Developer gets Eugene residents' criticism of Oregon's HB 2001 all wrong

Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Andrew Blumm offers up all three in his opinion piece in The Register-Guard (Guest View, April 3)

Blumm’s first offense is the false accusation: “A recent housing-facts.org mailer vehemently rebutted the proposed middle housing amendments based on numerous falsehoods to justify ineffective alternatives.”

The truth is that the housing-facts.org flyer was meticulously accurate.

Blumm mentions only a single supposed “falsehood,” asserting: “For example, [the flyer] calls for high density affordable housing near transit rather than allowing infill of existing R-1 neighborhoods. … This is a fallacy; density consistently results in reduced auto dependence.”

Kahle:Fear and chaos at Eugene City Council middle housing work session

Nowhere does the flyer argue against allowing infill in R-1 Zone neighborhoods. Rather, the flyer opposes the city staff’s extreme deregulation of zoning to allow huge, multi-unit development covering 75% of the lot with no off-street parking.

Ironically, the study Blumm cites actually concludes, “Compact development features do not appear to have much influence on driving.”

Blumm also ignores whether new housing should be focused on medium- and high-density development along EmX routes versus distributing relatively low-density multiplexes all over Eugene, even where there isn’t adequate public transportation to eliminate the need for a car. Opponents favor the former, while city staff’s proposed HB 2001 code amendments create incentives for the climate-worsening alternative.

Blumm trots out the discredited “trickle-down” theory of housing costs with a hyperbolic quote: “Many households are forced to bid up the price of a fixed housing supply, until you get shacks in San Francisco selling for millions … New market-rate development, even of the luxury variety, helps relieve pressure on local housing prices.”

Eugene undeniably has a housing problem, but the force driving extreme housing prices is large, private equity funds outbidding prospective homeowners for single-family homes where upzoning allows a property to be redeveloped with expensive, multi-unit rentals.

Blumm claims another study demonstrates: “A data-driven approach inevitably leads to the conclusion that R-1 infill, even luxury infill, makes housing more affordable.” Blumm conveniently ignores the study’s author's disclaimer: “I do not estimate price effects.”

More luxury infill would potentially make housing more affordable for high-income households (while displacing some lower-income renters). However, the claim is patently false regarding housing that would be affordable to most housing cost-burdened households in Eugene.

From News:Eugene's middle housing proposal drew hours of feedback for and against

With his final Disraelian statistic, Blumm swings into unvarnished gaslighting, claiming that “opposition to R-1 infill is most often perpetuated by single-family homeowners citing affordability concerns.” Blumm presumes single-family homeowners couldn’t honestly be concerned about housing affordability for Eugene’s housing cost-burdened households.

Blumm relies on an absurd comment by a UCLA official that “in every housing market in North America, a typical condo will cost a quarter to half as much as a single-family home.” No condominium in Eugene costs a quarter of what a single-family home of comparable size, quality, age and location costs.

Absent legitimate facts, Blumm amps up his gaslighting with further dark, ad hominem attacks on Eugene homeowners who oppose the planning staff’s extreme, market-rate deregulation:

• “The intention may be more selfish, such as segregating themselves from lower-income residents or driving up their investment values.”

• “To many [opponents], the self-serving nature of exclusionary zoning may not be a conscious decision.”

• “[P]rogressive-minded individuals have righteously proclaimed their opposition to infill housing despite its alignment with their beliefs. Why?”

Apparently, Blumm believes every Eugene resident who has stated thoughtful, evidence-based arguments opposing the planning staff’s overreach is “selfish,” a “segregationist,” greedy, self-serving or betraying their own principles.

Blumm began his screed with “[t]here may be a duplex next door … and that’s a good thing,” implying that opponents of the city staff’s code amendments oppose duplex infill. He must know that’s a strawman because opponents have made clear their support for compatible infill, including true “middle housing,” which has a form and scale compatible with the surrounding residential development.

Blumm’s support for the staff’s proposed code amendments, however, suggests he also believes a three-story, faux “quadplex” with four, expensive, detached, three-story dwellings that cover all the buildable space within a lot’s setbacks, each dwelling on a lot less than 900 square feet, is “a good thing.”

Most Eugene residents would call such development a travesty, especially on a lot where a lower-cost rental house was demolished to make room.

Rene Kane is the former neighborhood planner with the Eugene Human Rights and Neighborhood Involvement office. She was formerly the chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors.

This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Oregon housing bill: Developer gets residents' criticism all wrong