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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here (not the PP). The Annenberg and Kung study has some nice features, but I wouldn't put much stock in its conclusions yet. I would characterize it as being more like a first step in setting some building blocks for future structural modeling. There are still big gaps that need to be addressed.

The authors highlight the lack of migration in their model, and that's an important gap. But, I think they have a bigger issue which is the lack of a model of amenities. Their model concludes that is is more effective to improve amenities in lower-priced neighborhoods than to build more in high-priced neighborhoods, but housing is assumed to be of an identical form in LL locations, and amenities are implicitly assumed to be location-specific, but non-rival and therefore not a source of negative externalities. In the real world, different types of neighborhoods have different types of amenities. Amenities in more urbanized areas tend to be effectively non-rival and non-excludable (sidewalks, public parks, coffee shops and restaurants). But, these amenities are often only financially viable given sufficient density, and their utility to residents is itself often a function of density, because people like these things to be within walking distance. Suburban areas have a very different set of amenities (larger private lots) that can impose large negative externalities on residents of other neighborhoods by using up much of the available land for private use. Their model doesn't have anything to say about this, and their empirical methodology isn't able to take it into account at present.

In summary, amenities are heterogeneous, and spatial characteristics of different neighborhoods are heterogeneous in ways that are tightly linked to amenities. So, we can't really conclude much about the value of increasing density without constructing a model that also links the two. My strong suspicion is that if you wrote down a monocentric city model that allowed for migration and for density to increase the quality of non-rival amenities, you'd fit the data at least as well as their model, but you'd also conclude that increases in density increase aggregate utility for both high-income and low-income residents. It would do this by improving amenities for high-income residents while also increasing affordability for lower-income residents who reside in more peripheral locations.

Why do you find it necessary to write a lengthy treatise on here when your conclusion is nothing more than a suspicion? This is why many people think economists are blowhards.

First of all, someone repeatedly cited this paper as supposedly strong evidence, even claiming the authors to be some of the world's top economists, without any acknowledgement of the serious limitations of the paper. I'm just providing an honest assessment of the paper from someone who actually has the training to think critically about the model. Sorry that I imposed on your pithy one-liner space.

Second of all, how exactly do you think that science works? People have hypotheses about how the world works, we write testable models that characterize those hypotheses, and then we test those models using the best data and empirical methods we have. If we already had all the answers, no one would need us.

What is different about Economics and other social sciences is that we're not aiming to build an exact and complete model of the world, because such a model would be as complicated as the world itself. Instead, we build and use models that parsimoniously and accurately represent the key economic relationships we care about. That's an iterative process, it often involves a back and forth between multiple authors, and it's typical to start with a foundation that's too simple and then add features that seem empirically justified or that might alter the main conclusions of the model.

I have my own projects, so I won't be working on this particular topic. But, if I was asked to peer-review this paper, I'd provide the authors with the same assessment I gave you. The paper is a nice foundation for future research, but it's still missing some key things that are likely to affect the conclusions of the model. That's not being a blowhard, that's just science.

PS: If you think that's a lengthy treatise you should really read more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Economist here (not the PP). The Annenberg and Kung study has some nice features, but I wouldn't put much stock in its conclusions yet. I would characterize it as being more like a first step in setting some building blocks for future structural modeling. There are still big gaps that need to be addressed.

The authors highlight the lack of migration in their model, and that's an important gap. But, I think they have a bigger issue which is the lack of a model of amenities. Their model concludes that is is more effective to improve amenities in lower-priced neighborhoods than to build more in high-priced neighborhoods, but housing is assumed to be of an identical form in LL locations, and amenities are implicitly assumed to be location-specific, but non-rival and therefore not a source of negative externalities. In the real world, different types of neighborhoods have different types of amenities. Amenities in more urbanized areas tend to be effectively non-rival and non-excludable (sidewalks, public parks, coffee shops and restaurants). But, these amenities are often only financially viable given sufficient density, and their utility to residents is itself often a function of density, because people like these things to be within walking distance. Suburban areas have a very different set of amenities (larger private lots) that can impose large negative externalities on residents of other neighborhoods by using up much of the available land for private use. Their model doesn't have anything to say about this, and their empirical methodology isn't able to take it into account at present.

In summary, amenities are heterogeneous, and spatial characteristics of different neighborhoods are heterogeneous in ways that are tightly linked to amenities. So, we can't really conclude much about the value of increasing density without constructing a model that also links the two. My strong suspicion is that if you wrote down a monocentric city model that allowed for migration and for density to increase the quality of non-rival amenities, you'd fit the data at least as well as their model, but you'd also conclude that increases in density increase aggregate utility for both high-income and low-income residents. It would do this by improving amenities for high-income residents while also increasing affordability for lower-income residents who reside in more peripheral locations.

It is linked but in one direction. The available amenities appear to control the rent pricing. The more heterogeneous the amenities, the greater the rent pricing difference. The only way to drive down the higher rents is to make the amenities comparable. However, with increasing density, you can't easily claim that amenities are non-rival and non-execludable. Public parks, especially in suburbs and urban areas, have a finite capacity. The lack of migration in their model is the most troublesome aspect, but given human nature, this may not be huge issue. People, in general, favor the status quo without significant motivation. Further, the group that needs affordable housing has the least mobility.

[Anonymous]

Another big win for us liberals!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you purchase a house in a nice suburban neighborhood. Nothing fancy--not a McMansion. And, next thing you know your neighbor decides to put in a duplex. Parking becomes a problem among other issues.

