Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

If you don't want more options for your property, that's fine. They are options, not requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

If you don't want more options for your property, that's fine. They are options, not requirements.

It is about the community that one lives not just the parcel of property one lives on. Local government is meaningless otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

If you don't want more options for your property, that's fine. They are options, not requirements.

It is about the community that one lives not just the parcel of property one lives on. Local government is meaningless otherwise.

The community elected the local government that is making the decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

7 posts into the thread, and somebody has already asked the single most common question about housing policy, "Why would somebody want something that I don't want?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

7 posts into the thread, and somebody has already asked the single most common question about housing policy, "Why would somebody want something that I don't want?"

Just a question. Who would be the target demographic of a quadplex in a SFH neighborhood? It would, seemingly, be people with children. If the children are school-aged that is not a property tax boon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

7 posts into the thread, and somebody has already asked the single most common question about housing policy, "Why would somebody want something that I don't want?"

Just a question. Who would be the target demographic of a quadplex in a SFH neighborhood? It would, seemingly, be people with children. If the children are school-aged that is not a property tax boon.

That would be a good question to ask someone who is planning to build a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted.

But maybe you can explain why you believe that people with school-aged children would be more interested than other people in living in a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted? Or, conversely, why four-unit residential buildings in an areas where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted, would particularly attract people with school-aged children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

7 posts into the thread, and somebody has already asked the single most common question about housing policy, "Why would somebody want something that I don't want?"

Just a question. Who would be the target demographic of a quadplex in a SFH neighborhood? It would, seemingly, be people with children. If the children are school-aged that is not a property tax boon.

That would be a good question to ask someone who is planning to build a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted.

But maybe you can explain why you believe that people with school-aged children would be more interested than other people in living in a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted? Or, conversely, why four-unit residential buildings in an areas where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted, would particularly attract people with school-aged children?

Because it would seem that a lot of the value of that du/tri/quadplex is the neighborhood where kids hang out in neighbor’s yards and ride bikes and go trick-or-treating. Also a good dog-walking place, so, admittedly, a value for people with dogs and not children. Otherwise, the free coffee, wine nights, rooftop decks, and pools of the luxury condos would seem to be more appealing than an amenity-less 1000 sq foot condo with no parking set among SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

That’s not really how it works if there are any school-aged kids that move in since ACPS has an astronomic per pupil cost. So a SFH lot now has 8 school-aged kids to the two that previously lived there. Why would a childless person want to live in a quadplex in a once SFH neighborhood when they could live in Potomac Yard?

7 posts into the thread, and somebody has already asked the single most common question about housing policy, "Why would somebody want something that I don't want?"

Just a question. Who would be the target demographic of a quadplex in a SFH neighborhood? It would, seemingly, be people with children. If the children are school-aged that is not a property tax boon.

That would be a good question to ask someone who is planning to build a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted.

But maybe you can explain why you believe that people with school-aged children would be more interested than other people in living in a four-unit residential building in an area where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted? Or, conversely, why four-unit residential buildings in an areas where, previously, only one-unit residential buildings were permitted, would particularly attract people with school-aged children?

Because it would seem that a lot of the value of that du/tri/quadplex is the neighborhood where kids hang out in neighbor’s yards and ride bikes and go trick-or-treating. Also a good dog-walking place, so, admittedly, a value for people with dogs and not children. Otherwise, the free coffee, wine nights, rooftop decks, and pools of the luxury condos would seem to be more appealing than an amenity-less 1000 sq foot condo with no parking set among SFHs.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions you're making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

If you don't want more options for your property, that's fine. They are options, not requirements.

It is about the community that one lives not just the parcel of property one lives on. Local government is meaningless otherwise.

The community elected the local government that is making the decisions.

+1 That's correct. Exciting and very different environment ahead.

[Anonymous]

Start a trailer park in your backyard and see just how committed Alexandria is to removing zoning regulations.