09-26-16 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From Tom Happy 09/19/2016 All, Firstand foremost,listen to the people whoare directly impacted by zoning changes. The resultsof the Chambers Node Revisitedprocess of a dozen years ago, as well as the more recent special area zone The zoning changes process in Jefferson Westside, are laudable examples of effective citizen engagement. in these examplesmeetthe state ¬ £at¤£ ta±¦¤³² fordensity, ¢omply with city code for the same, and have meaningful protections to preserve the livabilit¸ of ³§¤ neighborhoods ¨volved. The trouble starts whenchanges are madethat suddenly and significantly alterthe character of a home, a block or a neighborhood. The simplest way to think about it is to ask yourself "what would I be happy to live with in the way of changes next to my home?" It causes problems when the notion of infill is something "out there." Your "out there" isalways somebodyelse's home. Ponder that one,and I mean really let it sink in. Myfamily has been victimized by poor planning more than once. Indealing with thisreality, I have met or talked with multiple City of Eugene Planning Division staff. Every single one of them has been friendly, polite, and generally helpful. Yet, I have somewhere south of "very little trust" for the Planning Division as a whole. This is due solely to my experience on the ground. Businesses, non-profit organizations, governmental entitiesall want predictability in their dealings. Certainty is even better. Tools like MUPTE are ways of creating some certaintyfor developers. What about homeowners, I ask? Don't you think that most folks who own a home want the same thing? There is a huge disconnect between the City's aspirational goals for infill development and theactual results-to- date. The developers are in the driver's seat, and their interests are not the same as the City's, not to mention the neighboring home owners'. It is no surprise that thereal world product of thissystem is not working for the impacted residents. We already have a largeinventoryof "reasonably affordable" housing. When established, older homes arebulldozed to build new,denser housing, affordability goes out the window. The ONLY affordable housing being built new is that which is subsidized, and in many cases this will not be the case forever (that is,eventuallymuch of this will become market-rate housing). When neighborhoods are destabilized, quality oflife diminishesfor those unfortunate enough to live there. Those who can do so willeventually move, usuallyto areas closer to the urban fringe and away from thecore. This iscounter to the aims of densifying the city core and minimizing sprawl. Poorly planned and placedinfill leads to the very problem (sprawl, due toflightfrom established core neighborhoods) that it is trying to address. And even if the net result ofbad infill ismoredensity,thinkaboutwhat happensto the heart, the character, the soul of a neighborhood when the long-term, truly investedresidents (from families, to retirees, to elderly who've spent their entire lives in the same house) move away en masse. How, in any way,shape orform,could this be conceived of as a good thing, or a desiredoutcome? Infill needsto happen incrementally,respectfully, and thoughtfully in established neighborhoodsin order to succeed onall levels. Targetedhigh-densityhousing, where appropriate,canallowforlarge increases in housing stock.Opportunitysiting and transit corridors are prime places for this. There should be a gradual transition from the above into the neighborhood core, not wholesale change.