Sightline Institute Research

Sightline Institute

Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.

  1. FEB 17

    Seattle's No-Cost Emissions Cut The climate benefits of urban neighborhoods, all for the low price of letting people live where they want. Living closer to neighbors saves energy 1. Lower transportation emissions 2. More energy-efficient homes 3. Preser

    Through the first decades of this century, the greater Seattle area had a secret weapon for fighting climate change: it let people choose to live closer to each other. Using a study of neighborhood-level carbon emissions, Sightline estimates that new residents to the Seattle area produced about 5 percent less greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020. That's simply thanks to their metro area being better than any other in the United States at adding homes to existing neighborhoods. The region eliminated about 1 million tons of potential greenhouse gas emissions basically for free: no government spending, no tax credits for efficiency, no carbon trading market, no carbon tax. This public benefit came just from reducing red tape and letting construction workers build the kinds of homes that people want to live in. Building those homes created jobs. Letting people live in them created economic growth, more location choices, and lower energy bills. The metro might have done even better, of course, if it had allowed more homes throughout the region; and it can keep improving in the future. But for the economy of greater Seattle, this category of climate action has been better than a free lunch. It's been a lunch the region got paid to eat. In general, it's a simple relationship: when people live close enough together, they use less energy and emit less greenhouse gases. Take it from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "compact and resource-efficient urban growth through co-location of higher residential and job densities, mixed land use, and transit-oriented development (TOD) could reduce GHG emissions between 23 percent and 26 percent by 2050 compared to the business-as-usual scenario." This effect comes from three main factors: less driving, more energy-efficient buildings, and less displacement of nearby ecosystems by energy-intensive objects like pavement. Cars and trucks are the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in most states and provinces. Residents of the most compact neighborhoods—areas of apartments mixed with workplaces and shops, whether in cities or suburbs—drive much less than residents of spread-out neighborhoods of detached houses on large lots. "Infill housing reduces pollution by reducing driving," as UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation puts it. A Terner Center study finds that San Franciscans emit less than a third as much carbon from transportation as residents of the sprawling Bay Area exurb of Oakley, while making a similar number of trips for the same purposes. Another found that households in California's suburban, single-detached neighborhoods drive more than twice as much every weekday as households in urban neighborhoods with high transit usage. And public transit usage increases with population density (among other factors). In places where few people live close enough to walk to the bus stop, transit can even be less climate-friendly than personal automobiles. These emissions benefits also accrue to existing residents of a neighborhood that adds people, not just new residents moving in. When there are enough people in your neighborhood to support a grocery store or a new bus line, now you get to walk to the grocery store or take the bus to work instead of driving. There's no better insulation than another entire climate-controlled home on the other side of your wall. Urban neighborhoods are much more likely to have such wall-sharing multifamily housing, which one study finds uses 35 percent less energy for heating and 21 percent less energy for cooling than equivalent households in single-detached houses. (What's more, multifamily homes generally have smaller floorplans, which further reduce energy consumption from heating and cooling.) It takes energy to make stuff, and spread-out cities require more stuff. One researcher at Delft University of Technology found that "urban sprawl accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions" via increased raw materi...

    17 min

  2. FEB 17

    Fast, Affordable, Illegal Homes on wheels are a lifeline for families, but zoning codes are still trying to keep them out. Few options to park a mobile dwelling Navigating a legal gauntlet Flying under the radar Tiny homes for a big quality of life Open

