Agenda Packet 12-12-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Community Response to Online Survey Following 11/28/18 Meeting 90 • Some confusion about details of options. • There's a lot of agreement on little things that probably won't make much difference, but disagreement remains on changes that would either potentially increase density in some neighborhoods or cost money. • Current zoning is very out of sync with current housing demand and popular housing types such as missing middle housing. No cost zoning changes could provide much needed relief to housing demand while also promoting stronger walkability in neighborhoods. • Code and permit revisions to make the process of building more housing easier and faster seem to have gained a consensus - with everyone but the representatives from the Neighborhood Leaders Council. The NLC, an un-elected body of appointed representatives from the boards of neighborhood associations that are currently active, appears to be concerned with keeping the status quo of development strategies rather than making bold steps towards improving housing affordability. The NLC is two levels removed from actual 'neighbors' and isn't actually accountable to anyone. Given this, I have to wonder how representative of the 'neighbors' they actually are. Given that pretty much everyone involved in this working group is a neighbor somewhere, if the NLC representatives are opposing particular strategies, perhaps they are doing so because of biases they brought to the working group and not as a result of conversations within their neighborhoods. • Given that there appeared to be very little discussion or weighing of the pros and cons of each option by the entire group (and little data and analysis to determine if any of the options met the goals of increased affordability and availability one could reasonably conclude that people voted on their personal preferences the exact same way if they had voted at the beginning of meeting #1. Therefore, the outcome was reflective of the people who were carefully chosen (knowing what their positions were) to be in this so-called working group. • Most of the category 1 items have strong support and just need to be written in legalese and voted for by city council. Please do those quickly then work on the others. • The manipulation of the group by the process, in which participants were forced by the process to vote on vague word groups, the meaning of which, was not adequately defined or set in any factual basis vis-a-vis existing municipal or state guidance documents or given any relevance to how the issue under consideration would make housing more affordable, accessible or diverse. • Commitment to transit corridor density. Tepid support for affordable housing for Eugene residents over investor profit. • It seems many of the participants are assuming that building "middle housing" types of structures and ADUs will provide lower costs for the residents. In my opinion this is not a given and depending upon the zoning changes to allow these it could in fact, lead to the demolition of many currently lower cost housing units. • The voting process was completely without validity. A mere, reflection of 27 or 28 individual individuals without consideration of critical facts to inform their votes. A farce, really. • Not enough time. December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2