Based just on the wording in the exerpt, isn't eliminating zoning a good thing? Shouldn't people be free to build whatever type of housing structure they want on their property? YIMBY.

True. Leftists don’t care about people. They just want to control by force

Very good idea, but, in your dreams I'm afraid.

Agreed. Just meddling to promote looting. Can't wait to see who is granted exceptions to the new law. (I predict that statistical correlation to people donating to election campaigns will be 100%.)

Absolutely true, but the single family zoning laws were also governmental bias being enforced by governmental power.

I wish I agreed with your conclusion, WS. Unfortunately, this is just government impressing its political bias (on people that don't agree with it) to get votes and assure its own socialist power.

Unfortunately, this bill might make your area grow even faster.

They aren't giving up zoning. They are restricting it to the kind of zoning that promotes socialism, dependence on others production, and equality of outcomes while reducing the possible reward for merit and ability.

Saul Alinsky (so) was her guru and we all know what he was! I think Hillary Clinton may be the worst thing that ever happened to America!

I have been fighting this stuff since over 20 years. Hillary was all for it, being joined at the hip with the UN. She praised communes there at the time, which she visited. UN Agenda 21 calls for population density, smart growth, and ultimately the end of property ownership by citizens, only gov. They call private property "unsustainable." Those people out there tried this back then, until they started telling lawyers where the could live, and lost in court. Anyone in the city with too large a lot had to surrender part of it, or never get a permit for repairs or upgrades. Housing b ecame so expensive only the rich could afford it. It lost to the lawyrs, but now it is state wide, not just one city. Land ownership is important to our culture, and this is a terrible decision by some liberals hack lawmakers. Over the years I have read the grants our own mayor has accepted, and many call for a population density for the downtown area,, which luckly never is accomplished.

Most of our population is centered in the Willamette Valley corridor, from Portland to around Eugene. However, the coastal zone has rapidly been gaining population, and there is a leftist enclave in certain areas.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ordinances are good and bad. We have one which says if a hard-wood tree is over 18 inches in diameter at the trunk, any sidewalk must be diverted around it! Makes for interesting walking. And you cannot ride a bicycle on a sidewalk. We have bicycle lanes. We have an Ordinance that prohibits brawling on city hall property. (Two attorneys didn't know this, but I did! They learned quickly!)

My objection to zoning is the question, "Who will be the Zoning Official?" That would be a really nice job. Lots of money to change hands. Which is why when my city held an election and passed 'zoning', I sued and had the election thrown out. We have excellent City Ordinances that can easily be revoked. We do not need zoning! Houston, Texas has survived without it since the 1800's. Fortunately, I was able to throw out my city's stupid election (which the citizens didn't understand) because the Council was so stupid, they didn't publish the Ordinance calling the election in English and Spanish! Our Spanish neighbors have homes here too.

While the liberal views of Oregon generally are "rattling our cages", this is really removing the ability for cities to limit private property rights -- something that we should be in favor of.

It doesn't forbid single family dwellings, it frees the property owner to build whatever he wants.

Young people are getting priced out of the housing market. Part of the reason is that zoning laws are being used to artificially raise the price of existing housing by limiting the stock. This is not a use of government we should be applauding.

We will have to see what happens. Property values might go up for single family areas, t least short term. The land zones multi, however, might see a drop and thus could potentially fall under that.

Population density is a a strong indicator of how much the people clamor for more intrusive government. Higher density means more, lower means less. This is a main reason why bigger cities tests to be “blue” even in “red” states. If America spread out from the cities and became a much lower populations density country, the Dems would lose for probably 20 years before they figured it out.

If Republicans really wanted to “gerrymander” on the sly, has the long term vision, and the insight they would have been pushing locally for restrictions that limit density. They could pretty much get away with it as well - watch how people in a single family neighborhood get riled up over new large apartment complexes going in.

They could do it under the guise of traffic control and quality of life. If they teamed that up with allowing light commercial and even light a industrial in those areas, they get a lock on those areas. Those types of areas are highly “walkable”. Lower density combined with walkable districts where business and living mingle would be havens for people who don’t feel the need to control others.

I’ve seen people personally make the transition in both directions. I’ve seen leftists become classical liberal after moving to a low density area and living for a while, and I’ve seen the opposite in friends who move to the big city.

All true. There is, however, another angle that will be interesting to see. How will property values and property tax shift? While the Left likes to whine about “gentrification” they ignore the real way people are pushed out of their home by not being able to afford it: by not being able to pay proper taxes when their area gets rezoned.

Usually it happens when a non-subdividable One get changed to be subdividable. When that happens the price almost always goes up, and quite a bit. Thus the property taxes due. In many jurisdictions a secondary effect kicks in where subdivisble property gets taxed at a higher rate as well.

I don’t know what Oregon’s property tax rates and conditions are any more (haven’t cared for more than a decade), but it is Oregon so I wouldn’t doubt there is an unspoken motivation there. After all, we are talking about a state that taxes you based on rainfall and if you can see the ocean from your property.

There is yet another aspect to consider: HOA/POA limits. Of course, there will be knock on effects such as roads no longer being sufficient and traffic becoming s problem as places go higher density.

And finally, it is well known that the higher the population density the more the residents want government interference. I also wouldn’t put it last then to finally be paying attention to that. We’ve known this for decades, and it is a bit surprising neither side has leveraged it. Then again, politicians aren’t exactly know for long term thinking of late.

Great comment FreedomForAll

Is zoning a proper function of government? If not, shouldn’t we be in favor of removing zoning restrictions, as the Oregon legislature has done?
“A limited, rights-respecting government would have no welfare system and no forced pension-paying system like Social Security in the U.S. It would not have agencies with open-ended and vaguely defined regulatory powers. There would be no anti-trust law, nor zoning laws, nor anti-drug laws.”
https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/...

The new law does not "ban" single-family dwellings. It simply overturns restrictive zoning laws that allow only single-family dwellings in certain urban areas. Big difference.

This zoning reform does not interfere with homeowners’ use and disposal of their property, and therefore does not constitute a taking. It has nothing to do with the recent Supreme Court decision (which involved a township forcing a property owner to allow public access to her property). There is no moral principle requiring a government to continue propping up the market value of a property by keeping restrictive zoning laws in place.

The irony is that Oregon is thinly populated.

All this tells me that Oregon is trying to get the #1 Jackass State title on the left Coast, competing with CA and WA.

I used to have a friend when we lived in PA who was from Oregon, married to a very reasonable nice guy. She was a rabid liberal which wasn't very obvious b/c nobody in the friendship circle agreed with her, so she was considered an anomaly, ignored.

She moved back to Oregon and we lost touch. But I am sure she is very happy with the environment she is in now.

No,,,till death do they part!