    Since NW Tiny Homes opened on Columbia Boulevard in Portland, Oregon, last July, business has been good. By September, the company had already hit its sales goal for the year. It sells stylish park model RVs ranging from $49,900 to $83,000, making them great options for people who are otherwise priced out of the housing market. Unfortunately, owner Jimmy Hickey frequently has to deliver bad news to prospective customers: in their city, it's illegal. Hickey told Sightline: "Pretty much every week or every couple days, we're running into someone that's excited for one of these and then, 'oh sorry.'" He recalls one family in Gresham, Oregon, that was hoping to move their mother out of a nursing home and have her live with them. "We had tears of joy turned into tears of sadness in the same transaction." Portland is one of the few cities that allows people to live in mobile dwellings on any property that already has a house. But elsewhere across Cascadia, local zoning codes prohibit them, forcing people with limited financial means into scarce manufactured housing parks or living under the radar and hoping for the best. City and state officials are trying to change that, with Washington State Representative Mia Gregerson leading the charge. Her proposal, HB 1443, would allow these low-cost dwellings in backyards around the state. Living in RVs, like the ones NW Tiny Homes sells, has been allowed in Washington state for nearly twenty years, but only in manufactured housing parks. Opportunities to live in these communities are limited. The ten manufactured home parks in Bellingham, Washington, for example, can fit just two percent of the city's households combined. Since the Great Recession, demand to live in these places has soared. Jax, who lived in White River Estates in Auburn, Washington, saw the change firsthand. The 204-home park had been purchased by a California company, which raised her rent every six months. Over the years, her monthly rate more than doubled, from $400 to $900. The financial strain was compounded by a car accident that left Jax disabled. She told Sightline, "We realized, if we didn't do something, we were going to end up living in a car." She estimated that by the time she left in 2015, only five families remained who had lived there prior to 2008. Even her three-bedroom trailer in the park had risen in value. She was able to sell it for $80,000, five times what she paid for it a decade prior. Jax then purchased a tiny home for herself and her youngest son to live in for $45,000. Designed by an Oregon builder, their home is a certified RV that can go totally off-grid. "Long story short, it has been the best thing we could have done. Our quality of life has been better because of that." Since then, Jax and her son traveled regionally, towing their house behind them to Seattle, Gold Bar, and Seabeck, before buying a rural property of their own. Despite the stability her tiny home has brought, what she's doing is technically not allowed. "We own the land. We own the house. But technically, we're not living legally in either one." Outside of manufactured housing parks, jurisdictions typically only permit RVs to be inhabited for a prescribed number of days or under special circumstances, like while you are building a permanent house nearby. This is a huge missed opportunity, according to Jax: "Tiny homes are a perfect niche spot for affordable housing that is really not taxing on the government. You can put aging parents in the backyard and keep them out of the nursing home, and keep the corporate nursing home from stealing all the family income. I've seen too many of my friends lose their inheritance." Jax warned this issue would worsen as the population ages. "There are a lot of people who are seniors—in their 50s and 60s, a lot of Gen X—who are going to need tiny homes. We don't have retirement. We're screwed as a generation." Jax has been advocating to legalize tiny homes for years, emailing legislators ...

    13 min

  3. FEB 17

    Ranked Choice Voting, the Utah Way How a conservative state piloted better elections for voters—lessons from four of the movement's leaders. Bipartisan origins and the "Utah Way" A practical, cost-saving solution to electoral problems Getting a key cl

    January 1, 2026, marked the conclusion of a remarkable experiment in American ranked choice voting. A bipartisan bill passed by the Utah legislature in 2019 led some of the state's reddest cities to adopt a ranked choice voting pilot, a program widely appreciated by their mostly Republican voters. These cities reduced their election costs by 40 percent, had fewer low-plurality winners, improved representation, and saw more positive campaigns. At the program's zenith, 23 Utah cities opted to use ranked choice voting methods in their elections, and voters largely approved. Polling found that a majority of voters enjoyed using ranked choice voting, more than 75 percent found it easy to use, a majority were more likely to vote for their preferred candidate, and a majority wanted to continue to use ranked choice voting in local elections. Out of the 23 participant cities, 13 were in counties that cast ballots for President Trump in 2024. In the two inaugural cities, nearly 70 percent of voters voted Republican. Moreover, most of the champions of the policy in Utah are card-carrying Republicans. Yet in recent years, the national Republican Party's official stance on ranked choice voting has soured. Increased partisanship on the issue led to the pilot project sunsetting in 2025, contrary to the values and wishes of its many conservative proponents. How and why did a very red state come to embrace ranked choice voting? What impeded its broader adoption? And as the pilot concludes, what lessons might fellow conservatives draw from Utah's experience? To find out, Sightline spoke with four key players who have helped bring ranked choice voting to the state. The Utah ranked choice voting experiment is notable not only for its popularity among conservative-leaning voters, but also for its origin story. While parties are becoming more polarized in their attitudes toward ranked choice voting today, Utah's experiment began with a notable display of bipartisanship in 2017. The bill to usher in ranked choice voting in Utah was the brainchild of the most progressive member of the state house—and the most conservative. Former Rep. Marc Roberts had been a proponent of ranked choice voting since using the method himself in Utah Republican Party caucus meetings: "In my neighborhood caucus, the precinct chair was a huge proponent of ranked choice voting. He was the one that introduced me to it. We would use it every now and then in our county convention and even the state convention. I loved it because, from a voter's perspective, I hated being stuck in a situation where I got to pick between the worse of two evils." Roberts attempted to advance the policy when first elected to office but faced strong pushback from county clerks, who argued that it would be far too expensive to implement, given the limitations of their voting equipment. Undeterred, when it came time to solicit proposals for new voting equipment, Roberts ensured the new machines would be ranked choice voting-compatible. Former Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, who served as the Minority Whip for the Democrats at the time, became curious about ranked choice voting while serving on a commission to strengthen Utah's democracy. She viewed it as a way to increase Utah's voter participation levels and electoral competition in a state where a small number of Republican primary voters can effectively determine outcomes. The two lawmakers realized they were aligned on the issue when Chavez-Houk filed a bill on the topic. Roberts reached out, telling Chavez-Houck, "Look, I've been at this for three years. Here's the lay of the land, and here's what I've tried. I'm more than happy to help co-sponsor this thing." Roberts and Chavez-Houck joined forces. The bill sailed through the state house, backed by some of the most conservative members at the time, many of whom strongly favored local control of election methods. "It was awesome," recalled Roberts, and the novelty of the bipartisan collaboration h...

