MM Is Dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher population = larger tax base = more money for schools, infrastructure and the like.

This is why you don’t generally see counties or municipalities urging people to leave.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Multifamily housing in Northern Virginia is tax negative for counties almost 100% of the time. The only type of multifamily housing that usually creates a fiscal surplus is age restricted senior housing. New construction single family is the only housing type in Arlington where the average unit creates a fiscal surplus. Every other type of residential housing type creates fiscal deficit on average. Growing the tax base makes the county worse off when spending grows faster than tax revenue. So the fiscal benefits of MM housing are nonexistent.

Evidence, please.

I find it hard to believe that Arlington condos and apartments, which house many singles and DINKs, are somehow a fiscal negative on average.

But I’m willing to see what you have to back up your “almost 100%” claim.

True, all of Ballston is nothing but a big huge tax negative complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher population = larger tax base = more money for schools, infrastructure and the like.

This is why you don’t generally see counties or municipalities urging people to leave.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Two things:

1) It only results in proper school funding/infrastructure from the additional tax revenue if the population is not a net burden, requiring more incremental infrastructure/school capacity/services than they provide in that tax revenue.

2) To ensure the necessary infrastructure, impact taxes or the like would need to be adequate, both to offset any expected net loss (as above) and to provide the funding that would be required with more upfront timing to decrease, preferably eliminate, any lag between the needs of the additional population and the associated availability of infrastructure/services to meet that need.

But do you have any evidence that these two conditions won’t be satisfied here?

As a general matter, a higher population and larger tax base results in better infrastructure in the long run through economies of scale.

This is one of the reasons localities generally encourage residents to come, not leave.

Yeah, the economy of scale hasn’t worked out so well for our high school students. Particularly the ones that will be forced to go to school in an Amazon office building. It also hasn’t worked out so well for our aging sewer system. The concerns about flooding were one of the reasons the judge overturned MM zoning in Arlington. Kinda hard to use “economy of scale” where there is no extra land and old water/sewer.

Perhaps Arlington NIMBYs shouldn’t have opposed a new high school …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure who the “you people” are. My focus in this thread is strictly on the zoning issue. I take no position here on rent control or any of the other issues you listed.

It may be difficult for you to recognize it, but in this particular instance, it is the pro-SFH zoning folks — you people — who are advocating for government control and against free-market allocation of land use in an environment of increasing housing demand.

There are plenty of places that you can buy land to do with what you wish, and zoning exists to do that. You should go there, no one is stopping you. Though, I’m not sure why you’d bother since there are 527 condos and townhomes available in Montgomery county right now, not including the 1 bedrooms. There are 647 of you remove that restriction. There are roughly as many SFH.

If, as you seem to be suggesting, there is already sufficient supply to satisfy the demand for denser housing, then you should have nothing to worry about. Even if zoning is loosened, no landowner would have any incentive to convert his or her property to denser use. So what’s your concern?

Another disingenuous post. Are you suggesting that there would be no differential development based on zoning change? If so, there's no point in the upzoning effort in the first place.

Nope, I’m not suggesting that. I was responding to PP, who seems to believe there is already sufficient supply to satisfy the demand for denser housing. If that’s actually case, then upzoning should not result in the construction of more dense housing. In which case there should be no worries.

On the other hand, if, like me, you believe that the supply for denser housing is being artificially constrained by strict government control (i.e., through SFH zoning) then upzoning would likely result in more construction to satisfy the market demand.

Which of these do you believe? Is supply being artificially constrained by government control or not?

Most of these are fine with upzoning specific areas that are closer to transit and more walkable. They don’t think it makes sense to more than double the population of the county by allowing sixplexes on postage stamp lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

Zoning laws are not permanent. They are subject to change, just like all other laws. Anyone who buys a house should know that at the time they decide to buy.

Times change, and circumstances change. For example, ride-sharing apps upended life for those with taxi medallions.

An increasing population means that neighborhoods will need to change in response to demand. It cannot be reasonably expected that close-in neighborhoods will remain low density for eternity. That’s just not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

Zoning laws are not permanent. They are subject to change, just like all other laws. Anyone who buys a house should know that at the time they decide to buy.

Times change, and circumstances change. For example, ride-sharing apps upended life for those with taxi medallions.

An increasing population means that neighborhoods will need to change in response to demand. It cannot be reasonably expected that close-in neighborhoods will remain low density for eternity. That’s just not realistic.

That’s silly, it’s a big county and a big country. You are presenting a completely false dilemma. I don’t know if it’s ignorance or you are deliberately selling a false narrative to some idealogical end.

We have an entire planning department that could be planning for today and tomorrow but instead they’ve just said, well, we’ve tried nothing and we are all out of of ideas.”

[Anonymous]

Huh? This thread is about Arlington, which is geographically tiny. It’s not realistic to expect that neighborhoods there will remain low density for eternity.
It just isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? This thread is about Arlington, which is geographically tiny. It’s not realistic to expect that neighborhoods there will remain low density for eternity.
It just isn’t.

I expect that the PP was thinking of the similar MM efforts in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

Zoning laws are not permanent. They are subject to change, just like all other laws. Anyone who buys a house should know that at the time they decide to buy.

Times change, and circumstances change. For example, ride-sharing apps upended life for those with taxi medallions.

An increasing population means that neighborhoods will need to change in response to demand. It cannot be reasonably expected that close-in neighborhoods will remain low density for eternity. That’s just not realistic.

That's its own red herring -- no law is permanent. Some are relatively more likely to remain, however, and some are, then, more likely to be relied upon when making rather impactful decisions, such as where to live.

Will neighborhoods change over time? Yes.

Is all change good? No.

Can governments make such change? Yes.

