MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive. |
Anonymous
You’re right. My bad. |
Anonymous
This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH? |
Anonymous
You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ? |
Anonymous
It's not adding to the supply of places families can live. Sure, it's adding a fuzzy substitute for some who could live there, and would consider a larger unit, but at the expense of SFH supply,.which is where there is greatest demand. |
Anonymous
Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence. |
Anonymous
And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience. I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought. |
Anonymous
If the greatest demand is for SFH, why is anybody supporting upzoning, which will reduce the number of SFHs. I have missed the logic here. Presumably. the focus should be on building more SFHs, including townhouses. |
Anonymous
Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ. |
Anonymous
I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand. Now proceed... |
Anonymous
It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome? |
Anonymous
Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me. |
Anonymous
Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class. |
Anonymous
DP/prior PP. There are plenty of MoCo detached SFH owners who wouldn't qualify as "rich" in this area, and I imagine many of them would prefer not to have increased density in their neighborhoods, especially if the infrastructure (schools, etc.) would not be adequate to support that increase (or already isn't adequate, like much of the closer-in, quite diverse southeast of the county). As far as building more housing to make it cheaper, current high density zoning in the immediate vicinity of existing rail is under-built, and would offer much lower per-unit costs (vs. the additional density proposed in current detached SFH-zoned areas), while greenfield development farther out would offer lower costs for required infrastructure (vs. upgrades/expansions/retrofits of infrastructure in already built-out areas, as access is considerably more burdensome) as well as lower housing cost for those seeking it. Of course, neither of those options places increased density in already-built-out detached SFH communities closer in, and that is what "Missing Middle" advocates had espoused. I don't see an objection to the per-neighborhood/area caps or keeping the changes from being permanently by-right via a renewable sunset provision until the approach proves out. |
Anonymous
PP is flat wrong. First, the rich are not dependent on SFHs for their net worth. The middle class in contrast are highly dependent on the value of their SFHs for their net worth. Upzoning will hurt the middle class not the rich. Second, if "building more of a thing makes things cheaper," why does the County want to reduce the supply of SFHs. Reducing the SFH supply theoretically should drive SFH prices higher, according to PP. I fail to understand the logic, assuming there is some logic. |