Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

The parking requirements go away within a 1/2 mile on transit, which is not just metro. That’s where a lot of properties will be developed.

Also, again, this is phase 1. Phase two will allow multi family housing in former SFZ to be built on a larger scale than the SFHs.

Wait a second- the builders can have fewer spaces but the street parking will still be zoned, right? Please God tell me Council just didn't invite all of Maryland to drive to Rosemont, park, and hop on the metro.

I live in Rosemont. People already do that. Parking enforcement is nonexistent. Construction companies even store their equipment and trucks on Russell and Commonwealth overnight and weekends. The city doesn’t care.

The city parking unit is severely understaffed and was previously also used for crosswalk guards. I believe TES is working to remediate this issue.

That may be true but I’ve lived in Rosemont 20 years. They have never enforced.

Outside of the center of Old Town, they only enforce if you put in a 311. Put one in every day (early), they will come out and mark. If only takes a minute to put it in.

Lets get together Rosemont and Del Ray and yell for some enforcement - especially Friday and Saturday nights (at least on the Del Ray end). The enforcement will pay for itself just ticketing the cars that are parked too close to stop signs at the ends of every block and it would also make the sight lines much safer for pedestrians and encourage better future behavior.

I live on a street very near Braddock Road Metro that isn't zoned. The truly savvy had learned that they can avoid cabs and airport parking fees by parking on my street, walking the 8 minutes to the metro, get off at National and go on their trip without a dime spent for parking.

Until I ruined it for them. Now I see them attempting it and I call the non emergency police number 703.746.4444 and request a visit by parking enforcement all before theyve even made it to the station. Enforcement chalks the tires and comes back three days later and tickets. Another three days go by and the car is towed. I've had 4 towed this year. Little victories.

And you don't even realize what a complete ass you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

New to politics and very naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

The parking requirements go away within a 1/2 mile on transit, which is not just metro. That’s where a lot of properties will be developed.

Also, again, this is phase 1. Phase two will allow multi family housing in former SFZ to be built on a larger scale than the SFHs.

Wait a second- the builders can have fewer spaces but the street parking will still be zoned, right? Please God tell me Council just didn't invite all of Maryland to drive to Rosemont, park, and hop on the metro.

I live in Rosemont. People already do that. Parking enforcement is nonexistent. Construction companies even store their equipment and trucks on Russell and Commonwealth overnight and weekends. The city doesn’t care.

The city parking unit is severely understaffed and was previously also used for crosswalk guards. I believe TES is working to remediate this issue.

That may be true but I’ve lived in Rosemont 20 years. They have never enforced.

Outside of the center of Old Town, they only enforce if you put in a 311. Put one in every day (early), they will come out and mark. If only takes a minute to put it in.

Lets get together Rosemont and Del Ray and yell for some enforcement - especially Friday and Saturday nights (at least on the Del Ray end). The enforcement will pay for itself just ticketing the cars that are parked too close to stop signs at the ends of every block and it would also make the sight lines much safer for pedestrians and encourage better future behavior.

I live on a street very near Braddock Road Metro that isn't zoned. The truly savvy had learned that they can avoid cabs and airport parking fees by parking on my street, walking the 8 minutes to the metro, get off at National and go on their trip without a dime spent for parking.

Until I ruined it for them. Now I see them attempting it and I call the non emergency police number 703.746.4444 and request a visit by parking enforcement all before theyve even made it to the station. Enforcement chalks the tires and comes back three days later and tickets. Another three days go by and the car is towed. I've had 4 towed this year. Little victories.

And you don't even realize what a complete ass you are

Your car must have been one of the four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

New to politics and very naive.

We must oppose everything elected officials do, lest it lead them to do something else (which we will also oppose).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

PP is correct. They still hired consultants to come up with the estimates. It says so right on the project page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

New to politics and very naive.

We must oppose everything elected officials do, lest it lead them to do something else (which we will also oppose).

You aren’t making any sense in the context of this conversation. PP said we aren’t allowed to comment on future proposals. Apparently that is over dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

https://gizmodo.com/half-of-the-u-s-lives-in-these-146-counties-is-yours-1258718775

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

PP is correct. They still hired consultants to come up with the estimates. It says so right on the project page.

