Monday, June 29, 2009
It’s common to think of community-oriented land use laws – historic preservation, smart growth, pedestrian-friendly design – as being complementing pieces of a whole. But this is not always the case: sometimes one goal clashes sharply with another.
Let’s continue with the Pacific Northwest focus this week. From Portland, Ore., comes this interesting story about locally unwanted apartment development in Irvington, a close-in neighborhood with many “grand dame Victorian” houses, and, as in many such neighborhoods, one that has seen its ups and downs (with the present being “up”). The focus is on residents who purchased Victorians in the “Irvington Conservation District,” only to discover that an apartment building was planned for across the street.
“Exactly how,” asks the Preservation magazine, “does a developer get permission to construct an out-of-scale, out-of-character building in a Portland conservation district? In a word, zoning.” Well, that’s not all. Not only is much of the area zoned for high-density residential – something that a buyer who can afford a grand dame should have been able to figure out – but Portland follows a famous state policy of encouraging close-in, high-density housing. So density and historic preservation don’t always match; here, they clash. And just maybe density is a more important social policy for land use law.
Although I might feel sorry for Irvington homebuyers who have to look at “out-of-character” two-story apartment buildings across the street, I can assure them that if they want to buy a big old Victorian in a place such as Dubuque, Iowa, these homes are currently cheap, plentiful, and in single-family residential zones, and there’s a great chance that nobody will be asking to build a big new apartment building across the street.
[Comments must be approved and thus take some time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Michael Gerrard on Climate Change and Land Use Law
- Touro Law hosts First Annual Conference of the Land Use & Sustainable Development Law Institute
- Abstracts for 6th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship due May 1
- Space and the City - Special edition of The Economist
- Land Value Tax Redux