Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

I'm thinking Roy Byrd gets pushed as the new hope of the SFH defenders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who will the BIBA crowd run to challenge the current council? Surely not Rossello again?

What's the point?

[Anonymous]

We could all use a break from the social crusaders. The past four years of divisive bickering has resulted in what exactly? Some street name changes and new signs on King that read "A man was lynched here." What a waste of energy and resources.

Give me a candidate with an ounce of business sense and a plan to help generate revenue that doesn't come from raising taxes. I'll gladly vote for that person.

[Anonymous]

I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A major city like Alexandria is being shaped overnight in what looks like a botched rush-job by people who serve as low-functioning middle management IRL. Tell me why this sounds like a good idea?

Meanwhile, we’re on here debating an issue that’s all but over. I hope the outcome finally inspires some serious candidates to run against these trend-obsessed wannabes in 2024.

Even if you support this particular issue (I see both sides), I can’t stomach how they’ve behaved. Council’s wanton disregard of citizen feedback is a slap to anyone who lives here.

It’s an example of how they’ll treat anyone whose vision doesn’t align perfectly with theirs, even if that *anyone* turns out to be the majority of their constituents.

If we don’t do better in 2024 local elections, everything that makes Alexandria special will be gone for good. The neighborly, charitable spirit of the City is already dissolving before our eyes.

Thinking that lady from the last meeting was right—they do need a spanking. And that maybe I need a city smart enough to benefit actual taxpayers every now and then.

You think Alexandria is a major city?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you voted for it. Reap the rewards.

No we did not. Despite the disingenuous claims of Wilson, Gaskins and McPike, these zoning changes were in no way discussed during the last election. Committed affordable housing was a huge discussion and rising housing costs across the metro area were discussed. But these proposals were not discussed.

Sorry, but you did. Wilson et al have been talking about this for years at events, zoning and planning meetings. Wilson's claims aren't disingenuous.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. I knew because I pay a minimal amount of attention so I didn't vote for them.

Really? For years, the planning commission has been talking about ending single family zoning? What zoning meetings? And Gaskins and McPike stated that?

Wilson is disingenuous because he repackaged and fast tracked the proposal because it the bonus height density proposal didn’t go as planned in front of the planning commission.

I mean, it’s totally possible he said something at the Dem Committee meetings or some grassroots event. I can’t deny that.

Yes, really.

Zoning meetings, planning meetings, Alexandria Housing Summit...there is so much over years. Wilson allies, like Nate Macek were saying things in meetings about SF neighborhoods needing to make sacrifices. The group of women Wilson fondly calls is "mom mafia" were screaming at people that they were racist anytime SFZ was brought up. His adoration for Council on Governments and embrace of the YIMBYs. What did you think that was about?

Sometimes people who are running for office won't highlight issues that they know voters won't like. That's why you have to research, ask questions, look at the entire picture and make decisions. Be an informed voter.

Did you really think that a group of people who never disagree were suddenly going to go against Wilson and the Alexandria Dems?

Everyone will have forgotten this by the next election.

Yes, I know about those women. Not sure why he tolerate it on his FB page. That one lady is an absolute nut and her posts tagging him won’t help if he does run for higher office. They are bullies to everyone who isn’t 100% in agreement with them, even otherwise liberal Dems.

I don’t know if people will forget. There was a huge push to get a more diverse group on council during the last election. I am curious to see if McPike and Bailey will survive.

He "tolerates" it because they do his bidding.

He's not running for higher office. He's not going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you voted for it. Reap the rewards.

No we did not. Despite the disingenuous claims of Wilson, Gaskins and McPike, these zoning changes were in no way discussed during the last election. Committed affordable housing was a huge discussion and rising housing costs across the metro area were discussed. But these proposals were not discussed.

Sorry, but you did. Wilson et al have been talking about this for years at events, zoning and planning meetings. Wilson's claims aren't disingenuous.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. I knew because I pay a minimal amount of attention so I didn't vote for them.

Really? For years, the planning commission has been talking about ending single family zoning? What zoning meetings? And Gaskins and McPike stated that?

Wilson is disingenuous because he repackaged and fast tracked the proposal because it the bonus height density proposal didn’t go as planned in front of the planning commission.

I mean, it’s totally possible he said something at the Dem Committee meetings or some grassroots event. I can’t deny that.

Yes, really.

Zoning meetings, planning meetings, Alexandria Housing Summit...there is so much over years. Wilson allies, like Nate Macek were saying things in meetings about SF neighborhoods needing to make sacrifices. The group of women Wilson fondly calls is "mom mafia" were screaming at people that they were racist anytime SFZ was brought up. His adoration for Council on Governments and embrace of the YIMBYs. What did you think that was about?

Sometimes people who are running for office won't highlight issues that they know voters won't like. That's why you have to research, ask questions, look at the entire picture and make decisions. Be an informed voter.

Did you really think that a group of people who never disagree were suddenly going to go against Wilson and the Alexandria Dems?

Everyone will have forgotten this by the next election.

Yes, I know about those women. Not sure why he tolerate it on his FB page. That one lady is an absolute nut and her posts tagging him won’t help if he does run for higher office. They are bullies to everyone who isn’t 100% in agreement with them, even otherwise liberal Dems.

I don’t know if people will forget. There was a huge push to get a more diverse group on council during the last election. I am curious to see if McPike and Bailey will survive.

He "tolerates" it because they do his bidding.

He's not running for higher office. He's not going away.

Which lady? The one who got banned from her kid's school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

+1.

It favors cash buyers, a la builders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

[Anonymous]

Folks are conflating subsidized dedicated affordable housing and housing affordability at different price points, e.g. allowing duplexes and fourplexes to be built in addition to 5k sqft SFHs. The city is doing BOTH, although most of the current zoning changes at issue address the latter.

Pretending that a massive example of the former isn't about to rise on the corner of Mt Vernon and Glebe is a bad look. Better to feign ignorance and act like you don't understand that a 700k condo is more accessible to more folks than a 2.5M mansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

I'm genuinely trying to understand the bolded. You are saying that people can't move out of their homes due to low inventory and interest rates. I get that. But how would allowing multi-unit development affect that at all? I don't get it.

And if you're saying that developers will have less incentive to build the "level up" housing ("mcmansions") I guess that is true. But it is also the point. You would also be free to buy an existing one or a tear down/land yourself and build on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking Roy Byrd gets pushed as the new hope of the SFH defenders

It will be Silberberg but damn this would be so much more entertaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

Really? I would say: most rational people don't want to live in a too-big space that involves too much labor and expense for upkeep, when they can live in a just-right-sized space with less labor and expense, in their same neighborhood.