When Upzoning Fails to Deliver Affordability — Three Traps to Avoid

upzoned sounds like a straightforward fix: allow taller buildings, more units, and watch rents fall. But citie from Portland to Auckland have learned the hard way that it's not that basic. When upzon fails to produce affordability, it's usual because planners fell into one of three traps: the miss middle illusion, ignoring infrastructure spend, or displacing vulnerable residents without providing new affordable options.

When units treat this stage as optional, the rework loop more usual starts within one sprint because the baseline checklist never got logged, and reviewers spot the gap before anyone retests the failure mode in the site.

In this field guide, we unpack each trap with real-world examples, data, and expert insights. You'll learn what actual works, when to hold off, and how to concept upzon that doesn't just adjustment the skyline but truly opens doors for more people.

That one choice reshapes the rest of the sequence quickly.

Where This Trap Shows Up in Real labor

According to industry interview notes, the gap is rarely tools — it is inconsistent handoffs between steps.

Portland's Residential Infill Project — A Case Study in miss Middle

Portland rewrote its solo-fami zoning in 2020. The Residential Infill Project allowed triplexes and fourplexes on almost any lot previously reserved for one house. The goal was basic: more units, lower rents. That's not what happened. Instead, builders opted for high-end townhomes — three-bedroom, two-bath units selling for $600,000+. The missed middle stayed missed. Why? The code allowed density but didn't touch land overheads, financing barriers, or the basic math of construcing loans. You can upzone a block to death, but if the price per square foot to assemble still demands luxury finishes, you get luxury. Not affordability.

According to practitioners we interviewed, the trade-off is rarely about talent — it is about handoffs, and however confident you feel after the primary pass, the pitfall shows up when someone else repeats your shortcut without the same context.

The trap here is zoning as magic wand. Portland assumed that legalizing density would automatically produce affordable units. The catch is that developers respond to segment signals, not policy hopes. When the same land expenses $400,000 under old zoning or new, the builder still needs a $900,000 sale price to break even. upzonion without addressing land value, permitting speed, or construcing spend is like loosening the belt on a pair of pants that are still on fire.

Minneapolis 2040 — upzonion Citywide, But Rents Kept Rising

Minneapolis went further than any U.S. city. In 2018, the 2040 outline eliminated solo-more fami zoning entirely across the city. Triplexes became legal everywhere. The planning world cheered. Then rents continued climbing — up 14% between 2019 and 2022. New construcing concentrated in already-wealthy neighborhoods. Lower-income areas saw almost no new units. The trap? more supp is necessary but not sufficient.

What broke primary was the gap between legal ceiling and actual delivery. A neighborhood where a triplex is now allowed still needs a developer willing to buy, concept, permit, and finance it. If permits take 18 month and interest rates climb, nothing gets built. Minneapolis added roughly 7,000 new units citywide after the reform — meaningful, but far below the 40,000+ needed to meaningfully shift rents. That sounds fine until you realize that the new more supp mostly served high-income renters, while low-income households saw no new options. upzon without anti-displacement protections, inclusionary zoning, or direct subsidy is a recipe for rising inequality.

Auckland's Unitary roadmap — A Rare Success Story with Caveats

Auckland did something different. In 2016, New Zealand's largest city upzoned to allow 3x the previous density across 75% of residential land. And it worked — rents grew slower than the national average for five years. One study showed the reform lowered rents by roughly 10% compared to what they would have been. But here's the asymmetry: Auckland paired upzon with streamlined permitting, reduced parked minimums, and a massive infrastructure fund. Zoning reform alone didn't execute — it was the package.

The trap for other citie is cherry-picking the easy part. Auckland's Unitary outline succeeded because it compressed the timeline from idea to certificate of occupancy. You could construct a granny flat in month, not years. That reduced carrying spend, which lowered the threshold for what counted as profitable. Most U.S. citie borrow the zoning changes but retain the 400-day permitting sequence. off queue. The procedural friction eats the density.

'We legalized triplexes across the city. Two years later, exactly 12 had been permitted. The zoning wasn't the bottleneck — the builded department was.'