PP here. I don't see that, can you point me to it? Though I wouldn't be surprised if consultants were brought in. That would by typical. My response was more to the assertion that there is a "complete lack of understanding of housing, public finances, and economics behind this." That is inaccurate.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b
https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all
https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

The parking requirements go away within a 1/2 mile on transit, which is not just metro. That’s where a lot of properties will be developed.

Also, again, this is phase 1. Phase two will allow multi family housing in former SFZ to be built on a larger scale than the SFHs.

Wait a second- the builders can have fewer spaces but the street parking will still be zoned, right? Please God tell me Council just didn't invite all of Maryland to drive to Rosemont, park, and hop on the metro.

I live in Rosemont. People already do that. Parking enforcement is nonexistent. Construction companies even store their equipment and trucks on Russell and Commonwealth overnight and weekends. The city doesn’t care.

The city parking unit is severely understaffed and was previously also used for crosswalk guards. I believe TES is working to remediate this issue.

That may be true but I’ve lived in Rosemont 20 years. They have never enforced.

Outside of the center of Old Town, they only enforce if you put in a 311. Put one in every day (early), they will come out and mark. If only takes a minute to put it in.

Lets get together Rosemont and Del Ray and yell for some enforcement - especially Friday and Saturday nights (at least on the Del Ray end). The enforcement will pay for itself just ticketing the cars that are parked too close to stop signs at the ends of every block and it would also make the sight lines much safer for pedestrians and encourage better future behavior.

I live on a street very near Braddock Road Metro that isn't zoned. The truly savvy had learned that they can avoid cabs and airport parking fees by parking on my street, walking the 8 minutes to the metro, get off at National and go on their trip without a dime spent for parking.

Until I ruined it for them. Now I see them attempting it and I call the non emergency police number 703.746.4444 and request a visit by parking enforcement all before theyve even made it to the station. Enforcement chalks the tires and comes back three days later and tickets. Another three days go by and the car is towed. I've had 4 towed this year. Little victories.

And you don't even realize what a complete ass you are

Your car must have been one of the four.

They are probably ok with shoplifting, too. The pro-freeloaders hate rule enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

PP is correct. They still hired consultants to come up with the estimates. It says so right on the project page.

PP here. I don't see that, can you point me to it? Though I wouldn't be surprised if consultants were brought in. That would by typical. My response was more to the assertion that there is a "complete lack of understanding of housing, public finances, and economics behind this." That is inaccurate.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b
https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all
https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf

A consultant study identified that approximately 66 comparatively lower-valued properties could be financially feasible for developers to redevelop in single-family zones, resulting in an estimated 66 new residential buildings and an additional 150-178 new dwelling units created over 10 years. The estimated range of 150-178 units is based on adding two-family dwellings or up to four-family dwellings in the single-family zones.

Second link you posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

PP is correct. They still hired consultants to come up with the estimates. It says so right on the project page.

PP here. I don't see that, can you point me to it? Though I wouldn't be surprised if consultants were brought in. That would by typical. My response was more to the assertion that there is a "complete lack of understanding of housing, public finances, and economics behind this." That is inaccurate.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d8ed3a93b08e4f7797423722a72a467b
https://www.alexandriava.gov/planning-and-zoning/zoning-for-housinghousing-for-all
https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/Zoning-for-Housing-Units-Infrastructure-20230925.pdf

A consultant study identified that approximately 66 comparatively lower-valued properties could be financially feasible for developers to redevelop in single-family zones, resulting in an estimated 66 new residential buildings and an additional 150-178 new dwelling units created over 10 years. The estimated range of 150-178 units is based on adding two-family dwellings or up to four-family dwellings in the single-family zones.

Second link you posted.

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

Are you unaware that posters, like myself, also have degrees (not sure what a certification would do) in urban planning, finance, business and law AND have decades of experience in public finance and housing. I worked for 15 years with ARHA and the City of Alexandria in their housing projects, from their Section 8 to mortgage back securities to GO bonds, TIFs, tax credits, the construction of Potomac Yards, the straightening of Route 1, Chatham Square, workforce housing, elder housing, etc. Yeah, I know how they operate. And that's not even touching city council, which often has a revolving door.

People can come up with all kinds of analysis or read a study or have theories of how things should work, about anything. And then in reality it doesn't work that way. So analysts theorized that x number of "affordable" units could be built in y number of years with the zoning changes. What is the definition of affordable? What kind of housing (rent, own)? And who would built it (private citizens, developers, nonprofit developers)? Because utilizing federal affordable housing incentives aka tax-exempt financing, is a HUGE undertaking, and often requires both HUD and IRS certifications (annual if it's a rental). If it's for home ownership, then you have to have a third party verify the purchaser qualifies, and I've seen that go wrong so many times. Developers don't want this headache and they also don't want to lose money. So what developers have these consultants identified who will build these affordable units that they project can be built?

