Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

Do you copy and paste this on every DCUM thread? Feels like we see you everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

There are lots of people right here in this thread excited to see SFZ end in Alexandria tonight, and maybe it's even part of the reason we voted for these folks?

It should bring some incremental tax revenue to the city and at least some additional affordable units, and the only costs are the mental hardship of folks who think living next door to a 4-plex that looks like a house world ending. That's the kind of common sense trade off I'm happy to vote for.

You are bad at math.

If an average lot in Del Ray had 4.2 people in 2020, and now has 7.3 people in 2025, where do those extra children go to school? Where do the extra cars park? Where do those people shop? Where does the fecal matter those people generate go? Who treats it, especially on a system that currently dumps it INTO THE RIVER?

You don't just add people to an elevator because you think its 'fair'. There is a capacity, both in terms of comfort and safety.

[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.

It seems that the existing SFH benefits through the entire homebuying process. If the current SFH will only sell for $1MM because it is zoned as SFH, but literally is worth $1.5MM overnight because a developer can now build a 4-plex...well, now you can buy that $1.25MM home for cash/minimal mortgage.

Again, am I missing something? Once the zoning changes, existing SFH owners' values will be "artificially" inflated assuming their property is actually developable into a 4-plex.

You're getting closer. In your suggestion, the SFH is newly worth $1.5M with the change. You suggest selling and taking $1.25M in cash to buy something better than what you had, but fail to realize that you'd have to spend MUCH MORE than the $1.5M.

OR...you get to pack up the life you created and move away. Otherwise, all you're buying is one of those new overpriced townhomes...because the money doesn't go as far as it once did.

Also, I don't think the increase would be artificial. It's more of a by-product of the new enhanced flexibility of the land.

I just sold my house for $1.5MM that the day before the zoning change was worth $1MM. How is it possible I have to spend MUCH MORE than $1.5MM for another house? I will agree, let's say I am moving just outside the boundary for Alexandria SFH...in theory, the house I buy there that is similar to what I just sold (let's assume the demographics of the location are the same) is cheaper because they don't get the price premium from the zoning change.

[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.

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.

I think we can all agree that $1M townhomes can't be built fast enough to keep up with local demand. That's part of the problem. The other build down to when builders are able to squish four $1M townhomes on a lot that would have previously held a $2M new build, the land becomes more attractive/profitable.

Builders generally have access to more cash than the typical buyer and will be willing to pay a higher price to elbow out competition if the profit margins are right. Whenever a property sells, it becomes a sales comp for nearby properties. The side effect of properties selling for more is that the increases are factored in with neighbors go to sell their homes and adjust asking prices accordingly. Those $1M townhomes of today, become $1.1M townhomes tomorrow. As a baseline, we'll assume most folk's incomes aren't growing at a speed that tracks with the local home prices.

Everything gradually becomes more expensive, adding to the number of people who can't afford to move to the next level up.

Also, thinking that locals are free to manage their own tear down and build ignores that they'll have to likely outbid a more flush developer, hire a builder at a premium and require access to a greater deal of cash when compared to standard financing. It's like saying you can have this widget as long as you're willing to pay way more than it's worth. On the flip side, developers have talent and efficiencies in place, which puts them in the lead in most purchasing situations. It's a falsehood to say there's equal opportunity in the scenario. This is why we're screwed.

The bolded is the part I don't get. We are talking about existing homeowners selling in order to "level up." If everything gets more expensive, the sales price of the existing home also goes up accordingly, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are bad at math.

If an average lot in Del Ray had 4.2 people in 2020, and now has 7.3 people in 2025, where do those extra children go to school? Where do the extra cars park? Where do those people shop? Where does the fecal matter those people generate go? Who treats it, especially on a system that currently dumps it INTO THE RIVER?

You don't just add people to an elevator because you think its 'fair'. There is a capacity, both in terms of comfort and safety.

Alexandrians against Alexandrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

The law would provide options ... for developers to seek the highest profit opportunities.

[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.

It seems that the existing SFH benefits through the entire homebuying process. If the current SFH will only sell for $1MM because it is zoned as SFH, but literally is worth $1.5MM overnight because a developer can now build a 4-plex...well, now you can buy that $1.25MM home for cash/minimal mortgage.

Again, am I missing something? Once the zoning changes, existing SFH owners' values will be "artificially" inflated assuming their property is actually developable into a 4-plex.

You're getting closer. In your suggestion, the SFH is newly worth $1.5M with the change. You suggest selling and taking $1.25M in cash to buy something better than what you had, but fail to realize that you'd have to spend MUCH MORE than the $1.5M.

OR...you get to pack up the life you created and move away. Otherwise, all you're buying is one of those new overpriced townhomes...because the money doesn't go as far as it once did.

Also, I don't think the increase would be artificial. It's more of a by-product of the new enhanced flexibility of the land.

Wouldn't the detached house you're selling, and pocketing the money from, also be "overpriced"? Or is it that you think attached houses are inherently "overpriced" by definition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Yes, this! There are lots of close in areas with all sorts of multi family housing options. So people that want that can find them. The opposite is not true when they start changing zoning. The people who want to live in a sfh in a sfh neighborhood no longer have the option of what they want without moving from their current neighborhood-the one that was zoned as a sfh neighborhood when they bought it based on their preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

The law would provide options ... for developers to seek the highest profit opportunities.

... by building housing for people to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Yes, this! There are lots of close in areas with all sorts of multi family housing options. So people that want that can find them. The opposite is not true when they start changing zoning. The people who want to live in a sfh in a sfh neighborhood no longer have the option of what they want without moving from their current neighborhood-the one that was zoned as a sfh neighborhood when they bought it based on their preferences.

It's almost like some people think that attached/multi-unit housing has a communicable disease which it will infect detached/single-unit housing with, unless forced to keep a safe distance. Like cooties.

[Anonymous]

It’s like when you elect someone and as soon as they take office, they change parties.

It is imminent domain by another name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

It's almost like different people want different things, and it's good to have options for those different people!

And there are those options already, including many areas of multifamily buildingss and can be more without opening all established single family home areas to apartment and condo buildings - anywhere, anytime.

Well, no, there are not currently some of those options. For example, there are currently no multi-unit buildings in "established single family home areas". They are currently not allowed.

Isn't that what they're building across from Duncan Library on Commonwealth? Was a big lot, they tore down the house and are putting up what appear to be 3 attached duplex/condos and an ADU. Looks super affordable too.