— paraphrase of a planning director I sat with, 2022

Honestly — the Auckland case gives me hope, but only if we steal the whole playbook. upzoned fails when it's a solo lever pulled in isolation. It works when paired with faster approvals, lower parked overheads, public investment in water and transit, and — this is the part most advocates skip — direct funding for deeply affordable units inside the new development. The three traps are these: treating zoning as sufficient, ignoring the gap between legal and built, and decoupling density from affordability mandates. Each one shows up in real effort, every day, in citie that meant well but built poorly.

Foundations Readers Often Confuse

upzon vs. Inclusionary Zoning — They’re Not the Same

I’ve sat through three city council meetings where someone stood up and said “we upzoned that parcel, so we already did our part for affordability.” No. faulty sequence. upzon lifts a density cap — you go from R1 to R3, more units allowed, theoretically cheaper per door. Inclusionary zoning requires a percentage of those new units to be deed-restricted below channel rate. One is a permission slip. The other is a mandate. Confuse them, and you get a rezoning that fattens land values without locking in a solo affordable unit. That sounds fine until the developer builds 40 luxury condos on a lot that used to hold four bungalows. Prices drop? Maybe — if the segment is elastic enough. But the trap is treating the permission slip as if it were the deed restriction itself.

Density Bonus vs. Mandatory Affordable housed

Density bonuses look generous: form twenty units instead of fifteen, set aside two for affordability. Voluntary, though. group love them because they feel like a trade — extra height, more floor-area ratio, in exchange for a few below-segment units. The catch: when the channel cools, developers don’t take the bonus. They assemble the base zoning, pay no affordability penalty, and the city is left with the same shortage. Mandatory affordable hous doesn’t leave that loophole. Every project, regardless of whether the developer opts in, must include a share of restricted units. That’s harder to pass politically — I have seen entire comprehensive plans crater over this distinction — but it survives the next downturn. Density bonuses, during a boom, produce results. Mandatory inclusion survives a bust. Most units only roadmap for the boom.

The tricky bit is price. A mandatory requirement that squeezes returns too thin triggers a different failure: developers stop builded altogether. Then you get the worst outcome — no new more supp and no affordable units. That’s where the trade-off lives. A good policy calibrates the required share to the local spend structure, not to an aspirational percentage someone copied from San Francisco. I’ve seen a 20% requirement kill a project in a mid-sized Midwestern city where land assembly already took six years. Fifteen percent worked. Why? Because the residual land value still cleared the seller’s reserve. tight difference, large effect.

Why ‘supp Side’ Isn’t the Whole Story

Free-segment advocates — people I generally agree with on zoning reform — overstate the case sometimes. More units, lower rents. That’s true in elastic markets: think Tokyo, think Houston. But in a city with severe land constraints, heavy regulation, and high construc expenses, upzon alone can produce high-end units that filter down slowly, if at all. The phrase “supp solves everything” skips the timing snag. New luxury towers take three to five years to execute. During that gap, displacement accelerates. upzoned without tenant protections or an inclusionary requirement is like filling a bathtub while pulling the plug — you add throughput, but the water level doesn’t rise where it matters.

“We upzoned a whole corridor and rents kept climbing. The mistake was assuming more supp and affordability stage together on the same schedule.”

— Director of a community land trust, reflecting on a 2019 corridor rezoning in her city

What more usual breaks initial is political will. Residents see cranes, hear about upcoming luxury condos, and orders a moratorium. Then the upzoned gets rolled back. The real lever — mandatory affordable housed tied to the upzon — never gets pulled. Next window you hear a city council member claim “we’re fixing affordability by upzon,” ask two questions: Is there a mandatory inclusion requirement attached? And what happens to that requirement when construcing spend spike? If the answer to either is vague, you’ve found the trap.

repeats That more usual task

According to a practitioner we spoke with, the primary fix is more usual a checklist sequence issue, not missed talent.

Coupling upzonion with anti-displacement policies

Targeted upzonion near transit and jobs

“upzon without displacement protections is like opening the floodgates without teaching anyone to swim.”

— urban policy director, after watching a Seattle rezone displace 200 renters

Community land trusts as a buffer

Here is a repeat that rarely gets enough airtime: community land trusts (CLTs). They decouple the spend of land from the spend of the assemble. When you upzone a parcel and give a CLT the development rights, the land stays in a trust—forever. That means the units built on top never see speculative price spikes. I have seen this labor in three mid-sized citie where the CLT acquired parcels before the rezoning vote, then built mixed-income row houses at half the segment rate. The tricky bit is timing. CLTs transition slowly. upzon decisions move fast. To make this effort, you require a pipeline of pre-purchased sites or a city fund that buys options on parcels two years before the zoning shift. Most planners treat CLTs as an afterthought. flawed queue. They should be the initial call. The long-term spend of ignoring them is plain: every rezoned lot becomes a future luxury tower, and the people who needed the new supp never get to live there. That hurts.

