I think, as this post from Andrew Burleson shows, even if there are top-down "preemptive" ideas and initiatives for building more affordable housing coming from the state, there are still a myriad of ways the actual execution can get lost (or never start) in a swamp of requirements. Thus, for me, it's about both.
I wish someone smarter than me could look at why in a state like Oregon, where single-family zoning is basically illegal state-wide (something I feel like I see as a "step one" in so many articles offering legislative suggestions for making the housing environment more friendly), it's still lagging behind its stated housing production goals - fewer housing permits are being pulled, from 2022 to now.
When we talk about state preemption, we're often talking about direct intervention to put in new rules that replace all of that mess. Granted, this often ends up being like pruning a hedgerow, rather than wholesale copy/pasting over a city's entire zoning, building code, and approval process. (e.g. easing up requirements within a certain radius of transit stops and making permitting by-right).
That said, passing a state law is never enough. Cities find all manner of creative ways to delay or maliciously comply with state mandates in order to prevent construction. Dealing that is what we call "implementation" and often involve local YIMBYs doing city level advocacy to pressure electeds (or, in many cases just give them air cover) comply with state mandates in good faith. It also often involves suing (or threatening to sue) non-compliant cities (oftentimes, localities aren't actually that clever and just break the law).
I think, as this post from Andrew Burleson shows, even if there are top-down "preemptive" ideas and initiatives for building more affordable housing coming from the state, there are still a myriad of ways the actual execution can get lost (or never start) in a swamp of requirements. Thus, for me, it's about both.
I wish someone smarter than me could look at why in a state like Oregon, where single-family zoning is basically illegal state-wide (something I feel like I see as a "step one" in so many articles offering legislative suggestions for making the housing environment more friendly), it's still lagging behind its stated housing production goals - fewer housing permits are being pulled, from 2022 to now.
https://postsuburban.substack.com/p/how-cities-block-affordable-housing
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/01/28/oregon-needs-to-build-29500-more-homes-each-year-chief-economist-says/
Hey Nick, thanks for commenting!
When we talk about state preemption, we're often talking about direct intervention to put in new rules that replace all of that mess. Granted, this often ends up being like pruning a hedgerow, rather than wholesale copy/pasting over a city's entire zoning, building code, and approval process. (e.g. easing up requirements within a certain radius of transit stops and making permitting by-right).
That said, passing a state law is never enough. Cities find all manner of creative ways to delay or maliciously comply with state mandates in order to prevent construction. Dealing that is what we call "implementation" and often involve local YIMBYs doing city level advocacy to pressure electeds (or, in many cases just give them air cover) comply with state mandates in good faith. It also often involves suing (or threatening to sue) non-compliant cities (oftentimes, localities aren't actually that clever and just break the law).
thanks for your response, Jeff!
Maybe it’s because regulations aren’t the problem?
say more!