@EdJames thanks for explaining it to me.
I guess I over interpreted the word “single†but i never heard this term before.
I have to rethink my thoughts on this one. Very interesting,
You are welcome.
While an argument can be made that all municipal zoning regulations are onerous and unduly limit personal freedom (i.e., the ability to use a parcel of privately owned land in whichever way the owner sees fit), society over time has come to accept the regulations as being necessary to afford some degree of protection for a property owner. Absent such regulations, someone could buy up 2 or 3 lots in a residential neighborhood of single family homes and develop a strip mall, motel, auto repair shop, etc., which could have a substantial impact on the value of the single family homes in the area. (Just think of how the value of your nice 4 BR 3 Bath split level home would plummet if one day the adjoining property was no longer a similar home, but now the site of a 24 hour convenience store, gas station, nail salon, and adult bookstore!)
One of the aspects of such regulations that makes it more tenable to most is that in most states the zoning regulations are indeed implemented at the local level (municipalities) so that the decision on how to lay out and populate the zones are done by people in/for the community. This effort being proposed at the state level (Oregon) takes that local control and decision-making away.
Additionally, by removing the ability of local municipalities to even consider having Single Family housing zones (in cities with a population over 10,000 (for now)), it unduly removes the
choice of housing types for large portions of the population.