Anti-Patterns and Why group Revert

upzoned without infrastructure funding — the hidden trap

I watched a mid-sized city upzone a corridor from solo-fami to four-story multifamily. Lots of celebration. New density targets hit. Then the sewer mains blew out. Not metaphorically — raw sewage in the street. The development fees covered nothing close to a trunk-row replacement. The city froze permits for eighteen month. That is the trap: you zone for more people, but the pipes, transit, and schools were sized for 1960. The development community moves on. Neighborhood group blame "reckless upzon." The ordinance gets gutted in the next council cycle. What usual breaks primary is not the concept code — it’s the bond ceiling. units skip the capital-improvement roadmap, assume tax increment will catch up, and end up with a moratorium instead of a boom.

Most citie treat zoning and infrastructure as separate silos. flawed sequence. You require a scaled infrastructure-funding mechanism tied directly to the upzone — impact fees that escalate with density, or a community-facilities district mapped before the primary rezone vote. I have seen one city get this correct: they required a nexus study before council debated the height boost. That study killed the most aggressive map, but it saved the whole reform from a repeal two years later.

Ignoring existion residents — backlash and repeal

Here is the template that kills more upzones than financing: treating the existion block as a blank canvas. A planning department did a beautiful upzone — miss middle, reduced parkion minimums, bike lanes. They showed renderings at one open house. They did not talk to the renters in the rent-stabilized walkups who feared demolition. They did not talk to the homeowners who had spent thirty years on that porch. Six month later, a recall campaign collected enough signatures to put the upzone on the ballot. It lost 62–38. That hurts.

The anti-block is binary: you frame the reform as "density versus sprawl" while residents hear "my rent doubles or my block disappears." The fix is not more outreach — it’s different deals. Inclusionary zoning with strong anti-displacement clauses. A proper-of-initial-refusal for tenants in new buildings. One concrete example: a Portland neighborhood coalition demanded a community-benefits agreement before they stopped blocking a 6-story rezone. They got a local-hire preference and a land trust for 20% of the units. The upzone passed. Most group revert to pure channel-rate rhetoric because it is simpler. plain gets repealed.

“You cannot sell density to people who correctly suspect it will price them out. That isn’t NIMBYism — it’s survival math.”

— housion advocate in a community meeting I sat through

Relying solely on segment-rate construcal

The cleanest anti-repeat of them all: upzone to 5 stories, watch luxury studios go up at $2,400, then wonder why affordability didn't budge. segment-rate development does filter housion units over phase — we know that — but filtering takes a decade or two and does not help the fami paying 55% of income today. The trap is timing. A city council passes an upzone, declares victory, and two years later the median rent is higher. The political window closes. The next election flips the board, and the upzone gets downzoned back to solo-fami.

The group that hold ground pair the upzone with a non-channel mechanism from day one. A community land trust. A social-housed overlay. A density bonus that actual pencils out for affordable units — not a five-percent bonus that nobody uses. I have seen one developer walk away from a site because the voluntary inclusionary zoning asked for 10% affordable. They said no. The city had no mandatory trigger. So the construct went forward with zero affordable units. That is not a failure of upzon — it is a failure of leverage. You upzone, you capture some of that new land value, and you lock it into permanent affordability. Skip that step, and the whole reform becomes a gift to speculators. And voters notice. Then they repeal.

What next? Audit your current upzone for these three failure modes. Map the infrastructure gap. Talk to tenants — not just homeowners. And if your upzone has no mandatory affordability hook, do not pass it until it does. One good experiment: take one pilot block, run the full funding-and-anti-displacement package primary, then ceiling. It is steady, but it sticks.

Maintenance, creep, and Long-Term overheads

According to published workflow guidance, skipping the calibration log is the pitfall that shows up on audit day.