    19 min

  4. FEB 17

    Districts Won't Truly Represent Deschutes County Residents Proportional representation can better reflect voters' views than arbitrary lines. Yes, the proposed Deschutes map advantages conservatives Guidelines only get you so far Districts have other dr

    A new proposal to create districts in central Oregon's Deschutes County illustrates all the flaws of the winner-take-all election model that predominates in Cascadia and beyond. It's also a case study of how much better our elections could be. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners recently proposed switching the county's election method from at-large numbered seats to single-member districts. The board-appointed committee tasked with drafting a possible district map, however, ran into a number of challenges in fulfilling its charge, including outdated data, unequal puzzle pieces, and a lot of concern over partisanship. In an increasingly liberal area, the conservative-majority committee ended up with a map that favors Republican voters. Unfortunately, the current at-large winner-take-all model also fails to provide reliable representation for both majority and minority viewpoints. But there's another solution that offers consistent representation for people of all groups, whether based on neighborhood, party, or another unifying factor: proportional representation. Drawing districts inevitably brings up the specter of gerrymandering, but mapmakers didn't have to gerrymander to prove that districts are a poor solution to the problem of how to best represent county residents. It's difficult to draw districts fairly, and any mapmaking committee will trade some criteria for others. Deschutes County currently elects county commissioners to numbered at-large positions in staggered terms. County board seats were partisan positions for most of Deschutes's history, but in 2022 voters approved a switch to nonpartisan elections, effective in 2024. Then in 2024, voters increased the number of commissioners from three to five, effective in 2026. After the expansion proposal passed in 2024, the board of commissioners proposed an additional modification: abandoning the at-large numbered seats in favor of five geographic districts. Commissioners appointed a District Mapping Advisory Committee (DMAC) to draft a district map and set guidelines for the task. In early December 2025, DMAC proposed a five-district map to the county board, which appears likely to offer it to voters for approval in May or possibly November 2026. The board may have tried its best to create a fair process. The problem? Bias is hard to escape. The current board of county commissioners leans right. Tony DeBone and Patti Adair are Republicans, elected in 2022, before elections were nonpartisan; Phil Chang, the third member, was elected in 2020 as a Democrat and then reelected in 2024 in the technically nonpartisan race. These three commissioners appointed DMAC's seven members. DeBone and Adair each selected two members and Chang chose three, so the majority of the committee owed its seats to the conservative commissioners. And the proposed map, with districts A through E, favors conservative voters. In the 2020 presidential election, 53 percent of Deschutes County voters chose the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. The same proportion selected Kamala Harris for president in 2024. Yet under the proposed district plan, three of the five districts would reliably vote conservative, constructing a conservative-majority board of commissioners, contrary to the partisan leanings of county voters. Based on the precinct breakdown of the 2024 presidential results, more voters in proposed districts A, C, and E chose Donald Trump over Kamala Harris; the opposite is true in districts B and D. Sometimes local elections contradict trends displayed in national races, when county candidates connect with voters on day-to-day issues and national partisan platforms hold less sway. Not so in Deschutes. For instance, in 2020, when Democrat Chang won his countywide seat with 53 percent of the vote, he would have lost in the same three conservative districts. The same trend holds in voter registrations. In November 2025, as in every month since early 2020, the county saw more Democratic re...

