Affordable?

I am old, not an idiot.

I'm old enough to remember what REAL exclusionary housing practices were:  Deed restrictions on race and ethnicity, children and the disabled being shut out of rental housing, cities where red-lining occurred, sellers and landlords refusing to sell or rent to certain classes of people.  In some cases there were laws that supported discrimination, and in other places it was a practice that was not prohibited.  Exclusionary housing practices were made illegal with the Fair Housing Act.

Now I learn that exclusionary zoning exists and must be eradicated.  It is considered something as innocuous, and important, as zoning for lot size, and preserving the character of a neighborhood.  A R-7.5 zone is more exclusionary than R-5.  R-10 or 20 is extremely exclusionary, while R-0 (multifamily) is least exclusionary.  Lot size limits are considered by some to be exclusionary (exclusive?) because larger pieces of land represent a higher cost for the housing on it, which makes the zoning itself a barrier to affordable housing.  This was all new to me.  Depending on the community, a large-lot house is very affordable, so this can't be the problem.

The word "exclusion" means that people are being intentionally barred from entry.  In the case of lot size, there is no intent to exclude and no discrimination regarding who can own a lot or buy or rent a home.  There is nothing exclusive about a larger lot except perhaps a person's income, which will always be unequal.  Is "classism" the problem then, and not housing?

It is ironic that the same people who have degraded the suburbs as merely "sprawl" and devoid of cultural integrity, now think that those neighborhoods are the places they want to live, or want others to live.  But it is not the character of the place they respect or desire, but the opportunity to make the suburbs into something that is more to their liking.

The means by which this transformation is to take place is through Inclusionary Zoning - an anti-market, anti-capitalist, anti-business and anti-profit model of social justice which makes affordable housing the responsibility of new home builders.  It doesn't work.  But that doesn't stop social equity activists from trying to impose an unfair and costly program on a community.

Because there exists simpler and less expensive ways to provide housing for the truly needy, even in wealthy communities, the IZ "solution" is not a housing program at all but a social jab at specific neighborhoods.  Large lots and low income people live all over the Metro area, so the "exclusionary" dilemma that the IZ laws want to solve are bogus.  Dispersing poor people out of poverty pockets is not difficult and can be done without spending huge sums on subsidized housing or taking advantage of builders.  The IZ laws are about something more dark and ugly.

Read about Inclusionary Zoning and its effectiveness HERE and Download the Paper by the Reason Foundation: Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?

HB 2564 - Inclusionary Zoning in the 2015 Oregon legislature  

Bill Title:

Relating to affordable housing.

Catchline/Summary:	Repeals law that prevents local governments from imposing conditions on approved permits that effectively establish sales price for residential development or limit purchase to class or group of purchasers.