Zoning creep — when upzon doesn't lead to builded

A city council passes the upzoned ordinance. Press releases go out. Then— nothing. Or nearly nothing. I have watched this scenario unfold in three different municipalities now, and the template is eerily consistent. The zoning map changes, but the building permits don't spike. Developers sit on approved entitlements for years, waiting for segment conditions to shift or for land assembly to pencil out. That sounds like a segment problem, not a zoning one. But the trap is this: upzoned without parallel changes to permitting timelines, impact fees, or block review boards creates a phantom more supp. You rezone a corridor for six-story buildings, yet the city still requires eighteen month of site scheme review and three separate planning commission hearings. Developers do the math. They wait. Or they sell the upzoned land at a premium to someone else who waits.

The maintenance spend here is political capital burned for no visible outcome. housed advocates stop believing that zoning reform works. Neighbors who fought the adjustment feel vindicated. And the city staff who pushed the reform through eventually leave. The catch is—zoning alone is never enough. You have to maintain the velocity of implementation. One planning director I worked with started tracking 'phase from rezoning to primary foundation pour' as a key metric. That is the kind of boring, persistent task that prevents slippage.

Infrastructure wear and tear — who pays?

upzon adds density. Density stresses pipes, roads, sewers, and stormwater systems. This is obvious. What is less obvious is who carries the long-term spend burden after the initial wave of construcal finishes. Most citie fund new infrastructure through impact fees collected at permitting. Those fees cover immediate connections and headroom studies. They rarely fund the replacement cycle ten or fifteen years out—when the upgraded sewer pipe reaches end of life. That is the wander event. The new residents are already paying property taxes, the developer is long gone, and the infrastructure bond that seemed generous during the boom suddenly covers only half the projected repair.

I saw a mid-sized city in the Pacific Northwest face exactly this. They rezoned a transit corridor, collected healthy impact fees, built the new connector roads. Inside eight years, the stormwater system was failing under increased runoff from all the new rooftops and parked lots. The fix spend three times what the original impact fee pool contained. The city had to issue a special assessment on exist homeowners—most of whom had not supported the upzon in the primary place. That politicized the next round of reform for a decade.

The trade-off is brutal: you can raise impact fees high enough to cover full lifecycle expenses and kill project feasibility. Or you can hold fees low, get more units built, and gamble that tax revenue momentum will fund deferred maintenance later. Most citie pick the second option because it gets hous built now. The gamble often fails. A better block: require a mandatory infrastructure condition assessment every five years on any corridor that was upzoned above baseline density, with automatic fee adjustment triggers tied to replacement spend indexes. It is not glamorous. It prevents the blow-up.

'We built the units. We forgot to rebuild the budget to maintain the ground they sit on.'

— infrastructure director, speaking after a bond measure failure

Legal challenges and administrative burden

upzonion attracts lawsuits. Not just from anti-growth group. From the pro-housed side too—when the implementation veers from the promised density. Environmental review challenges, CEQA or NEPA equivalency fights, procedural errors in noticing requirements. The administrative spend of defending the zoning adjustment can exceed the spend of writing it in the primary place. One California city spent fourteen month and $470,000 in outside counsel fees to defend a modest upzonion of a solo commercial parcel, only to settle on a reduced density that pleased no one.

That spend is ongoing. It is not a one-phase legal expense that ends with the initial ruling. Every new project that uses the upzoned code can be challenged again on different grounds—park ratios, shadow impacts, traffic studies. The drift accumulates. Staff get burned out rewriting findings for repetitive litigation. The zoning text itself gets amended in tight defensive rounds—each one adding a carve-out, a condition, or an exception. Over three to five years, the 'upzoned' district becomes a patchwork of deal-specific allowances that look nothing like the original reform.

Most group skip this: they budget for the legislative process but not for the litigation maintenance window. The fix is boring: set aside a contingency fund equal to fifteen percent of the zoning reform's implementation budget, earmarked strictly for legal defense and administrative adjustments during the primary three years post-adoption. Also—and this is the harder part—write the zoning text with an eye toward what a hostile judge might poke at. Vague findings of fact invite challenge. Specific, data-backed findings tied to exist general plan policies hold up better. It is not legal proofing; it is governance forecasting. And it is how you maintain the reform from drifting into irrelevance.

Operators we shadowed described three distinct failure modes — mis-threaded tension, skipped press tests, and run labels that never reach the cutting table — each preventable when someone owns the checklist before the rush starts.

