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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

Horrified because you purchased a house in a single family neighborhood, and a state legislator thinks it's okay to put multi-families next door? Do you realize that this means more cars--without more parking provided? More strain on the sewage systems, etc. Many of these neighborhoods also have HOAs with limits that homeowners all agree to honor. Why do you resent this? There are many neighborhoods with single family zoning that have houses built on lots that would be overwhelmed by additional housing. All SFH is not on one acre lots. Many people who did not grow up in SF neighborhoods have worked long and hard to get it. Why do you resent them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

Horrified because you purchased a house in a single family neighborhood, and a state legislator thinks it's okay to put multi-families next door? Do you realize that this means more cars--without more parking provided? More strain on the sewage systems, etc. Many of these neighborhoods also have HOAs with limits that homeowners all agree to honor. Why do you resent this? There are many neighborhoods with single family zoning that have houses built on lots that would be overwhelmed by additional housing. All SFH is not on one acre lots. Many people who did not grow up in SF neighborhoods have worked long and hard to get it. Why do you resent them?

All of this because somebody MIGHT build a two-family house next to you instead of a one-family house. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

Horrified because you purchased a house in a single family neighborhood, and a state legislator thinks it's okay to put multi-families next door? Do you realize that this means more cars--without more parking provided? More strain on the sewage systems, etc. Many of these neighborhoods also have HOAs with limits that homeowners all agree to honor. Why do you resent this? There are many neighborhoods with single family zoning that have houses built on lots that would be overwhelmed by additional housing. All SFH is not on one acre lots. Many people who did not grow up in SF neighborhoods have worked long and hard to get it. Why do you resent them?

All of this because somebody MIGHT build a two-family house next to you instead of a one-family house. Unbelievable.

Why should this be a state law? Traditionally, zoning is handled in the communities. Communities have different needs. That's where the decision belongs, not from the state taking away the power. Samirah wants to change zoning laws? Run for supervisor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

Horrified because you purchased a house in a single family neighborhood, and a state legislator thinks it's okay to put multi-families next door? Do you realize that this means more cars--without more parking provided? More strain on the sewage systems, etc. Many of these neighborhoods also have HOAs with limits that homeowners all agree to honor. Why do you resent this? There are many neighborhoods with single family zoning that have houses built on lots that would be overwhelmed by additional housing. All SFH is not on one acre lots. Many people who did not grow up in SF neighborhoods have worked long and hard to get it. Why do you resent them?

All of this because somebody MIGHT build a two-family house next to you instead of a one-family house. Unbelievable.

Why should this be a state law? Traditionally, zoning is handled in the communities. Communities have different needs. That's where the decision belongs, not from the state taking away the power. Samirah wants to change zoning laws? Run for supervisor.

What shouldn't it be a state law? Land use and transportation are also state issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Unbelievable that the homebuilders testified against it.

Also unbelievable that so many people are horrified by the mere prospect of allowing (not requiring) property owners to put a duplex on their property instead of a singlex.

Horrified because you purchased a house in a single family neighborhood, and a state legislator thinks it's okay to put multi-families next door? Do you realize that this means more cars--without more parking provided? More strain on the sewage systems, etc. Many of these neighborhoods also have HOAs with limits that homeowners all agree to honor. Why do you resent this? There are many neighborhoods with single family zoning that have houses built on lots that would be overwhelmed by additional housing. All SFH is not on one acre lots. Many people who did not grow up in SF neighborhoods have worked long and hard to get it. Why do you resent them?

All of this because somebody MIGHT build a two-family house next to you instead of a one-family house. Unbelievable.

Why should this be a state law? Traditionally, zoning is handled in the communities. Communities have different needs. That's where the decision belongs, not from the state taking away the power. Samirah wants to change zoning laws? Run for supervisor.

What shouldn't it be a state law? Land use and transportation are also state issues.

Because we have local governments for a reason? If the state is going to decide everything, then I guess we should just abolish all these local governments and local government officials.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

Republicans typically are not the ones to enact new legislation that takes rights away from locals and states. You are thinking of liberals/leftists who think the top-down approach to government is the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

Republicans typically are not the ones to enact new legislation that takes rights away from locals and states. You are thinking of liberals/leftists who think the top-down approach to government is the best.

Tell that to North Carolina.

And Texas.

And Kansas...

And so on.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

Republicans typically are not the ones to enact new legislation that takes rights away from locals and states. You are thinking of liberals/leftists who think the top-down approach to government is the best.

Republicans do it too.

This is straight out of the NRA's playbook. They lobby state governments to ban local governments from enacting gun control laws.

It's surprising to me that Democrats would pursue this strategy in a state like Virginia, where control of the state government inevitably goes back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.

If Democrats use this to preempt local governments from controlling their own zoning laws, Republicans will cite that precedent to prevent local governments from doing things they don't like. It's a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is talking about the state deciding everything. Or about abolishing local government.

Oh, I see, so you only want the state to decide things when it's things you agree with? Gotcha. Land use is about as local as local government gets.

I am pointing out that lots of things are decided by state as well as local government - particularly in Virginia, which is a Dillon Rule state.

And one of those things is land use. Currently. Right now.

All this is doing is creating precedents that will come back to haunt you. Don't complain when Republicans retake the state government and ban local governments from addressing climate change.

Republicans already do that, regardless of state zoning laws.