HANSEN Alissa H <br />From: SELSER Lindsay R <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:18 AM <br />To: HOSTICK Robin A; HANSEN Alissa H <br />Subject: FW: ADUs <br />FYI <br />From: Ron-Janet Bevirt <beznys@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:30 PM <br />To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: ADUs <br />Hello all, <br />I would like to repeat once again, the fact, not opinion, that the construction of ADUs and/or Middle Housing types, <br />does not produce "affordable housing". Once again last night (Council meeting May 14, 2018), it was stated by the woman <br />speaking as a representative of Better Housing Together, that increased construction of ADUs will produce affordable housing. <br />She read the list of supporters of Better Housing Together (a list heavy with those who stand to profit from the code changes <br />they are promoting). The Mayor mentioned Better Housing Together as a benign, public-spirited group. It is important for all, <br />who are genuinely seeking to work toward supplying housing for all levels of demand including for workforce-income folks, to <br />speak in the context of reality. All new construction is expensive and new housing affordable to workforce-income folks is only <br />going to be created with subsidies. It is time to stop spreading false information and to have genuine, reality-based <br />conversations about the relevant issues. <br />Absent, widespread public condemnation and destruction of the existing housing thereon of residentially zoned property, <br />the imagined space that will be "created" by changing R-1 zoning is insufficient to meet the large demand for housing that we <br />need to address. It is certainly possible to increase density, but it should be done thoughtfully, instead of using "one-size-fits- <br />all" thinking. Working with residential neighborhoods is a more-sure way to do planning than making random changes that hold <br />the potential to decrease or destroy the qualities presently existing in residential neighborhoods. <br />Finally, let me address the issue of "stakeholders" in the conversation. Mayor Vinis spoke last night about shaping a <br />conversation that would include representatives from the Neighborhood Leaders Council. The "public" in all its forms should <br />be included as part of the conversation. The NLC represents the neighborhoods. Do each of the groups listed as supporters of <br />Better Housing Together and all the groups named on the large list the City of Eugene has identified as "stakeholders" have <br />equal voices? Who should have "standing" to be in the conversation about changing residential zoning? If 50 people speak in <br />favor of making it law that all Eugene residents must wear cowboy boots while they are sleeping, are we going to ponder the <br />pros and cons of such a law? My point is, do those who have a financial interest in a certain outcome (cowboy boot sellers and <br />those potentially getting jobs on the enforcement team) have equal "standing" with the population influenced by the legislation? <br />We have seen the ladies singing before Council, who believe that changing residential zoning to increase building more <br />ADUs will provide housing for the unhoused. Those ladies feel sorry for people on the street, but they are uninformed about the <br />issues surrounding the ADU conversation. It is important to keep appropriately proportional representation among the voices in <br />the conversation. Lobby groups with over-lapping representation such as Eugene Chamber of Commerce, WeCan, Better <br />Housing Together, AARP and so on should not all have equal seats at the table. Yes, we need the voice of realtors, builders, <br />developers, bankers, architects, renters, rental property owners, groups providing low-income housing, and residential property <br />owners; however, if the majority of those groups think residential property owners should "take a bullet". Is that how the <br />decision should be made? Does it not seem appropriate for the voices of those designated to "take the bullet" to have some <br />preponderance of consideration? What residential neighborhoods are seeking is to be actively involved in making decisions that <br />are particular to their individual neighborhoods as opposed to having "one-size-fits-all" legislation that does not fit all that well <br />anywhere. <br />Please include my comments in the public record. <br />Thanks for your consideration, <br />Ron Bevirt <br />