"revisit...current approach" or maintain exclusionary policies? Scholia from Sightline's Andersen on LOC letter that Salem signed onto |
If the City had shown they could actually make progress on this, the argument for subsidiarity might be proper. But the underlying desire is for more exlusionary zoning and exclusionary neighborhoods. It's "don't tell me what to do, because I don't want to do it."
The letter follows from this statement of Legislative "policy statements" (at Council last Monday) |
Why do we not lead with values instead of leading with self-interested bureaucratic process as if bureaucracy itself was the end? The end is fairer housing, and since local self-determination and home rule has failed to bring this about, we have the State intervening. The City should welcome the State's clarity.
We also have Our Salem in process, and as imperfect as that is, it's not finished and we don't have any kind of formal statement that the City of Salem opposes the policies the DLCD is contemplating. What we have is inertia, and that is the primary ground on which opposition to middle housing stands.
Indeed, the current trend in Our Salem is likely not to be enough. The "Neighborhood Hub" at the moment does not seem robust enough, and the four scenarios from earlier in the year were not in fact differentiated very strongly.
- "Our Salem Map of "What We Heard" Suggests limited Appetite for Change"
- "First Impressions of Our Salem Scenarios: Not Inspiring"
- "From Indicators to Guiding Principles: Our Salem's Latest Round Diluted too Much"
- "Climate and the Neighborhood Hub Survey"
On a smaller scale, this looks a lot like our approach in Our Salem - via Twitter |
Since the City has found it difficult to enact housing policy, the City should welcome the State's effort. This also frees up the City to stop fighting that battle and to turn its attention to other exigencies. We have many urgent problems, and if government at one level can make progress on one of them, we should get out of the way and work on something else.
6 comments:
Ha! You scooped Salem Reporter a little -
https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/2681/concerns-over-local-control-arise-as-state-figures-out-how-to-apply-landmark-housing-law
Thanks for the link. It's always interesting to read a pass at the same material from "both sides" traditional journalism. Obviously there is more advocacy and commentary here from a perspective, in contrast with "the view from nowhere."
Curious - is it just the City Manager who decides to sign on to letters like this? Or the Mayor? Or did Council decide to support this crap letter?
The city council votes on the legislative agenda. There is a council subcommittee that reviews bills that could impact the city and makes a recommendation to the council to support, oppose, or be neutral. In this instance council would vote on what position to take regarding the LOC letter.
I see I should have been more explicit in saying that this letter, and any direct comment on the rulemaking, did not rise to the Council agenda, and followed from more general policy statements instead. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
You ask: “If we are serious about climate, if we are serious about anti-racism, if we are serious about more housing and better housing affordability, why are we offering static and resistance to the State's rulemaking effort for more and easier middle housing?”
I suggest that there is a sign error in your question — Salem is indeed serious about climate and racism and housing “affordability” — Salem is deadly serious that it wants to do nothing about climate other than give lip-service, that it is in deep denial about its racist origins and how they continue to echo through the ages and are fully functional today, and of course they are with 99.99% of the well-to-do (housing owners) who universally claim to believe in the concept of affordable housing but who really only do so if three conditions are met:
1) Nobody builds any housing me that costs less than my home;
2) My taxes don’t go up;
3) The value of my house goes up.
Anything that is perceived as violating any one of the three critical conditions means “Screw that, give me “neighborhood character” everytime.
Post a Comment