EDITORIAL

Single family zoning bill requires more focus

Posted 3/30/22

A bill recently introduced to the Rhode Island legislature by advocates for more affordable and less institutionally problematic housing throughout the state’s most populated communities …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

Single family zoning bill requires more focus

Posted

A bill recently introduced to the Rhode Island legislature by advocates for more affordable and less institutionally problematic housing throughout the state’s most populated communities — though certainly admirable in its aspirations — will never progress without a significant adjustment and narrowing of focus.

Bill H-6638 seeks to prohibit municipalities in Rhode Island consisting of 20,000 people or more from authorizing any single family zoning, and allow for the construction of so-called “middle housing” developments consisting of various types of multi-family housing where they may once have been prevented from being built before.

The intentions behind the bill appear to be from a place of benevolence. The bill’s sponsors believe this forcing of municipalities’ hands is a means to expedite the construction of more housing units to address the state’s well-documented shortage of housing stock. By boosting the amount of multi-family homes throughout the state’s bigger communities, naturally, more people would theoretically be able to acquire a place to live. Which we would argue is a good thing.

Further, they argue, prohibiting zoning that only allows for single-family homes will alleviate a key component of structural racism that has worked throughout prior generations to segregate the haves (mostly white homeowners and their subsequent generations), from the have-nots (mostly non-white residents who have been systemically disadvantaged and forced to live in underserved communities where more affordable, but less desirable multi-family zoning is permitted). This, too, strikes us as a good thing to strive towards.

Unfortunately, this bill (currently being held for more study), is unlikely ever to see a vote, considering how extraordinarily broad and impactful its passage would be. The implications of this bill are massive, and would essentially require affected municipalities to completely delete their comprehensive plans and start over from scratch with a brand-new vision for housing density, transportation requirements, public safety implications, and zoning — and complete those revisions by June of 2023. Such a task is, putting it nicely, unrealistic.

A bill with these goals is more likely to succeed by finding ways to incentivize the creation of zoning where the construction of multi-family housing projects may be subsidized or otherwise fast-tracked, providing municipalities with the appeal of boosting its property tax revenue through an increase of residents, as well as incentivizing developers to build in areas they perhaps might not otherwise have considered.

To suggest that housing zoning practices should be the same in Warwick, Johnston or Providence as they are in places like Bristol, Westerly or South Kingstown suggests a lack of understanding in how different each of these communities are, and what challenges they face. To implement a one-size-fits-all approach to drastically different places suggests a bill that requires a significant narrowing and clarification of focus.

While the goal of providing more affordable places to live while also alleviating an historic system of unequal zoning and opportunity is a noble goal, the approach taken in this bill is unlikely to bring anyone to the table for serious discussion.

single family, zoning

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here