    15 min

  5. FEB 12

    A Charter Commissioner's Guide to Election Reform Sightline asked former commissioners for their best advice. Here's what they had to say. Definitions and norms Home rule charter Charter review commission How election reform factors in Six recommendatio

    This January, dozens of Cascadians are sitting down for the first meetings of charter review commissions across the region with the same goal in mind: improving local government. They picked a great place to start. Municipal charter reviews—during which a panel of residents suggests amendments to what are basically local constitutions—can be a powerful and collaborative way to kickstart positive change. Healthier elections can ultimately mean better outcomes for voters and communities that achieve their local priorities. So, if election reform is a goal, where's a commissioner to begin? Sightline staff reached out to former commission members and researched past efforts to answer that question. The result is a list of six recommendations for getting election reform from initial commission discussions to a ballot measure in front of voters, spanning from whom to contact to how to frame the case for your community. Whether you just landed a seat on an upcoming charter review commission or want to stand out as one of the thousands of residents living in the cities and counties under review, this guide is here to help. More than half of US states allow municipalities to adopt home rule charters, which allow local governments and services to differ from what is laid out in state law. Essentially, the charter serves as a local constitution, dictating the government's design and setting ground rules for how it will run. Typically, amending the charter requires voter approval. Municipalities change over time. Populations and industries grow and shrink, and as such, a community's wants and needs may not be the same today as they were ten years ago. A charter review commission allows residents an opportunity to review the charter, take public input, deliberate on improvements, and suggest amendments to improve local government. Take Snohomish County, Washington, for example, where population increased by an estimated 43 percent from 2000 to 2024. That's about 258,000 new residents, more than the entire population of nearby Whatcom County! Snohomish County's 2016 charter commission posed seven charter amendments to the growing and diversifying voter base, which approved the establishment of an advisory commission on human rights and a new Office of Public Advocate to mediate community complaints (among other changes). Election reform is one avenue to reaching a commission's goal: a local government that better serves voters. (Other paths include government restructuring, rethinking public officials' roles, and creating, merging, or eliminating offices and divisions.) Depending on local and state law, electoral reforms may help solve specific problems. Here are a few examples: If an Alaskan municipality sees consistently low voter turnout, commissioners could consider changing the timing or frequency of local elections (thanks to flexible state statutes). Denali Borough, for example, aligns municipal elections with statewide ones. If residents are concerned with the sway of wealthy individuals in local politics, a commission might suggest a democracy voucher or small donor elections program. Or, in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, forms of local ranked choice voting can address problems like spoiler candidates or a council that only represents one kind of voter. Past Cascadian charter reviews have delivered voters a fairer redistricting process for Snohomish County, a Portland City Council that finally reflects its population, and a prohibition on government interference in Whatcom County's ballot initiative process. Ushering an election upgrade from the ideas phase to action requires research, collaboration, and more than a little tact. Former local charter review commissioners from Oregon and Washington offered the following advice to those just kicking off the process: lay the groundwork, do your homework, and communicate how better elections can address real concerns from community members and leaders. If commissioners can agree on ...

    10 min

  6. FEB 12

    Katie Wilson Can Be Seattle's Climate Mayor for Renters New programs for heat pumps, induction stoves, and plug-in solar would let renters reap the rewards of the clean energy revolution. Get City Light to front heat pump costs for renters Launch a wind

