The Clark County council this week took a reasonable step toward mitigating the region’s housing crunch. But in easing the path for construction of small homes or accessory dwelling units, officials should keep a close watch on how that path comes to be used.
Undoubtedly, action is necessary to increase housing in the county. A dwindling supply of affordable housing, along with a festering homelessness problem, are testament to the lack of available dwellings. In response to that, the county council voted 4-1 to adopt an ordinance making it easier to build cottage-style housing or small additions to existing homes that can serve as “mother-in-law” residences.
The new ordinance reduces the minimum floor space for cottages from 500 square feet to 150, while increasing the maximum from 1,200 to 1,600. It also creates definitions for “urban” vs. “rural” accessory dwelling units, recognizing the range of neighborhoods found throughout the county’s unincorporated areas. It would be nonsensical to apply the same construction regulations to Hazel Dell and, say, Amboy.
Ideally, the changes will give property owners more freedom in using their land and will provide incentives for an increase in housing. Increased density will be a necessity as governments here and elsewhere prepare for an increasing population.
Yet in encouraging additional dwellings, it also is necessary to be wary of possible problems. Jeanne Stewart was the only councilor to oppose the county ordinance, objecting to the removal of a caveat requiring property owners to reside on a site that includes additional housing. “As far as I’m concerned, owner occupation for ADU development of the primary residence is a must,” she said.
This is a reasonable concern, as many metro areas have seen investors use homes and accessory dwelling units for the purpose of rental investments rather than housing. As Business Insider wrote in 2016, “The few surveys that have looked at the issue suggest Airbnb is affecting prices of both rent and purchases.” That is unlikely to be an issue in areas outside of Vancouver’s core, but it bears watching.
There also are valid questions about the impact on the character of neighborhoods. Ideally, the new ordinance will be used primarily to add housing for extended family or boarders, rather than turning established neighborhoods into mini apartment complexes or motels.
In approving the changes, county officials also reduced impact fees for new construction that go to support parks, schools and transportation — the things that lend livability to neighborhoods. Reducing these fees will work toward the goal of making housing affordable, but the county must watch for unintended consequences impacting schools and the transportation system. If revisions are necessary in the future, they should be quick to make them.
The county’s new ordinance is laudable, and it echoes a plan adopted last year by the city of Vancouver. But it should be merely part of a mosaic approach for dealing with the housing crisis. Other pieces should include private construction of multifamily residences, infill for existing neighborhoods, and an increase of senior housing complexes.
In addition, governments throughout the country should re-examine the benefits of manufactured housing, which has fallen out of favor in recent decades. “Trailer parks” have a negative connotation, but they are preferable to people being priced out of housing and left to live without shelter.
Clark County’s housing shortage will continue to require a proactive approach from our leaders.
