In Josephine County, where the median income averages around $37,000.00, families of two find it challenging to afford housing. Nowadays, it appears that housing serves the interests of banks and financial institutions, prioritizing profit over providing essential shelter. Companies buy up homes and keep them off the market to drive up property values, leading to higher rents and more money in their pockets. While I’m not asserting that this is happening in our county, it’s a practice observed in many states.
If you recall Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, you’ll remember the foundation: physiological needs. These are the basic requirements for survival—air, food, water, clothing, warmth, sleep, and, importantly, shelter. Despite its fundamental importance, obtaining shelter has become increasingly difficult due to the influence of banks, financial institutions, politicians, lawmakers, and environmental groups in our society.
To understand the origins of this issue in Oregon, we have to go back to the 1970s when SB100 was first introduced. While it had good intentions, the bill aimed to preserve the state’s rural areas, safeguarding agricultural lands and forests from urban sprawl. For Josephine County, this meant protecting vital sectors like hop fields, mint farms, vegetable and dairy farms, and the logging industry.
Fast forward 54 years, and the landscape has changed dramatically. The agricultural and logging sectors have shrunk significantly, with a noticeable decline in the number of farms and lumber mills. Given this shift, the question arises: why maintain strict regulations on housing density? With a pressing housing crisis at hand, it’s time to reassess our zoning laws to meet present-day needs.
Growing up in a community like Murphy, where ¼ acre lots were common, I’ve seen firsthand the sense of community such neighborhoods foster. However, current zoning laws imposed by the State of Oregon limit the development of similar communities in rural areas, confining such initiatives to urban growth boundaries or city limits.
Addressing the housing shortage demands a fresh approach. It’s crucial to amend SB100 to align with contemporary needs rather than those of the 1970s. In the meantime, we can explore alternative solutions such as building small home communities within urban growth boundaries. Envisioning such communities on 2-acre lots, featuring 8 to 10 – 800 sq. ft. homes, a community center, and communal gardens, offers a viable path forward. These homes would boast small private yards, communal spaces, laundry facilities within the community center, and would be exclusively owner-occupied, empowering median income earners to take their first step toward homeownership. What’s needed now are developers willing to meet this demand, rather than solely pursuing high-end housing projects.
Let’s provide these steppingstones to help us reach Maslow’s second level of needs.