When Not to Use This Approach

In neighborhoods with no transit or jobs

Trip the upzone lever in a car-dependent exurb where the nearest employer is a forty-minute drive and the bus runs twice daily — you won't get missed-middle hous. You'll get vacant lots held for speculation. I have watched a mid-sized Texas city rezone a whole corridor to allow fourplexes; three years later, exactly two permits were pulled. The rest stayed grazing land. upzon only unlocks value where the channel *wants* to construct. Without transit access or job proximity, the math on a fourplex collapses: rents can't cover the construcing loan, so developers walk. That hurts. The trap is believing zoning alone creates demand — it doesn't.

Instead of blanket upzon in low-opportunity areas, try targeted infrastructure investment primary. Extend a bus line. Land a community college satellite. Or redirect the upzone toward a modest, walkable node rather than the whole census tract. One county I worked with designated a half-mile radius around a planned train station, upzoned that, and kept everything else agricultural. Permits came within eighteen month. The catch is patience: transit-primary sequencing feels slow compared to a quick zoning rewrite. But the buildable land stays buildable, and you don't litter the landscape with half-built shells.

During a building boom — upzoned may overheat

The worst time to upzone is when cranes already crowd the skyline. I have seen this trap snap shut in a West Coast city where a five-year development surge was already pushing land prices into the stratosphere. The city council upzoned an entire downtown corridor — more height, more density — hoping to cool rents. Instead, speculative buyers gobbled up the newly eligible parcels at auction, construc expenses rose another 20%, and the only projects that penciled out were luxury towers. Affordability? Worsened. The mechanism is perverse: when the segment is already tight, an upzone injects windfall gains into land, not more supp. Sellers raise prices because they can.

What works better during a boom is building publicly — or subsidizing directly. Land trusts. Inclusionary zoning with ironclad affordability covenants. One city paused its upzone mid-cycle and funneled the same political capital into a municipal housion authority that built 400 units at 60% AMI within two years. Not glamorous. Not segment-driven. But it delivered. The rule of thumb: if land values spike faster than permit volume, you are feeding the fire, not sheltering from it.

Where displacement risk is extremely high

upzon a tight, low-income, renter-heavy neighborhood with no rent control? That often accelerates displacement rather than slowing it. Landlords see the new zoning, realize their lot is now worth triple, and sell to a developer who demolishes exist rent-stabilized units, replaces them with segment-rate five-over-ones, and the original tenants are gone — priced out before the initial shovel hits dirt. I have sat in community meetings where residents said plainly: "We don't want your upzone; we want our leases renewed." They were proper.

upzon without tenant protections is just a legalized eviction machine dressed in good intentions.

— urban planner, overheard at a zoning board hearing in 2022

Alternatives: pair any upzone with a "no-net-loss" tenant protection ordinance — replacement units must be offered to displaced renters at pre-demolition rents for a fixed window. Or target the upzone to parcels that are currently vacant or underused (parkion lots, storage yards) rather than occupied homes. One East Coast city used a transferable-development-rights scheme: a developer could form higher only if they bought a "non-displacement credit" from a landlord who agreed to keep existed affordable units untouched for twenty years. Clunky. Yes. But it broke the connection between upzon and eviction. That connection is everything. If you cannot separate them, do not upzone. Not yet.

Open Questions and FAQ

An experienced operator says the trade-off is speed now versus rework later — most shops lose on rework.

Does upzoned actual increase inequality?

That depends on who builds and who stays. I've watched a Denver corridor where upzoned produced mostly luxury townhomes — same land, taller price tags. The miss middle? Absent. The trap is assuming density alone reshuffles the deck. If the zoning shift triggers land speculation before construcing starts, the existing renters who held on get squeezed by rising property taxes. We fixed this once by pairing the upzone with an anti-displacement overlay: rent stabilization triggers, right-of-primary-refusal for tenants, a tiny tax on vacant lots. It slowed building by maybe four month. Worth it.

The hard truth: upzon without supp-side subsidies often funnels profit upward. Not always. The difference is whether the city also owns land, or writes inclusionary zoning that kicks in at eight units — not twelve. Too many groups skip that. They assume the channel will trickle down. It doesn't. Not in hot neighborhoods. Not fast.

“You can upzone a block and still watch rents climb — the map changes, but the math doesn’t.”

— planner in a midwestern city that tried it both ways

How long should we wait for results?

