Overriding local zoning to allow multi-family units in suburban neighborhoods in VA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

It's funny that people are so eager to try to shoot holes in a study by some of the world's most respected economists because it doesnt come to the conclusion they want. And yet they can't explain the first thing about how their own theory would work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, this isn’t going to pass. In the end, Republicans in more rural areas (where lack of housing isn’t much of an issue) aren’t going to feel compelled to vote for it, and instead will beat the drum of big government Democrats to shore up support in their own jurisdictions. And Democrats in higher-population areas will be reluctant to give more control to Richmond after years of having Richmond Republicans frustrate every effort to address local issues (Arlington couldn’t even pass an ordinance to reduce predatory towing with Republicans from other parts of the state getting involved to block it).

Second, even if it did pass, it would potentially create more problems than it would solve by reinforcing and exacerbating housing segregation. Looking at Arlington (since Mother Jones called it out in particular), if this were to pass, you’re not going to see a rash of duplexes built in 22207 because the economics simply don’t make sense, except maybe on the SFH lots right on Lee Highway where no one wants to buy a SFH. No one will gamble on buying an $800k lot to build two $900k duplexes in a non-walkable part of North Arlington instead of a $1.6 million SFH (margins will be thinner on duplexes than SFHs) when prospective buyers can spend less to get a SFH in South Arlington or slightly more to get a nice townhouse in very walkable Clarendon/Courthouse. Instead, developers will concentrate them in South Arlington where the land is cheaper.

you sound nervous.

[Anonymous]

The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When your constituents located in an area in order to live a suburban lifestyle--whether in single family homes or in townhouses located with lots of land, it seems odd that a delegate would be pushing to change that simply because he prefers an urban lifestyle.

It’s more about equity and allowing more people to have the “lovely” and “quaint” privileges things that so many rich people get to have. It really is bold legislation and I imagine it will pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

Oh no, the irrefutable argument!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When your constituents located in an area in order to live a suburban lifestyle--whether in single family homes or in townhouses located with lots of land, it seems odd that a delegate would be pushing to change that simply because he prefers an urban lifestyle.

It’s more about equity and allowing more people to have the “lovely” and “quaint” privileges things that so many rich people get to have. It really is bold legislation and I imagine it will pass.

doubtful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

The policy goal is to enable more people to live in close-in areas by increasing the supply of housing in close-in areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

It's funny that people are so eager to try to shoot holes in a study by some of the world's most respected economists because it doesnt come to the conclusion they want. And yet they can't explain the first thing about how their own theory would work.

How the theory would work:

1. You allow more housing to be built.
2. People build more housing.
3. There is more housing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

It's funny that people are so eager to try to shoot holes in a study by some of the world's most respected economists because it doesnt come to the conclusion they want. And yet they can't explain the first thing about how their own theory would work.

Elliot Anenberg and Edward Kung are some of the world's most respected economists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

Oh no, the irrefutable argument!

One potentially important assumption behind our analysis throughout this paper is that our model treats each city as a closed economy. Although households can choose from among many different types of neighborhoods within the city, they cannot choose to live outside the city, and households from outside the city cannot chooseto move to the city. Therefore, in our counterfactuals where we expand the housing supply, we must assume that the new entrants to the city arrive exogenously, and we must make an assumption about the distribution of preferences among the new entrants. Our counterfactuals are concerned with small changes to the housing stock, so it turns out that our results are not too sensitive to this assumption. However, for larger changes to the housing stock of the city, the number and particular preference distribution of new entrants may become important for the main results. Moreover,our model ignores any potential congestive or agglomerative effects associated with increasing housing supply in a city, which may be appropriate for small changes but is less realistic for large changes. Thus, we caution against extrapolating our model’s elasticities to very large changes to the housing stock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

Oh no, the irrefutable argument!

