy: Please quit wasting time and resources trying to push through what state agencies have twice rejected. This is an abuse of power that’s worthy of Trumpists.
• Deb and Christopher Michaels: It is vital that this ordinance follows the minimum Oregon requirements, including adequate infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, and electric) when adding multi-unit structures to older infrastructure systems to prevent strain and/or collapse of these systems. Safety and health are crucial to all citizens when providing more housing.
• Carlis Nixon: Density does not have to be ugly.
• Jody Kellerman: Let us all stop wasting energy and money on this shameful merry-go-round.
• Carl Darwin: Cut your losses, lick our wounds, and by all means, don’t try and serve us up another bowl of this crap chowder.
• Gary Heldt: As an engineer who has designed sewer and water infrastructure, I think the proposed allowed density increases for R1 and R2 are simply too much for the existing infrastructure to handle in many areas of town.
• Carol Watt: Good pitch from old and present guard (Obie non-knowbie still doing his pitch).
• Tom Happy: The fact that this is the third try is telling.
• Melanie Weir: My neighborhood was built more than 60 years ago, and infrastructure was based on the laws in place at the time. (Roads, water, sewer and electric) will not hold up to increased demand without heavy investment.
• Lisa-Marie DiVincent: More and more people are seeing through the city’s attempts to ignore the court rulings against your dangerous and unnecessarily over-expanded land use ordinance change attempts.
• Paul Schultz: Please stop the process of disregarding existing regulations. Please establish systems to ensure permit offices deliver accurate and consistent advice to building applicants.

Charles Woodward IV, the attorney in the successful remands of Ordinance 20667 and Ordinance 20705, called the city’s latest efforts inadequate and a waste of taxpayer money. He said another appeal would also succeed unless the city followed direction set in LUBA and court decisions. Here is the task put to the city, he wrote: Consider the impact of the proposed amendments and ensure that the effected Goal 11 infrastructure is sufficient to handle the expected development at the time of the Ordinance’s adoption.

Among the two comments considered neutral, Robert MacConnell wrote: “I request that Mayor and City Councilors make sure and do what is necessary to implement a legally sound ordinance that can withstand a legal challenge. We can ill afford a third remand! Also I request that an accounting of the excess cost associated with the previous faulty ordinances be made public.” The other neutral comment was from Joi Cardinal, with the subject line “gentlepeeps why slaughter trees.”

Mayor-elect Kaarin Knudson, Ward 1 Councilor-elect Eliza Kashinsky, and Eugene Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Tiffany Edwards spoke in favor of the third HB 2001 ordinance during the city’s public hearing Nov. 18.

Following the public hearing, Councilor Randy Groves asked the city manager for clear and objective information about the city’s infrastructure capacity. “Would it be possible to get some information about what the criterion is for determining whether the infrastructure is adequate? I’m not looking for an engineering study, but just so that we have confidence that this is clear and objective, an objective measure of the capacity.”

The Eugene City Council is scheduled to discuss its latest middle housing ordinance at 7:30 p.m. Monday, Nov. 25.