Should they do so in a manner that doesn't engage enough to ensure it reflects the will/interests of those governed? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

that’s a fairy tale! zoning does not “reflect demand.” it’s a government regulation that interferes with actual demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure who the “you people” are. My focus in this thread is strictly on the zoning issue. I take no position here on rent control or any of the other issues you listed.

It may be difficult for you to recognize it, but in this particular instance, it is the pro-SFH zoning folks — you people — who are advocating for government control and against free-market allocation of land use in an environment of increasing housing demand.

There are plenty of places that you can buy land to do with what you wish, and zoning exists to do that. You should go there, no one is stopping you. Though, I’m not sure why you’d bother since there are 527 condos and townhomes available in Montgomery county right now, not including the 1 bedrooms. There are 647 of you remove that restriction. There are roughly as many SFH.

If, as you seem to be suggesting, there is already sufficient supply to satisfy the demand for denser housing, then you should have nothing to worry about. Even if zoning is loosened, no landowner would have any incentive to convert his or her property to denser use. So what’s your concern?

Another disingenuous post. Are you suggesting that there would be no differential development based on zoning change? If so, there's no point in the upzoning effort in the first place.

Nope, I’m not suggesting that. I was responding to PP, who seems to believe there is already sufficient supply to satisfy the demand for denser housing. If that’s actually case, then upzoning should not result in the construction of more dense housing. In which case there should be no worries.

On the other hand, if, like me, you believe that the supply for denser housing is being artificially constrained by strict government control (i.e., through SFH zoning) then upzoning would likely result in more construction to satisfy the market demand.

Which of these do you believe? Is supply being artificially constrained by government control or not?

Most of these are fine with upzoning specific areas that are closer to transit and more walkable. They don’t think it makes sense to more than double the population of the county by allowing sixplexes on postage stamp lots.

Absolutamente false. NIMBYs oppose upzoning everywhere. https://www.arlnow.com/2022/03/28/ballston-macys-proposal-draws-concerns-about-density-land-use/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

Zoning laws are not permanent. They are subject to change, just like all other laws. Anyone who buys a house should know that at the time they decide to buy.

Times change, and circumstances change. For example, ride-sharing apps upended life for those with taxi medallions.

An increasing population means that neighborhoods will need to change in response to demand. It cannot be reasonably expected that close-in neighborhoods will remain low density for eternity. That’s just not realistic.

That's its own red herring -- no law is permanent. Some are relatively more likely to remain, however, and some are, then, more likely to be relied upon when making rather impactful decisions, such as where to live.

Will neighborhoods change over time? Yes.

Is all change good? No.

Can governments make such change? Yes.

Should they do so in a manner that doesn't engage enough to ensure it reflects the will/interests of those governed? No.

The voices of a few loud (and sometimes personality disordered) NIMBYs does not reflect “the will/interests of those governed.” it’s ONE interest that has disproportionate voice. the role of government is in fact to ensure that the overall well being of everyone is reflected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If removal of zoning reduces the supply of SFHs, that would be a result of natural market demand, i.e., what people want and can and can afford. The government would not be forcing anyone to convert their land to denser housing.

In contrast, shortages in supply caused by strict zoning are the result of artificial constraints imposed by government control.

The two are not comparable.

There had long been (amd continues to be) demand for SFH properties in SFH-zoned neighborhoods. That had been met with zoning to ensure such existed, reflecting the demand. Removing that effectively introduces differential constraints, pulling the rug out from under those who had invested life resources in a living situation based on that established understanding.

That is not comparable to making new residential zoning with greater latitude of structure types in greenfield development, where anyone choosing to live there would be making that decision with the conditions in place.

The strawman/red herring bell of "nobody is forcing you to replace your SFH with higher density" has been overrung. That distraction makes mockery of the concerns about the environs of one's home and the impacts of higher density on one's community without addressing them.

that’s a fairy tale! zoning does not “reflect demand.” it’s a government regulation that interferes with actual demand.

Ummm...OK, Mr. Smith...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If these current residents want the neighborhood to remain just as it is, then it will. Zoning changes won’t force them to do anything different.

+1. Put your money where your mouth is.

Meanwhile I took another visit to Arlington today and yep, the SFH I saw are all tatty and sad, but the townhouse and smaller apartment building blocks were quite nice.

Where were you in Arlington? Halls Hill, Green Valley, or Johnson's Hill where the SFH that black people built after WWII that are being replaced by townhouses but apartment buildings built in the 1940s and 1950s remain
Arlington Forest, Madison Manor, Dominion Hills? More affordable single family areas where many houses have been expanded but mostly well maintained?

Where did you see such tattiness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Higher population = larger tax base = more money for schools, infrastructure and the like.

This is why you don’t generally see counties or municipalities urging people to leave.

Quite the contrary, actually.

Multifamily housing in Northern Virginia is tax negative for counties almost 100% of the time. The only type of multifamily housing that usually creates a fiscal surplus is age restricted senior housing. New construction single family is the only housing type in Arlington where the average unit creates a fiscal surplus. Every other type of residential housing type creates fiscal deficit on average. Growing the tax base makes the county worse off when spending grows faster than tax revenue. So the fiscal benefits of MM housing are nonexistent.

Evidence, please.

I find it hard to believe that Arlington condos and apartments, which house many singles and DINKs, are somehow a fiscal negative on average.

But I’m willing to see what you have to back up your “almost 100%” claim.

True, all of Ballston is nothing but a big huge tax negative complex.

Except for the Gates of Ballston, Buckingham, Culpeper Gardens, Unity Homes at Ballston, The Carlin, Terwilliger Place The Springs, and Erdo Housing. All occupied by people with high social welfare needs.