This proposed law would outlaw jurisdictions from restricting neighborhoods to single family housing. That is the issue. Nothing there about grandfathering neighborhoods that are already zoned single family. Not a good idea.

Oh no?

What "other issues"?

DP

This is happening in our MoCo neighborhood and it’s a huge pain.

There are plenty of other issues. Some of these unusual have multiple families living there and can have 5 or 6 vehicles parked on the street, on both sides, making it difficult for school buses and garbage trucks to get by.

It also leads to more kids in an already overcrowded school system.

It’s really difficult to enforce housing regulations in MoCo, so often the homes are rentals and are rented out to way more people than should be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, you purchase a house in a nice suburban neighborhood. Nothing fancy--not a McMansion. And, next thing you know your neighbor decides to put in a duplex. Parking becomes a problem among other issues.

This proposed law would outlaw jurisdictions from restricting neighborhoods to single family housing. That is the issue. Nothing there about grandfathering neighborhoods that are already zoned single family. Not a good idea.

Oh no?

What "other issues"?

DP

This is happening in our MoCo neighborhood and it’s a huge pain.

There are plenty of other issues. Some of these unusual have multiple families living there and can have 5 or 6 vehicles parked on the street, on both sides, making it difficult for school buses and garbage trucks to get by.

It also leads to more kids in an already overcrowded school system.

It’s really difficult to enforce housing regulations in MoCo, so often the homes are rentals and are rented out to way more people than should be there.

Really? People are building duplexes in your Montgomery County neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here (not the PP). The Annenberg and Kung study has some nice features, but I wouldn't put much stock in its conclusions yet. I would characterize it as being more like a first step in setting some building blocks for future structural modeling. There are still big gaps that need to be addressed.

I am the PP (less technical economist)

My rule with any social science research, and most research in general is to avoid drawing sweeping conclusions from one paper, especially when it appear so contradict what one would expect a priori.

The opponents of zoning liberalization, like others passionately defending the status quo on most things, will IME seize on anything that appears to support their position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

Oh, and I don't expect this to satisfy the skeptic here, or even to change his argument. He will repeat his question ad nauseum on every related thread, as if no answer were provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of property owners being allowed to build duplexes, and I find it difficult to think of any policy argument against it.

The following are not policy arguments:

-I don't want to live near a duplex.
-A duplex would be bad for my property value.
-Ew, duplexes.

So, it is ok for the state to override any local zoning ordinances?

Arlington County would like to incorporate energy saving components of the international building code into their local building code (like pretty much everywhere else). The state strips those out of the code and does not allow Arlington to put them back in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

Oh, and I don't expect this to satisfy the skeptic here, or even to change his argument. He will repeat his question ad nauseum on every related thread, as if no answer were provided.

It's actually a really good question. It's why New York City can be incredibly densely populated and incredibly expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

The problem is the numbers.

There are approximately 120,000 housing units in Arlington County (there's 320,000 in DC). How many more do you think realistically can be added? Over the past decade, the number of housing units in Arlington has grown by 14 percent. Let's be very generous and say over the next decade it doubles that rate and grows by 28 percent, which would mean adding 33,000 units, which let's say could accommodate 100,000 people.

Most people would probably agree Arlington is a good place to live. The schools are good, crime is low, it's an easy commute, there's lot of things to do. The main problem is that it's expensive (for precisely all of those reasons).

You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

Oh, and I don't expect this to satisfy the skeptic here, or even to change his argument. He will repeat his question ad nauseum on every related thread, as if no answer were provided.

It's actually a really good question. It's why New York City can be incredibly densely populated and incredibly expensive.

Well I was right, I explained it and you still are repeating it. Of course NYC has a massive number of jobs, and its housing growth in the last few decades (which is not all that large compared to its total population) has failed to keep up with its job growth.

I think I've explained that already, but being debunked hasn't stopped you from repeating your talking points before, why should it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

+1

Everyone hates the Federal Reserve analysis and yet no one can answer this simple question.

A luxury one bed room market rate apt rents for, say 2,000 in Arlington. You build ten more, holding the employment in the region, transportation access, etc constant.

How much if any do you have to reduce the rents to fill those ten units? Anyone willing to move there at 2,000 has already moved in.

But can you fill them by lowering to $1999.99 ? Do you need to lower to $1999.00? To $1900?

The answer depends on what economists call "the elasticitiy of demand".

In this context, are there are a lot of people living in Alexandria, in Leesburg, in Falls Church, in Kalamazoo, who would move to Arlington for a penny drop in rent from what it had been before? How many for a dollar drop?

Since its only ten units, probably you can fill them with a really small drop in rent.

But with a larger increase, it will take a bigger drop.

If we increase the number of units in DC AND in Arlington, it will take an even bigger drop.

At some point you run out of people who live in the region, work in DC or Arlington, and who would be willing to give up their exurban SFH lifestyle for anything but a huge drop from existing rents.

The problem is the numbers.

There are approximately 120,000 housing units in Arlington County (there's 320,000 in DC). How many more do you think realistically can be added? Over the past decade, the number of housing units in Arlington has grown by 14 percent. Let's be very generous and say over the next decade it doubles that rate and grows by 28 percent, which would mean adding 33,000 units, which let's say could accommodate 100,000 people.

Most people would probably agree Arlington is a good place to live. The schools are good, crime is low, it's an easy commute, there's lot of things to do. The main problem is that it's expensive (for precisely all of those reasons).

You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

+1

The amount of additional units people are talking about adding is so small it will never make any difference to housing prices.