Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

[Anonymous]

It's unconscionable how big the high school is, but, sure, let's add more people.

[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.

You’re right that developers don’t “wan’t headaches” so that’s why we need to pass laws that force them to contribute to society rather than simply adhere to their own sense of greed. Developers think OSHA is a “headache” as well but that doesn’t mean that we should avoid holding them accountable for worker safety. Why would you shill for wealthy developers unless you are one of them?

[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

Help us understand what makes PP an ass because parking enforcement is enforcing the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

+1

That was never a stated goal of this ZTA

[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

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.

Is your assertion that neither city staff nor consultants have qualifications or experience? Is your assertion that yours should trump theirs? How would that work, should they have consulted you Hired you?

Beyond that, you believe that before a zoning change should be enacted the City should have specific developers lined up who will commit to building specific units defined as affordable?

Also land use policy is different- though related- to housing policy. See:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

This!

You know what pays for all the stuff you want, OP? Property tax dollars. From incremental smart development like the ones in this package of reforms.

You can keep your SFH but when you go to sell it, it may sell for more because there will be more options for what it can become, and that will lead to both more tax dollars and more residents as one large house becomes four smaller ones in some places, especially places that support transit. Win-win-win-win.

And further overcrowding schools. Yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

The goal is to increase the number of affordable housing by either decreasing the cost of housing (make prices go down) or increase supply of housing that is affordable by building new units. I am not sure you understand what affordable housing means. It is a term of art in the housing industry, defined by HUD. It doesn't mean only section 8. It doesn't mean only one kind of housing. City Council knows this. You should know this. YIMBY knows this. If there is no definition of affordable, and it is a completely subjective term, then what are we even doing here.

I have a real problem with performative art for government. This is all some kind of random babbling and side show by city council that won't go anywhere. It is a waste of time and money. If I had team members at my job who did this, I would fire them. And it is a real shame, because we definitely need several different levels of affordable housing. There are already existing programs out there that support this. There also could be new initiatives that can accomplish this. But just changing the zoning, does what exactly? It does nothing. There is nothing for the NIMBY to get all upset about or YIMBY to claim victory. And in the end, people who need affordable housing suffer and city council just pats themselves on the back.

[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:

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.

Is your assertion that neither city staff nor consultants have qualifications or experience? Is your assertion that yours should trump theirs? How would that work, should they have consulted you Hired you?

Beyond that, you believe that before a zoning change should be enacted the City should have specific developers lined up who will commit to building specific units defined as affordable?

Also land use policy is different- though related- to housing policy. See:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

The city has hired me, several times. I am not working on this project. They have hired me to help them find ways to finance projects without raising taxes. Not sure what your problem is. do you work in this industry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

The goal is to increase the number of affordable housing by either decreasing the cost of housing (make prices go down) or increase supply of housing that is affordable by building new units. I am not sure you understand what affordable housing means. It is a term of art in the housing industry, defined by HUD. It doesn't mean only section 8. It doesn't mean only one kind of housing. City Council knows this. You should know this. YIMBY knows this. If there is no definition of affordable, and it is a completely subjective term, then what are we even doing here.

I have a real problem with performative art for government. This is all some kind of random babbling and side show by city council that won't go anywhere. It is a waste of time and money. If I had team members at my job who did this, I would fire them. And it is a real shame, because we definitely need several different levels of affordable housing. There are already existing programs out there that support this. There also could be new initiatives that can accomplish this. But just changing the zoning, does what exactly? It does nothing. There is nothing for the NIMBY to get all upset about or YIMBY to claim victory. And in the end, people who need affordable housing suffer and city council just pats themselves on the back.

+1

Elected leaders like zoning changes because it makes them look like they're doing something about housing costs, and it costs the government nothing. That it will have zero affect on supply or prices is almost besides the point.

[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:

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.

Is your assertion that neither city staff nor consultants have qualifications or experience? Is your assertion that yours should trump theirs? How would that work, should they have consulted you Hired you?

Beyond that, you believe that before a zoning change should be enacted the City should have specific developers lined up who will commit to building specific units defined as affordable?

Also land use policy is different- though related- to housing policy. See:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

The city has hired me, several times. I am not working on this project. They have hired me to help them find ways to finance projects without raising taxes. Not sure what your problem is. do you work in this industry?

I don't have a problem. Sincerely trying to understand the point you are trying to make. Can you help explain?

[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:

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.

Is your assertion that neither city staff nor consultants have qualifications or experience? Is your assertion that yours should trump theirs? How would that work, should they have consulted you Hired you?

Beyond that, you believe that before a zoning change should be enacted the City should have specific developers lined up who will commit to building specific units defined as affordable?

Also land use policy is different- though related- to housing policy. See:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

The city has hired me, several times. I am not working on this project. They have hired me to help them find ways to finance projects without raising taxes. Not sure what your problem is. do you work in this industry?

Do you want to answer any of the questions asked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

The goal is to increase the number of affordable housing by either decreasing the cost of housing (make prices go down) or increase supply of housing that is affordable by building new units. I am not sure you understand what affordable housing means. It is a term of art in the housing industry, defined by HUD. It doesn't mean only section 8. It doesn't mean only one kind of housing. City Council knows this. You should know this. YIMBY knows this. If there is no definition of affordable, and it is a completely subjective term, then what are we even doing here.

No. The goal is to contribute to more accessible and available housing opportunities in the city by increasing the types of dwellings – two to four units in one building – in the single-family zones and allowing the building code to determine occupancy numbers.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Zoning-for-Housing-TA-Summary-Document-20231002.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

The goal is to increase the number of affordable housing by either decreasing the cost of housing (make prices go down) or increase supply of housing that is affordable by building new units. I am not sure you understand what affordable housing means. It is a term of art in the housing industry, defined by HUD. It doesn't mean only section 8. It doesn't mean only one kind of housing. City Council knows this. You should know this. YIMBY knows this. If there is no definition of affordable, and it is a completely subjective term, then what are we even doing here.

No. The goal is to contribute to more accessible and available housing opportunities in the city by increasing the types of dwellings – two to four units in one building – in the single-family zones and allowing the building code to determine occupancy numbers.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Zoning-for-Housing-TA-Summary-Document-20231002.pdf

Is there a dearth of 1 to 4 unit dwellings in Alexandria?

[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:

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.

Is your assertion that neither city staff nor consultants have qualifications or experience? Is your assertion that yours should trump theirs? How would that work, should they have consulted you Hired you?

Beyond that, you believe that before a zoning change should be enacted the City should have specific developers lined up who will commit to building specific units defined as affordable?

Also land use policy is different- though related- to housing policy. See:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

The city has hired me, several times. I am not working on this project. They have hired me to help them find ways to finance projects without raising taxes. Not sure what your problem is. do you work in this industry?

Do you want to answer any of the questions asked?

I’ve answered the questions. Maybe take some CLEs on public finance and affordable housing if you’re interested.