As progressive as Portlanders like to believe themselves to be, there's no issue like population growth and housing to bring out their inner conservative. As the city's population has surged, established neighborhoods have sought historic designation to guard against change. Homeowners in wealthy enclaves are posting yard signs decrying demolitions. And longtime residents are bemoaning the loss of "neighborhood character" amid the growth.

So it's not surprising that the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is pulled in different directions, trying to calm irked neighbors while laying the groundwork for how the city will absorb new residents. Unfortunately, some of the proposals in the bureau's draft "Residential Infill Project" - a plan for updating development rules in single-family neighborhoods - lean too heavily on ensuring the comfort of existing homeowners rather than helping create new ones.

Consider one key proposal in the plan that calls for capping the size of new homes built on a typical single-family lot to 2,500 square feet. The limit is designed to mollify neighbors who want to block the building of so-called "McMansions" that have replaced some smaller-scale homes around Portland.

But it could end up making Portland's housing crisis worse than it already is. A city-commissioned report by Johnson Economics warned that the proposed cap would make building in Portland less profitable, thereby discouraging builders and resulting in fewer new units built in Portland than under current laws. Considering that Portland is in a crisis because the housing supply is already tens of thousands of units short, it makes no sense to adopt a cap that would further crimp supply.

Editorial Agenda 2017

Boost student success

Get Oregon's financial house in order

Help our homeless

Honor our diverse values

Make Portland a city that works

Expand access to public records

________________________

Read more about the editorial board's priorities for Oregon.

Builders don't need any more reasons to pass Portland up -- the city already provides plenty. One is its notoriously slow permitting process, which recently prompted the founder of J.T. Smith Companies to tell the Portland Tribune that his construction company would no longer build in Portland. Or there's the long list of fees that builders must pay to multiple city agencies and other jurisdictions. One recent project involving a 2,077 square-foot home carried $41,150 in system development charges, excise taxes, inspection fees and other costs, according to the city.

And then there's the fundamental question of whether neighbors' distress over others' property choices should justify allowing the government to manipulate the housing market in the first place. There are multiple factions who lose out if the government chooses to codify the self-interested preferences of residents who believe their slice of Portland should never change.

First, there's future buyers. The 2,500 square-foot cap is lower than the average square footage of homes built in 2013, according to the Johnson report. The decrease also runs counter to market demand for somewhat larger homes, national data show. With fewer builders and fewer homes, buyers will also have limited and more expensive choices. But current owners also lose out. A cap on square footage will also lower land values, the economist's report found. That means those who want to sell their homes or lots may get lower prices.

But other ideas in the Residential Infill Project smartly push options for improving affordability and increasing density. The plan proposes allowing the construction of duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods with good access to schools, parks and transportation lines. It also proposes rezoning roughly 7,000 "narrow" lots for development - about half the total number in the city. The idea, said project manager Morgan Tracy, is that these lots are close to transportation and other amenities and can support a so-called "skinny house" or other such development at a more affordable price point.

It's a significant proposal, particularly considering the hostility to any narrow-lot development from Commissioner Amanda Fritz who has long opposed construction of skinny houses. With the previous City Council under former Mayor Charlie Hales, Fritz successfully pushed an amendment that would ban any such development on narrow lots. She told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board last week that she didn't see a reason to revisit the question and that she will again seek to strip out any such proposal.

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, Mark Katches and John Maher.

To respond to this editorial, post your comment below, submit an OpEd or a letter to the editor.

If you have questions about the opinion section, email Laura Gunderson, editorial pages editor, or call 503-221-8378.

But Tracy said the bureau felt it important to continue discussion about the challenges and opportunities that these narrow lots provide. The bureau's right and deserves both credit and support for being willing to push forward the issue. Because for as much as people want to blame Portland's housing crisis on greedy landlords or "McMansion" developers or rich California transplants, the problem boils down to the dispassionate laws of supply and demand. There are far too few homes and apartments in the city at far too few affordable price points for far too many people who need them.

The public has until Nov. 30 to weigh in on the Residential Infill Project, which still faces months more work before going to the City Council for consideration. It's also the perfect time for Portlanders to reflect on how to square their home-for-everyone beliefs with their not-in-my-neighborhood mentality.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board