In recent decades, opposition to land-use and zoning reform—often from homeowners motivated to maintain the status quo—has stymied the development of housing other than single-family dwellings, including more affordable units like multiplexes, accessory dwelling units, and multifamily housing. This limiting of housing supply has contributed to our current housing affordability crisis.

To address these challenges, some states have preempted local land-use policies to require municipalities to adopt more construction-friendly land-use codes. This year, states like California, Vermont, and Washington have succeeded in passing initiatives of this kind. But not all states have been successful, with Colorado failing to gather enough votes in the legislature and Maine significantly scaling back its efforts to reform local zoning.

As other states consider such measures, we explore the process that led to the 2019 passage of Oregon’s House Bill 2001 (PDF), the first of its kind. The Oregon experience suggests state legislatures could build momentum through a slate of prohousing policies; bringing together a broad, diverse coalition of supporters; and promoting choice and flexibility for affected jurisdictions.

Understanding state preemption and Oregon House Bill 2001

Local governments derive the power to zone and regulate land use from the state, and states typically allow localities significant latitude to use that power. As a result, local governments wield tremendous influence over the types and amount of housing that are built. However, research suggests state involvement in land-use regulation can decrease residential income inequalities by preempting local opposition who advocate against more housing development.

With House Bill 2001, the Oregon state government provided Oregonians with more housing choices, instead of using preemption to curb local choice, as is commonly done. Previously, most land in Oregon’s urbanized areas was zoned for only single-family dwellings. HB 2001 mandated that small cities allow development of duplexes by right and that larger cities allow up to four-plexes. The bill maintained that property owners and developers could build single-family dwellings; it just also expanded housing options.

The bill provided for a substantial amount of flexibility in implementation. Localities were able to establish their own regulations around building design, procedural requirements, and siting (the rules that determine where land uses can be located) to ensure local needs and preferences were fulfilled. Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development created a model code (PDF) for local jurisdictions to reference and provided localities ongoing technical assistance. Local autonomy in decisionmaking was essential not only to win support for the bill but also to ensure its successful implementation. Indeed, all 56 affected jurisdictions had complied with HB 2001 by the end of 2022.

How did Oregon get it done?

In the 2019 legislative session, Oregon lawmakers passed a slate of housing policies that would develop a methodology for local housing needs analysis (HB 2003), increase tenant protections (SB 608), and create a right of first refusal for affordable housing (HB 2002). According to an Oregon legislature insider we spoke with, passing HB 2001 depended in part on the wave of public interest and support for housing policy that this slate of policies created. Oregon lawmakers also recognized the historical legacy of racial discrimination in lending and zoning, which has created residential racial segregation and inequality of economic opportunity. HB 2001 was proposed in response to these challenges and sought to address generalized housing undersupply and unaffordability.

Current governor Tina Kotek was a strong champion of the bill when she was Speaker of the House. State policymakers also had a solid base of support aligned on the need for housing development, affordability, and racial justice, including from those interested in expanding property rights, as well as associations of home builders and realtors. The bill received support from numerous housing advocates including Habitat for Humanity through its Cost of Home campaign. But HB 2001 was nevertheless a contentious bill.

Opponents of the bill depicted it as a wholesale ban on single-family housing, which was untrue, or as a law that would drive up housing prices, which is not supported by evidence. Refuting these claims was necessary to win public support for the bill. Compromises on other factors were essential, namely limiting the effects on infill development and the state’s urban growth boundaries, which resulted in two amendments to the bill. Ultimately, following months of negotiations, the bill passed with bipartisan support after two votes.

Lessons for other state policymakers

HB 2001 demonstrates that zoning reform is not necessarily a partisan issue. Although the law is still relatively new, initial estimates of its impact are encouraging, but it will be a number of years before its full effects can be thoroughly assessed.

Policymakers in other states interested in using preemption to promote affordable housing development may want to consider modeling Oregon’s successful approach with HB 2001, such as through the following:

• starting by passing smaller, less contentious housing bills to create political momentum and build large advocacy coalitions
• encouraging choice and focus on goals, rather than mandating action, and generating buy-in from local leaders by creating shared responsibility
• building a broad coalition of supporters with a strong reputation and credibility on the issue at both the state and local level
• ensuring that local governments will receive the necessary support from the state to implement the legislation through funding, technical support, or both

State policymakers across the country are faced with a housing affordability crisis. Preemption of zoning codes may offer a path forward.