High Density Housing Everywhere in Fairfax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

In single family homes (there are plenty for sale), actual multi-family apartment buildings and condos, in townhouses, or in other counties - there's no god-given right to live in Fairfax just because you want to.

There's also no god given right for you to live here exactly as you see fit in your SFH. You could also move. That argument goes both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

In single family homes (there are plenty for sale), actual multi-family apartment buildings and condos, in townhouses, or in other counties - there's no god-given right to live in Fairfax just because you want to.

There's also no god given right for you to live here exactly as you see fit in your SFH. You could also move. That argument goes both ways.

So you’re a proponent of cramming high density housing into areas that do not have the roads to support it?

[Anonymous]

Folks, there's no debating the YIMBYs, here. Among the most disingenuous of posters, they rarely acknowledge a reasoned point, but will pounce on any less reasoned remark from another poster to paint any opposition in the most unsupportable light. The discussion is political theater to cover the government actions the pro-development lobby already has secured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

In single family homes (there are plenty for sale), actual multi-family apartment buildings and condos, in townhouses, or in other counties - there's no god-given right to live in Fairfax just because you want to.

There's also no god given right for you to live here exactly as you see fit in your SFH. You could also move. That argument goes both ways.

So you’re a proponent of cramming high density housing into areas that do not have the roads to support it?

IDK who will buy condos on sleepy residential streets where you have to get into your car to go most places. Suburban apartments that aren't smack near most amenities and transit used to be for low income who have fewer choices and have to deal with hardships, because it's considered a hardship to have to share walls and not be in the midst of an urban area or at least be able to walk to most amenities and faster transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody done research into how many churches own large swaths of land in Northern Virginia? This area is already pretty built up. While annoying for some who live near these potential buildings, I don't think it's going to ruin public schools.

The other problem with the law is that there is no cutoff date for eligibility. So a church could buy a 1,000 acres of farmland now and then do a massive by-right development after 5 years. It would be better to have the law only cover properties that were purchased by a non-profit before January 1st of this year to prevent gaming of the law where nonprofits can create massive developments that will overwhelm local infrastructure.

This is actually a good point.

For most churches who have buildings on less than an acre, it won't necessarily be easy for them to get financing for these projects. And for the ones that too, the housing brought online is probably needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Richmond is going to override local zoning rules and force Fairfax to approve development at a minimum of 20 units per acre on any land owned by churches or non-profits. The only requirement is that 60% of the housing units must be reserved for low income housing. Which areas of the county and school pyramids will be the least impacted by this policy? At this point. I'm honestly just thinking about sending my kids to private school k-12. This state zoning law is going to ruin all of the schools in Fairfax county

God forbid your kid has to have contact with some low-income families.

You are making assumptions about them. It's not a crime to have worked hard and want your child in the best possible environment. And if they think a private school is the way to go then they are doing what they think is best for their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

In single family homes (there are plenty for sale), actual multi-family apartment buildings and condos, in townhouses, or in other counties - there's no god-given right to live in Fairfax just because you want to.

There's also no god given right for you to live here exactly as you see fit in your SFH. You could also move. That argument goes both ways.

Sure, every man for himself and screw everyone else. A fine way to live. While you're at it, why not throw out building codes, zoning regulations, and planning for infrastructure like roads and utilities - planned development is obviously way overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

In single family homes (there are plenty for sale), actual multi-family apartment buildings and condos, in townhouses, or in other counties - there's no god-given right to live in Fairfax just because you want to.

There's also no god given right for you to live here exactly as you see fit in your SFH. You could also move. That argument goes both ways.

So you’re a proponent of cramming high density housing into areas that do not have the roads to support it?

IDK who will buy condos on sleepy residential streets where you have to get into your car to go most places. Suburban apartments that aren't smack near most amenities and transit used to be for low income who have fewer choices and have to deal with hardships, because it's considered a hardship to have to share walls and not be in the midst of an urban area or at least be able to walk to most amenities and faster transit.

The church that I live near seems to think someone will rent (not buy) them. Or maybe they’re just getting a kickback from a developer to stay afloat because hardly anyone actually attends their dying church.

[Anonymous]

Call the governor to voice your opposition people. It made it through both chambers so the only way to stop this madness is to call the governors office and get her to veto the bill. Call and say that you are opposed to SB 388. This is a very poorly written bill that will be detrimental to local schools and infrastructure. There are no protections regarding school capacity, traffic impacts, or infrastructure capacity. The only thing it allows the consideration of is sewer and water, which is woefully insufficient to protect quality of life and public safety for residents. https://www.governor.virginia.gov/contact/

[Anonymous]

Much of Great Falls is safe from upzoning because it relies on septic tanks. The part without sewer connections will be fine. Soils there won’t support any high density housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much of Great Falls is safe from upzoning because it relies on septic tanks. The part without sewer connections will be fine. Soils there won’t support any high density housing.

This is incorrect. The law does not provide an explicit exclusion for areas that are outside of the public sewer service area. The only exclusion is insufficient sewer and water capacity. Being outside of the service area does not make a project categorically ineligible. Anything within 2500 to 5000 feet of existing sewer/water lines is feasible as long as the developer pays to extend the sewer water line to the project. The numbers will pencil out for section 8 housing projects on non-profit land because the small area Fair market rent is so high. Low income apartment developers can get $4,250/month for 3 bed section 8 housing in great falls if they build it. The will be appealing financially at 20 units an acre for some of the churches within a mile of water/sewer.