    Seattle's new Mayor, Katie Wilson and I share more than a few things in common. We're both parents to toddlers. Scandalously, our children's grandmothers help cover a portion of sky-high Seattle daycare costs (though my daughter's 2026 daycare cost hike just swallowed my in-laws' contribution). We're also among the roughly 50 percent of city residents who rent. Seattle renters contribute less to climate-warming pollution, on average, than homeowners. Renters in the city are nearly twice as likely to heat their homes with clean electricity as homeowners, more than half of whom burn natural gas for warmth. Seattle renters occupy smaller homes, with more people in them, than residents who own where they live. Renters are six times more likely than homeowners to get around Seattle without a car. (I feel optimistic that Katie Wilson, with her transit background, will do everything she can to make the city safer and easier to navigate for bikers and walkers. This is one of the best climate bets she can make.) Ironically, though, Seattleites who rent are excluded from enjoying many of the upsides of the clean energy revolution. Renters cannot lessen our rising electricity bills by adding solar panels to our rooftops. We cannot rip out our gas stoves in favor of healthier, better performing induction cooktops and ranges. We'd be laughed at, at best, if we asked our landlords to remove our baseboard heaters or gas furnaces and shell out tens of thousands of dollars for more efficient heat pumps. At least, we can't cash in yet. Mayor Wilson could change that. Mayor Wilson enjoys an unusual opportunity among her peers: the city she runs owns its electric utility. One of the largest municipal utilities in the United States, Seattle City Light could make or break the city's climate goals. It could also create new ways for renters to participate in the clean energy economy. With Katie Wilson installed in City Hall, City Light could launch US-leading heat pump, induction stove, and plug-in solar programs. For those of us forking over hefty rent checks every month, the mayor could let us in on cost-saving—and emissions-lowing—clean energy action. Converting homes from low-efficiency electric furnaces or baseboards (the most common heating sources for Seattle's renters) to high-efficiency heat pumps would lower monthly heating bills by reducing electricity use by up to 75 percent. More efficient electric rentals would also free up space on City Light's grid to connect the thousands of homes and businesses in Seattle currently burning fossil fuels, thereby reducing the likelihood that the utility will have to buy expensive, dirty energy in the event of an energy supply crunch. (Most of the United States' electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, whereas roughly 90 percent of City Light's power sources are carbon-free.) For the minority of renters who burn gas for heat (including yours truly), upgrading to heat pumps would loosen our yoke to the fossil fuel price roller coaster. Plus, heat pumps also cool; half of Seattle renters lack air conditioning, compared to just a quarter of the city's homeowners, a figure with potentially deadly consequences as the region's summers grow hotter. Heat pumps are, however, basically impossible for Seattle's renters to access. No renter will succeed in convincing their landlords to shell out the $15,000 to $20,000 the appliances cost. And renters are unlikely to afford the systems themselves even if a landlord consented to associated renovations. Seattle's renting households earned less than half the median income of homeowning households in 2024. Under Mayor Wilson's leadership, Seattle City Light could launch an ambitious program to front the cost of heat pumps for renters. Renters would pay a monthly service fee to enjoy the equipment, but the electricity savings from the upgrade would offset the fee. In other words, electricity bills would go down while comfort would go up. In these types of program...

    12 min

  7. 12/31/2025

    How the 2026 Washington Legislature Can Right-Size the Power Grid A transmission authority, plus three other ideas, to speed development of the transmission lines Washingtonians needed yesterday. 1. Empower WA to advance grid projects that utilities and

    One month after unprecedented floods surged across Washington, forcing tens of thousands of people to flee their homes, lawmakers will convene in Olympia to discuss climate policy. This latest climate change-fueled disaster, in an ever-extending string of them, is yet another reminder of what is at stake. Washington's climate ambitions hang on poles and wires. Electric transmission lines make it possible to carry cheap, efficient, reliable power from solar fields in California or wind farms in Montana to the people in Washington who rely on it every day. Without more grid capacity, the state risks relying for longer on polluting and increasingly expensive natural gas for electricity. Yet, Washington is only reviewing one (controversial) large transmission project. Meanwhile, the US federal administration is cutting support for the grid despite its claims to the contrary. Washington lawmakers can step up, including in the 2026 legislative session. They can empower the state to partner with experienced developers to build lines no one else will, saving ratepayers money. They can eliminate duplicative steps in project review processes, while preserving Tribal consultation rights and opportunities for public feedback. And they can ensure that local jurisdictions do not arbitrarily block or slow crucial projects. The alternative is sticking Washingtonians with an aging grid, which they will pay for in higher bills and forgone opportunities for clean, reliable power. Washington has few tools to build the transmission it needs. At present, the state is wholly at the mercy of individual utilities and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), an independent agency of the US Department of Energy. The last major expansion of the transmission grid in Washington occurred a decade ago, when BPA energized three new 500 kilovolt lines. (One reason for the slow build-out, as Sightline has explained, is these entities do not want to pay for these large projects.) A state transmission authority would transform Washington from a hopeful observer to a proactive leader of its decarbonization journey. The authority would identify grid projects that Washington needs that neither utilities nor BPA want or plan to develop. It could then partner with experienced private transmission builders to erect the lines. And, if the legislature granted it revenue bonding power, it could build these lines more cheaply than private utilities, which in part rely on expensive equity to finance capital projects. Plus, unlike private utilities, the authority would not profit from grid projects. A recent study found that, in California, transmission projects financed with low-cost public debt could cost 57 percent less than projects financed by investor-owned utilities. Cheaper power lines mean lower monthly utility bills for customers. Lawmakers can look to New Mexico, Colorado, and California for guidance. New Mexico's transmission authority, which the legislature established in 2007, is developing 1,500 miles of transmission lines, with at least two lines under construction. It partners with private developers, such as NextEra Energy and Pattern Energy, to build them, and then leases or sells them to utilities or transmission companies. Revenues from projects New Mexico's authority develops cover its operating expenses. Colorado's transmission authority, which the legislature created in 2021, determined in its 2024 study that utilities' plans to expand the grid fell short of what the state needs; to decarbonize, the state requires more than 500 additional miles of high-voltage wires. The authority is now in discussions with potential partners to develop six priority projects to fill this gap. And in 2025, California enacted a major transmission policy, which, among other provisions, facilitates public debt financing and public ownership of grid projects with the goal of saving ratepayers money. While the bill doesn't create a transmission authority per se, it let...

