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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So the sponsor of this bill represents people who would prefer not to live in his district (which already has lots of multi-family units)?

While much of his district is poor, multi-family housing, much of it is also single family. Some single family in the Town of Herndon, but much of it is suburban single family and townhouses.

Believe me, the houses in the single family developments do not want tear downs and new duplexes put next door.

The delegate has an urban vision that is likely not shared by his constituents. He thinks he will be helping the poor, immigrant families, but, instead, he will be gentrifying much of the area.

Frankly, I doubt he has lived in his district very long. He was raised in Jordan and then returned to attend university---American and Boston. I don't think he is as familiar with his district as he would have you believe.

If duplexes count as "urban", then the word "urban" has lost all meaning.

[Anonymous]

I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

Duplexes are single-family housing too.

And it's not just rich neighborhoods that are zoned for single-family-detached housing.

And there's no reason you can't own single-family-attached housing like you can own single-family-detached housing - in fact, people do just that with townhouses/rowhouses.

What this will do is make it possible to build additional housing units in neighborhoods zoned for single-family-detached housing. That's good because it will potentially make more housing available in those neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

The main issue here is that there are a lot of white guys with champagne tastes and beer budgets. They want homes like they grew up in in Connecticut but they don't make any money, and they'll never be able to afford Friendship Heights. Their sense of entitlement is acute though, and they will be damned if they're going to live in Chillum (where three-bedroom houses go for $350,000) so we see them lobbying the government to change the rules so they can live where they "rightfully" belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main issue here is that there are a lot of white guys with champagne tastes and beer budgets. They want homes like they grew up in in Connecticut but they don't make any money, and they'll never be able to afford Friendship Heights. Their sense of entitlement is acute though, and they will be damned if they're going to live in Chillum (where three-bedroom houses go for $350,000) so we see them lobbying the government to change the rules so they can live where they "rightfully" belong.

Save it for your novel, eh?

This isn't about Friendship Heights or Chillum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

Why is a "rich" neighborhood automatically better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

Why is a "rich" neighborhood automatically better?

Ask the rich people who paid a lot of money to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

Why is a "rich" neighborhood automatically better?

Ask the rich people who paid a lot of money to live there.

Access to horse trails and several nearby stables (a large lot for your own stable if you like) is one aspect making this area attractive to rich people.

Don't know why anyone else would care about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue here is that there are a lot of white guys with champagne tastes and beer budgets. They want homes like they grew up in in Connecticut but they don't make any money, and they'll never be able to afford Friendship Heights. Their sense of entitlement is acute though, and they will be damned if they're going to live in Chillum (where three-bedroom houses go for $350,000) so we see them lobbying the government to change the rules so they can live where they "rightfully" belong.

Save it for your novel, eh?

This isn't about Friendship Heights or Chillum.

Eh, I'm pretty sure it is.

[Anonymous]

None of this stuff is actually going to happen. Messing with zoning is an extremely efficient way to lose an election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

Exactly. Let's say I own a home in Burke. Give it a nice round value of $500K. Now the county changes the zoning so that the lot can have a duplex. I know that just around the corner a group of new townhouses sold for $650K each. So I know that if I sold today a builder could grab my lot, stick a duplex on it, and charge around $650K for each unit (probably a little more because they would have to cover the cost of the existing home's demolition). Perhaps if enough people attempted to do this it would apply downward pressure on prices, but the cost involved in the demolition and construction of the new homes means that the price is not likely to make it worth it to a builder to come down too far. And certainly not enough to provide affordable housing without some injection from the government.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at redeveloping 3 level garden apartments into 6-8 level apartment/condo buildings? Much larger increase in units, some of which could be set aside for affordable units. And it still is the same zoning - multifamily units. There should be efforts to spread these around the city/county so they don't get concentrated in just a few areas. We might have even over built retail, so that may also be areas where multifamily units could be built during redevelopments.

It just seems to me that we haven't exercised all the more logical options; some people just seem to have it out for single family homes and the people (of all races, creeds, and colors) that live in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

Exactly. Let's say I own a home in Burke. Give it a nice round value of $500K. Now the county changes the zoning so that the lot can have a duplex. I know that just around the corner a group of new townhouses sold for $650K each. So I know that if I sold today a builder could grab my lot, stick a duplex on it, and charge around $650K for each unit (probably a little more because they would have to cover the cost of the existing home's demolition). Perhaps if enough people attempted to do this it would apply downward pressure on prices, but the cost involved in the demolition and construction of the new homes means that the price is not likely to make it worth it to a builder to come down too far. And certainly not enough to provide affordable housing without some injection from the government.

Wouldn't it make more sense to look at redeveloping 3 level garden apartments into 6-8 level apartment/condo buildings? Much larger increase in units, some of which could be set aside for affordable units. And it still is the same zoning - multifamily units. There should be efforts to spread these around the city/county so they don't get concentrated in just a few areas. We might have even over built retail, so that may also be areas where multifamily units could be built during redevelopments.

It just seems to me that we haven't exercised all the more logical options; some people just seem to have it out for single family homes and the people (of all races, creeds, and colors) that live in them.

Why not both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this stuff is actually going to happen. Messing with zoning is an extremely efficient way to lose an election.

The tide has turned and momentum is clearly in favor of laws like this. It's not that surprising since the home ownership rate has lowered around the major job centers and young families have increasingly become locked out of owning.

[Anonymous]

Bills like this and the plan Arlington county is pushing are going to result in more duplexes in areas that are already more affordable, not the wealthy enclaves. Areas like south Arlington will get more duplexes and multlifamily housing because it is cheaper to buy the land and tear downs and less resistance from wealthy neighbors. This will only serve to further depress home values in those areas and Lead to further neighborhood decline.

[Anonymous]

I think for many people close to retirement, turning their existing homes into duplexes and renting would be a great way to bring in revenue for retirement.

Renting smaller spaces is better for the environment rather than building single family homes.