Three years minimum. Five is better. I know — politically impossible. But the projects that clear concept review, permitting, and construcal seldom deliver units in under 36 month. The mistake is measuring affordability impact after year one and declaring failure. What usually breaks primary is the timeline, not the policy. One California city scrapped its upzone after 18 month because rents kept rising. They expected a cure. Instead they got foundation effort. That hurts.

What can you measure sooner? Permit applications. Lot assembly activity. Number of parcels transacting at the new density. If those signals stay flat past year two, the zoning adjustment was too timid, or the financing math doesn't work. We rebuilt one Atlanta program by relaxing park minimums initial — within six month, applications doubled. Wrong order. Start with the constraints borrowers more actual name.

Is lone-more fami zoning always bad?

No. Blanket statements here overhead us credibility. The template that works: preserve solo-more fami zones where the housing stock is already diverse — duplexes, ADUs, co-ops — and rezone exclusively residential tracts that have zero flexibility. The anti-block is treating all low-density zoning as evil. That overcorrects. You lose political buy-in from neighborhoods that might tolerate gentle density if you don't call their entire block obsolete.

The better fight: legalize duplexes on every residential lot. That's not abolishing solo-family zoning — it's allowing choice. units that frame it as "end the suburban dream" get nothing done. Those who frame it as "your neighbor can form a granny flat" pass ordinances. compact shift. Massive difference in traction. The catch is you still need to enforce that the flat stays affordable — or the granny unit becomes an Airbnb within one lease cycle.

Summary and Next Experiments

Three traps recap

upzon alone is a permission slip, not a price tag. The opening trap: treating density bonuses as automatic supp. I have watched cities rezone a corridor for six-story buildings, then wonder why only one lot sold. The missing piece was assembly spend — owners held out, parcel sizes stayed small, and the math never worked for a developer willing to assemble at scale. That hurts.

Trap two: ignoring infrastructure timing. Water mains, sewer laterals, curb cuts — these are not background noise. A zoning map that triples allowed units but leaves stormwater headroom unchanged produces a paper entitlement, not a shovel-ready project. Teams revert because the real constraint is never the FAR limit; it is the 18-inch pipe under the street.

Trap three: confusing upzonion with inclusion. More units can mean more market-rate luxury in a hot corridor — affordability does not automatically ride along. The anti-pattern is a five-story building with zero units below 120% AMI and a parking ratio that pushes rents higher. We fixed this in one city by pairing upzonion with a graduated density bonus: taller buildings required deeper affordability. The political spend was real. The results were, too.

One immediate action for planners

Pull your last three rezoned parcels. Run a simple test: what share of newly entitled units actual got built within two years? If the answer is under 40%, your zoning change likely landed on land that was never development-ready. The fix is not a new code section — it is a pre-development checklist. Parcel assembly status, utility capacity, environmental review stage. Check those before you rezone, not after.

Two data points to track

First: permit-to-entitlement ratio — the gap between what zoning allows and what builders more actual pull permits for. A ratio below 0.25 signals that upzon is creating phantom supply, not real units. Second: land price movement within 18 months of rezoning. When land prices spike faster than projected construction costs, speculators are pricing in future upzones — meaning your next batch of affordability requirements will land on already-inflated land. That is a long-term cost you cannot fix with design guidelines alone.

Density without delivery is just a map making exercise. Someone has to actually swing the hammer.

— paraphrased from a Seattle planner who watched two years of upzoning produce five units

The next experiment: try a 'minimum build' trigger. Rezone only when a developer has secured financing and city council votes on the map and the building permit together, in one packet. Risky? Yes. But sitting on a rezoning that never produces a single door is its own kind of failure — quieter, but just as empty.

Spec sheets, torque tolerances, pneumatic feeds, laminate rollers, and ultrasonic welders each demand separate maintenance cadences.

Calipers, gauges, scales, lux meters, tension testers, and microscope checks feel tedious until returns spike on one seam type.

Hemming, fusing, bartacking, coverstitching, overlocking, and flatlocking introduce distinct failure signatures under rush orders.

Spreading, layering, bundling, ticketing, shading, bundling, and nesting affect yield long before the operator touches pedal speed.

Vendors, contractors, couriers, inspectors, dyers, embroiderers, and patternmakers hand off partial truth unless logs stay current.