    17 min

  8. 12/31/2025

    New Oregon Rules Will Re-Legalize Neighborhood Apartments Over time, the state zoning standards make space for tens of thousands more homes in Oregon cities. A 'next step in the evolution' of state housing laws 1. Shift toward regulating the size of new

    UPDATE, Dec. 4, 2025: The proposed rules discussed in this article were unanimously approved. This article was edited to reflect minor amendments and describe the rules as approved. Two-and-a-half years after a bipartisan bill promised "transformational" changes to Oregon's housing policy, Gov. Tina Kotek's administration has completed the blueprint of that transformation. As approved by a state commission on Thursday, the new housing production rules make Oregon the first US state or Canadian province to create a model statewide zoning code and then apply that statewide code to cities underperforming their peers. Most notably, the state zoning code would much more broadly legalize three- to four-story apartment buildings, especially on smaller parcels in neighborhoods already served by roads and pipes. The system will steer all of Oregon's 58 largest cities, plus those in tourism-heavy Tillamook County, to gradually make their local zoning codes no more restrictive than the state's. But the state standards will essentially become mandatory for cities flagged by the state for permitting fewer total homes, and/or fewer affordable homes, relative to their economic and/or geographic peer cities. Because Oregon has now pre-defined many of the zoning standards it will impose on underperforming cities, various cities may opt to meet those standards sooner as part of their local efforts to accelerate housing production. Known as the "Oregon Housing Needs Analysis," these new rules to accelerate home construction were ordered up by a series of laws in 2019 and 2023, inspired by a similar system in California. And in crafting the OHNA rules, Oregon's state land-use and housing agencies have been aiming to avoid some of the California's model's perceived pitfalls while creating a system that Oregon's many small, cash-strapped cities can readily use. Chris Elmendorf, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in state-level zoning and housing statutes, tracked OHNA's administrative rules as they were being written. In an interview Monday, he called them "the next step in the evolution" of laws known as "builder's remedies." Such laws use state power to remove local housing barriers when a city has a local housing shortage. Oregon's new rules follow a national trend toward pre-defining a set of state zoning standards. Oregon pre-defines them more specifically than other states have so far. According to Elmendorf, "Because the rules are known, people can make reasonable decisions about how to plan these projects." Another unique thing about Oregon's approach: It evaluates cities based on actual homebuiliding performance relative to similar jurisdictions. Oregon, Elmendorf said, is "not saying you're subject to this remedial requirement because you didn't write a really pretty plan. You're subject to it because of outcomes. That's conceptually a big step forward." Mary Kyle McCurdy, associate director of the advocacy group 1000 Friends of Oregon, told Sightline, "The OHNA program is the most significant update to Oregon's housing rules since Oregon created its land use goals in 1974. The potential of OHNA is to actually live up to the promise of Goal 10, 'housing,' which is housing for all in every community, at the price point folks need, at the location they need, and the type of housing they need." Among the things OHNA and the associated model zoning code do: In Oregon today, the most common way to ban apartments from apartment zones is by limiting the number of homes a building can include. Take Tualatin, in Portland's southwest suburbs. The city has designated 18 acres near Hedges Creek for "high density apartment or condominium towers." But look in Tualatin's actual code for that zone, and you'll see that although a building on a 10,000-square-foot lot in this area is allowed up to six or seven stories, it could only have a maximum of two homes on it. A lot twice that size can host, at most, ten homes....

    17 min
See All (60)

About

Cascadia’s sustainability think tank brings you a feed of its latest research articles, in text-to-audio recordings. Learn how the region can advance abundant housing for vibrant communities; reform our democratic systems and elections to honor the public’s priorities, including its support for climate solutions; make a just transition away from fossil fuels and into a 21st-century energy economy; and model forestry and agricultural practices that rebuild our soils, ecosystems, and rural economies. View articles in full at sightline.org.

Information

You Might Also Like