upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

[Anonymous]

It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

[Anonymous]

Because popups and popbacks make neighborhoods ugly?

Because people with kids need single family homes?

Because increasing density is more likely to drive housing prices up than down?

Because DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in North America?

Because we don't have the infrastructure for it? (Funny how the people who want upzoning say we can't accommodate any more people's cars)

Because no one has a right to housing in a fancy neighborhood?

Because everyone can't live in the same place?

Because it reduces the quality of life for people who are already there?

Because in the vast majority of DC, upzoning is synonymous with gentrification?

Have you been to New York City? It kind of sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

[Anonymous]

DC spends the most per student and yet DCPS are shameful and inadequate. DC is full of homeless people and there is no plan to help them or to reinvent a city where so many office buildings remain vacant.

DC is a poorly run city. So - i don’t think throwing more children in need of education and resources is a good idea. It should not be this way - but it is. The high rate of crime in the city is not a welcome mat for more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

This is the argument of the creative class who took the easy course at college and now cannot afford to live where they think they deserve to live.

It is economics. If you did prepare yourself well enough to make enough money where you prefer to live, you cannot live there.

These folks should look at the many parts of DC where they can afford to live and determine if they are too selfish to live there, if they are too entitled to live there, if they think they are of a higher class than the many people who live there, or if they re too racist to live in areas where they don't like the races of people already living there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because popups and popbacks make neighborhoods ugly?

Because people with kids need single family homes?

How does extremely expensive SFH due to restricted supply help families?

Because increasing density is more likely to drive housing prices up than down?

That's literally the opposite of what will happen. Supply and demand.

Because DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in North America?

Because we don't have the infrastructure for it? (Funny how the people who want upzoning say we can't accommodate any more people's cars)

Because no one has a right to housing in a fancy neighborhood?

And yet you have the right to tell people what to do with their private property?

Because everyone can't live in the same place?

Because it reduces the quality of life for people who are already there?

Because in the vast majority of DC, upzoning is synonymous with gentrification?

Huh? So exclusive, expensive SFH for the rich is good, but apartment buildings are bad "gentrification"?

Have you been to New York City? It kind of sucks.

You're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Why do people assume that if we build more housing prices will decline? That may be true in places like Iowa where the population is stagnant or shrinking. But experience shows that, in places like DC, the opposite is true. Just look at Navy Yard (or, really, any other neighborhood).

The more people you cram into a given area, the more attractive it becomes to businesses. Once restaurants and bars move in, because now there's enough people to support those businesses, then even more people want to live there. That drives up demand for housing and, with it, prices. That gives developers more reason to build even more, which creates economics of scale for an even wider array of businesses. Now, you not only have bars and restaurants, you have boutiques and bike shops and whatnot. That creates even more demand to live there, which drives up housing prices even more. It's an upward spiral that was triggered by the fact that lots of people were in a given area.

New York City would be cheaper if it was only single family homes because there wouldnt be enough people to support all the things that people currently move to NYC for. Broadway, for example, would vanish because there wouldnt be enough people in the area to make plays financially viable. Without all that stuff that is unique to NYC, the city would be a less attractive place to live -- it would much smaller and duller -- and housing prices would be much lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

Yes. Look at the current push for up zoning in Arlington. Questions about how the county will meet the demand for schools, recreational opportunities, and infrastructure are met with handwaving and bad faith projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

That doesn't solve the problem of over capacity schools that can't handle additional students, police and fire stations already miles away, parking and roads designed for limited traffic.

That being said, the areas around metro stations and the new foxhall elementary school is ripe for increased density because of their soon to be excess school space. The main problem with upzoning is a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the social infrastructure is capped out and there is no land to build what would be needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

That doesn't solve the problem of over capacity schools that can't handle additional students, police and fire stations already miles away, parking and roads designed for limited traffic.

That being said, the areas around metro stations and the new foxhall elementary school is ripe for increased density because of their soon to be excess school space. The main problem with upzoning is a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the social infrastructure is capped out and there is no land to build what would be needed.

everyone wants to stuff Ward 3 until it breaks. FYI - it has Deal and Wilson. But appease the whiners and build Foxhall. Yikes - worst locale ever: why not invest in schools that are failing ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less the upzoning itself and more the lack of infrastructure funding. You bring in more people, you need more capacity in school, on roads and transit, and other services. The problem lies in the “incentives” for developers to build more, which often means waving impact taxes for a decade or more. Somebody has to pay for things, and it’s pretty much always going to be the residents. Either existing homeowners through property taxes, or new residents through costs being pushed onto housing costs. Developers NEVER make any concessions. They ALWAYS maximize profit.

You can solve that problem by getting rid of the incentives.

That doesn't solve the problem of over capacity schools that can't handle additional students, police and fire stations already miles away, parking and roads designed for limited traffic.

That being said, the areas around metro stations and the new foxhall elementary school is ripe for increased density because of their soon to be excess school space. The main problem with upzoning is a complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the social infrastructure is capped out and there is no land to build what would be needed.

A lot of the area around Foxhall is already zoned for much higher density, low-rise apartment buildings. Gradually the single-family homes are being replaced with small apartment buildings. There's still a lot more density that could be added under existing zoning.

This gets to OP's original question: not every lot gets built out to maximum allowed density automatically. Even if there were to be upzoning it would take decades for the housing stock to turn over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

Thank you. What you said is what bothers me about upzoning.