The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
On Dec. 7, Tucson’s mayor and City Council will reconsider the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance passed 6-1 in October.
Councilmembers Paul Cunningham (Ward 2) and Steve Kozachik (Ward 6) are seeking greater lot size restrictions and to reduce the overall size of ADUs. Their reasoning: The changes will protect lots near the University of Arizona, where existing homes could be smaller than an ADU, from predatory developers looking to build short-term rentals and student housing.
The reality: These proposed changes do nothing to guarantee that an ADU will be smaller than the existing home because they are purely based on lot sizes and do not consider the existing home’s size.
As for short-term rentals and student housing, how does reducing the overall size of ADUs make them less attractive for these uses? Limiting the majority of ADUs to 650 square feet makes them less conducive for permanent housing because there’s less space for families or aging parents. The proposed size restrictions could inadvertently pigeonhole most ADUs into the short-term and student rental market.
People are also reading…
Furthermore, if the concern were truly about protecting residents from predatory investors and iBuyers (an issue that isn’t specific to ADUs), wouldn’t scarce city staff resources be better spent addressing barriers to homeownership and implementing the city’s draft Housing Affordability Strategy for Tucson (HAST)?
Other myths to debunk:
A 1,000-square-foot ADU could never “dominate” a 7,000-square-foot lot — it’s only 14% of the area.
The zoning enabling mini-dorm-type structures is unrelated to the ADU ordinance and these changes do nothing to solve that problem.
The city can dial back the ordinance if it’s doing more harm than good because of the sunset date, which will nullify the ordinance without Proposition 207 issues, if no action is taken.
So, what are the impacts of these proposed changes?
They reduce the opportunity to build two-bedroom ADUs, a much-needed housing size across the city. For context, about 66% of Tucson’s parcels are less than 8,500 square feet (the minimum lot size where two-bedroom ADUs could be built under the changes).
They keep our land use more similar to pre-ADU times — riddled with seemingly innocuous policies that facilitate systems of racism by protecting the status quo.
How does racism factor here? The city’s draft housing strategy correctly asserts that “racism in housing practices has advanced systemic inequalities and contributed to the housing segregation pattern of Tucson.” This aligns with a 2021 White House memo noting: “research has connected exclusionary zoning (such as lot size, height, and size restrictions) to racial segregation” and measurable disparities. Habitat for Humanity recommends “diversifying the types of homes allowed in communities (to) make them more racially and economically inclusive.”
Zoning modifications, such as the ADU ordinance in its current form, can begin deconstructing these harmful systems. Dismantling racist zoning practices and creating more opportunities for upward mobility is a demonstration of care.
The current ADU ordinance uses a neighborhood-scale development approach to make an incremental step toward increasing our housing stock. At a recent Strong Towns presentation, a nonprofit advocating for resilient, prosperous communities, these sentiments were aptly conveyed: “No neighborhood can be exempt from change; no neighborhood should experience sudden, radical change.” If we want to protect our environment and water resources while making the most of what’s within our city limits, neighborhood-scale infill is our path.
Like many Tucsonans, I see the scars of predatory development decisions. I get the distrust. However, at a recent mayor and council meeting, it was noted that we currently have a shortfall of 9,000-12,000 housing units. If they aren’t going in neighborhoods that are close to quality services, opportunities and schools, and they aren’t going to the outskirts of town, exacerbating ecological destruction, then where should they go?
Schubert is a member of Tucson for Everyone, the Tucson chapter of YIMBY Action, a non-profit that seeks to drive policy change to increase the supply of housing at all levels and bring down the cost of living, and envisions an integrated society where every person has access to a safe, affordable, quality home near jobs, services, and opportunity.