Many of us learned when growing up that the “best” way to live would be in a single family residential neighborhood, where other types of residences, duplexes, townhomes, apartment buildings, etc. are excluded. That ideal of a those nice, private boxes, each with a family separate from the rest, has been with us for a century. But the loss of natural spaces and rural areas to seemingly inevitable and unstoppable urban and suburban sprawl, and the automobile-dependent commutes from home to work and back, took the luster off the dream. And then came the nationwide housing crisis and epidemic of homelessness.
And now single family exclusionary zoning seems on the verge of becoming a thing of the past.
Minneapolis passed a new zoning law three years ago which permits duplexes and triplexes thoughout the city and, like Honolulu, higher density along transit lines.
Wikipedia reports:
In January 2021, Sacramento voted to permit up to four housing units on all residential lots to help the city reduce its housing shortage and to achieve equity goals by making neighborhoods with good schools accessible to people who cannot afford to purchase homes there.
In February 2021, the City Council of Berkeley, California voted unanimously to allow fourplexes in all neighborhoods, with Vice Mayor Lori Droste saying that this is “necessary as a first step in undoing a history of racist housing policies.”
And earlier this month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that effectively eliminates single-family zoning throughout the State of California. Even before that bill was signed into law, cities were breaking with the past.
A 2019 Oregon law “allows duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage clusters (which are several smaller homes built around a community backyard or other green space) to be built on land zoned for single family homes in cities with over 25,000 residents,” again according to a Wikipedia summary.
Honolulu has experimented. Ohana Zoning was going to create more housing units. That doesn’t appear to have actually happened. And transit-oriented development reminded us that allowing increased density doesn’t necessarily mean more affordable housing.
On the other hand, we have been living through an unacknowledged experiment in allowing single family zoning to quietly fade away. We are now a city of housing scofflaws, where many–perhaps a majority–of those who own single family homes have worked around city zoning restrictions to create additional rental units. When we moved to Kaaawa in 1988, most of the homes were built on large single family lots. By the time we moved back to town in 2015, many of those large lots had been turned into condominiums that allowed multiple units. Many others just put up interior walls and added a kitchen or bath to create a rental unit. And, of course, everyone knows that as long as your rental doesn’t have all three of the necessities (sink, refrigerator, stove) then it is a legal room rental. Thus, some units offer a refrigerator, sink, and hot plate/toaster oven that can be easily removed temporarily if necessary. Parking becomes an issue, and to some extent traffic, and in some areas, sewage capacity could likely become an issue.
However, it’s an experiment that has largely worked and is a commonly accepted, if not legal way to increase the availability of housing.
Whether formally ending single family zoning would change anything isn’t clear to me. Few homeowners can afford to build multiple units on their property, so it could end up being a boon for speculators and developers, and could result in denser but gentrified neighborhoods instead of increasing the availability of affordable homes and rents.
I supposed much rests on how this new law plays out in California in practive, rather than theory.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We have been following this trend and feel that taking a meat axe to zoning is going to be very problematic. A nuanced and more surgical approach would be much better. It won’t really solve the problems until other more systemic societal issues are addressed. We shall see…
“. . . a city of housing scofflaws, where many–perhaps a majority . . . .”
On what basis is this comment made? Do you have housing data that covers single family homes exclusively?
According to the 2010 Hawaii Data Book, about 56% of occupied housing units were owner occupied. Even if we include vacant units, owner-occupied housing comes out at 52%. It seems if we were to consider only single-family homes, the majority would still be owner-occupied.
I don’t think owner-occupied and having illegal rental units are mutually exclusive.
I see that going on in my neighborhood, e.g., owners live upstairs, and rent out downstairs, sometimes as a single rental, sometimes divided into multiple separate rentals.
That’s a fair point, but do you think the majority of single-family owners are doing that? It doesn’t seem to be the case in my neighborhood.
It doesn’t seem to be a majority in my neighborhood, but there are enough to back Ian’s basic point that we have a lot of illegal rentals, whether or not a majority.