One potentially important assumption behind our analysis throughout this paper is that our model treats each city as a closed economy. Although households can choose from among many different types of neighborhoods within the city, they cannot choose to live outside the city, and households from outside the city cannot chooseto move to the city. Therefore, in our counterfactuals where we expand the housing supply, we must assume that the new entrants to the city arrive exogenously, and we must make an assumption about the distribution of preferences among the new entrants. Our counterfactuals are concerned with small changes to the housing stock, so it turns out that our results are not too sensitive to this assumption. However, for larger changes to the housing stock of the city, the number and particular preference distribution of new entrants may become important for the main results. Moreover,our model ignores any potential congestive or agglomerative effects associated with increasing housing supply in a city, which may be appropriate for small changes but is less realistic for large changes. Thus, we caution against extrapolating our model’s elasticities to very large changes to the housing stock.

This doesn't seem like an issue. Rezoning isn't likely to create a huge change. The available housing won't double overnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anything that gets more affordable housing, and more poor people, into northern Virginia in general, and north Arlington McLeab and Great Falls in particular, the better. I’m all for it.

I doubt this bill will do anything to help that problem. As a previous poster said DINKS and “lower middle class (HHI=$400k ... cough) will buy it all up. Maybe limiting investment properties and Air BnB would do more than this bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

Oh no, the irrefutable argument!

One potentially important assumption behind our analysis throughout this paper is that our model treats each city as a closed economy. Although households can choose from among many different types of neighborhoods within the city, they cannot choose to live outside the city, and households from outside the city cannot chooseto move to the city. Therefore, in our counterfactuals where we expand the housing supply, we must assume that the new entrants to the city arrive exogenously, and we must make an assumption about the distribution of preferences among the new entrants. Our counterfactuals are concerned with small changes to the housing stock, so it turns out that our results are not too sensitive to this assumption. However, for larger changes to the housing stock of the city, the number and particular preference distribution of new entrants may become important for the main results. Moreover,our model ignores any potential congestive or agglomerative effects associated with increasing housing supply in a city, which may be appropriate for small changes but is less realistic for large changes. Thus, we caution against extrapolating our model’s elasticities to very large changes to the housing stock.

This doesn't seem like an issue. Rezoning isn't likely to create a huge change. The available housing won't double overnight.

They're basically saying that the real world is different from their model. That's an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there are more assumptions and limitations than that.

Oh no, the irrefutable argument!

One potentially important assumption behind our analysis throughout this paper is that our model treats each city as a closed economy. Although households can choose from among many different types of neighborhoods within the city, they cannot choose to live outside the city, and households from outside the city cannot chooseto move to the city. Therefore, in our counterfactuals where we expand the housing supply, we must assume that the new entrants to the city arrive exogenously, and we must make an assumption about the distribution of preferences among the new entrants. Our counterfactuals are concerned with small changes to the housing stock, so it turns out that our results are not too sensitive to this assumption. However, for larger changes to the housing stock of the city, the number and particular preference distribution of new entrants may become important for the main results. Moreover,our model ignores any potential congestive or agglomerative effects associated with increasing housing supply in a city, which may be appropriate for small changes but is less realistic for large changes. Thus, we caution against extrapolating our model’s elasticities to very large changes to the housing stock.

This doesn't seem like an issue. Rezoning isn't likely to create a huge change. The available housing won't double overnight.

They're basically saying that the real world is different from their model. That's an issue.

No, it's saying that their model assumes that there isn't radical changes in housing availability. Allowing multi-family units isn't going to have much effect on available housing in the suburban areas of NoVA. For various reasons, there are limits on the speed at which single-family units would be converted to multi-family units. For instance, their model can't accommodate the government (or a developer) creating hundreds of new units of affordable housing in a single location. However, that's not really an issue. That will never happen in NoVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broader point — policy goal, I think — is to desegregate certain types of suburbs that exist because of baked in racism. Basically, politicians are asking important questions about why certain neighborhoods should be allowed to go on in this firm. It really strikes a nerve regarding what so many people know is wrong but lack courage to address.

The policy goal is to enable more people to live in close-in areas by increasing the supply of housing in close-in areas.

That’s one of the goals. The other is integration.