I don't have a problem with the zoning changes, but I do have a problem with no transparency and wasting time and money. If the end goal is to truly make what HUD defines as affordable housing to people who would qualify under the regs, then the focus should be on enhancing and supporting programs that actually attract developers to commit to this. I see NONE of that being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

Are you unaware that posters, like myself, also have degrees (not sure what a certification would do) in urban planning, finance, business and law AND have decades of experience in public finance and housing. I worked for 15 years with ARHA and the City of Alexandria in their housing projects, from their Section 8 to mortgage back securities to GO bonds, TIFs, tax credits, the construction of Potomac Yards, the straightening of Route 1, Chatham Square, workforce housing, elder housing, etc. Yeah, I know how they operate. And that's not even touching city council, which often has a revolving door.

People can come up with all kinds of analysis or read a study or have theories of how things should work, about anything. And then in reality it doesn't work that way. So analysts theorized that x number of "affordable" units could be built in y number of years with the zoning changes. What is the definition of affordable? What kind of housing (rent, own)? And who would built it (private citizens, developers, nonprofit developers)? Because utilizing federal affordable housing incentives aka tax-exempt financing, is a HUGE undertaking, and often requires both HUD and IRS certifications (annual if it's a rental). If it's for home ownership, then you have to have a third party verify the purchaser qualifies, and I've seen that go wrong so many times. Developers don't want this headache and they also don't want to lose money. So what developers have these consultants identified who will build these affordable units that they project can be built?

I don't have a problem with the zoning changes, but I do have a problem with no transparency and wasting time and money. If the end goal is to truly make what HUD defines as affordable housing to people who would qualify under the regs, then the focus should be on enhancing and supporting programs that actually attract developers to commit to this. I see NONE of that being discussed.

I'm confused, you seem to be saying that the qualifications of city staff have no relevance, but your own qualifications do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

OK, so you think more things are going to come. Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City.

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?

NP here. The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number. The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics.

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

Are you unaware that posters, like myself, also have degrees (not sure what a certification would do) in urban planning, finance, business and law AND have decades of experience in public finance and housing. I worked for 15 years with ARHA and the City of Alexandria in their housing projects, from their Section 8 to mortgage back securities to GO bonds, TIFs, tax credits, the construction of Potomac Yards, the straightening of Route 1, Chatham Square, workforce housing, elder housing, etc. Yeah, I know how they operate. And that's not even touching city council, which often has a revolving door.

People can come up with all kinds of analysis or read a study or have theories of how things should work, about anything. And then in reality it doesn't work that way. So analysts theorized that x number of "affordable" units could be built in y number of years with the zoning changes. What is the definition of affordable? What kind of housing (rent, own)? And who would built it (private citizens, developers, nonprofit developers)? Because utilizing federal affordable housing incentives aka tax-exempt financing, is a HUGE undertaking, and often requires both HUD and IRS certifications (annual if it's a rental). If it's for home ownership, then you have to have a third party verify the purchaser qualifies, and I've seen that go wrong so many times. Developers don't want this headache and they also don't want to lose money. So what developers have these consultants identified who will build these affordable units that they project can be built?

I don't have a problem with the zoning changes, but I do have a problem with no transparency and wasting time and money. If the end goal is to truly make what HUD defines as affordable housing to people who would qualify under the regs, then the focus should be on enhancing and supporting programs that actually attract developers to commit to this. I see NONE of that being discussed.

I'm confused, you seem to be saying that the qualifications of city staff have no relevance, but your own qualifications do?

You can be confused all you want. I have qualifications and experience, this goes beyond a certification or a degree. What I would assume anyone would want, when massive amounts of money are being spent, are both.

So again, what developers have these consultants identified? What level of affordable? I can pay a consultant to tell me anything I want. Be smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways.

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think. Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.

It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house.

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay.

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.

For now. It has the same height allowance for now.

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose.

New to politics and very naive.

We must oppose everything elected officials do, lest it lead them to do something else (which we will also oppose).

Seems like the issue here is that elected officials are giving voters the finger.