I was referring to homes, often owner-occupied, but set up to also have rentable rooms or apartments. It was common in Kaaawa, and when we looked at other homes on the windward side. It’s also very common even here on our street in Kahala, where many homes have rental units.
Thank you for the clarification. Based on comments I’ve read, it does seem that certain neighborhoods on Oahu have many illegal rentals. I don’t think it’s fair to say that a majority of single-family homes on Oahu have illegal renting units, however.
When I lived in Kailua I would say 40 percent of homes had a rental, and I would wager a quarter of those were illegal. So overall is ten percent of homes having an illegal rental a lot?
Hi Ian. Timely article, as the City and County has been in the process of doing an island wide plan. Ultimately the plan for Oahu will be adopted by the City Council, and then any future changes to the zoning code would have to conform to that plan. Perhaps you already know all about it, but if you contact the DPP and ask, they should be able to update you on its status.
There is an independent planning organization coordinated by DPP, which has been working on this for several years, holding public meetings to familiarize people with planning and recommend what, if any, changes should happen in their neighborhoods. They did respond favorably to recommendations made by residents for my neighborhood.
I think you’re referring to the Honolulu Planning Commission. They had a meeting on yesterday to vote on the DPP proposal, but I haven’t heard a peep about the vote.
These things go to the Planning Commission and before they go to the Council. The Planning Commission vote, yes or no, is only advisory.
The planning commission does make final decisions on some permits.
“And now single family exclusionary zoning seems on the verge of becoming a thing of the past.”
Yes. I heard from an apt building developer friend (and probably confirmed somewhere online) that dense, tall buildings a la Kaka’ako or Singapore are per-capita, better for the environment than suburban sprawl of a Gentry/Schuler/Horton. Use less water, less landscaping chemicals/pesticides, less energy, less raw construction material, etc etc.
I like how quickly humans are learning and adapting, I hope it’s fast enough so we don’t extinguish ourselves before the next asteroid. The next cultural habit which needs to become a thing of the past is animal agriculture. Like human slavery, racism, sexism, etc. species-ism needs to go. Interestingly, Ian mentioned above the city of Berkeley, which recently announced its intent to phase 50% all animal products in food that it serves by 2024, with the long term goal of going 100% plant-based.
Any subsidies for Hawaii-based animal agriculture need to go, these industries can compete on their own especially considering their environmental impact.
Way back in 1998 we lived in an ‘illegal’ apartment on the ground floor of a home in Manoa. And there were multiple of these in the area around UH where we lived. Updating the zoning to reflect the reality is a renter protection move, because folks should rent places with the basic amenities and be able to demand them if they aren’t there!
In Portland, where I live now, the City has now authorized the building of up-to a four-plex on a 5000 sq ft lot. Because before this it was against city code to build anything but a single residence on these lots. What I’ve seen as a result of the prior code was the demolishing of modest 2bd/1ba homes to build giant 4bd/3ba homes on the same lot – so you house the same # of people but actually have less green space. If we’re going to have less green space, then let’s house more people! As a home owner, I love that it give us so many more options as we’re deciding what to do with our now empty nest 100 year old house.
Finally, housing policy is also intimately tied to transportation policy. It’s hard to have great bus/transit/bike (aka not personal car) service if folks are spread far apart. You need longer routes and more frequent stops. But as we density where people live, it’s actually so much easier for public transportation services to serve them and/or easier to get where you need to go on foot or bike. My strong opinion for one reason why The Bus on Oahu is actually a really decent bus system is because things are relatively compact (at least Town side). I raised a family of bus riders there :).
“Ohana Zoning was going to create more housing units. That doesn’t appear to have actually happened.”
I recall reading that a lot of applications were denied because of sewer system capacity concerns.
But modern toilets, faucets, showerheads, dishwashers, and clothes washers all use much less water than they did when most neighborhoods were built, and thus generate much less sewage. For example, toilets used to use 5 gallons per flush (GPF). New toilets now work well with 1GPF, so 5 people using 1GPF toilets would generate about as much sewage as 1 person used to with a 5GPF toilet.
I wonder whether some of those building permit applications could have been granted on condition that the fixtures and appliances in the existing home be upgraded to current standards.