Page - 2 <br /> 1 <br />B. Summary of Arguments 2 <br /> 3 <br />1. The text, context, and legislative history of HB 2001 show that both 4 <br />proponents and opponents understood that the Middle Housing statutes would 5 <br />cut through substantive and procedural barriers to middle housing, including 6 <br />state and local infrastructure analysis, concurrency, and citizen particpation 7 <br />requirements. The Oregon legislature settled the issue by passing the bill. 8 <br />2. The Middle Housing statutes must be read in context and must prevail to 9 <br />the extent of any conflicts with LCDC Goals, LCDC rules, and pre-existing 10 <br />statutes. 11 <br />3. LCDC has only one rule requiring local governments to consider 12 <br />whether legislative changes significantly affect public facilities or services. 13 <br />That rule is the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Middle Housing 14 <br />statute explicitly addresses that requirement and sets it aside. 15 <br /> 4. The Middle Housing statute addresses other potential public facilities 16 <br />issues by establishing special extension standards and procedures that reverse 17 <br />the normal burden of demonstration by requiring jurisdictions to ask for 18 <br />extensions and prove the need for them, consistent with the remedial purposes 19 <br />and tight timelines of the statute. 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22