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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He can put as many duplexes as he wants in McLean. Won’t change the fact that poor people will not be able to afford them. All those extra units will go to young, upper class DINKS. They’ll get a leg up in the housing ladder and build enough equity to move on to a SFH. Go for it.

This. I’ve worked my entire legal career in affordable housing/ section 8 funding/ multi family. The above scenario is exactly what will happen. In order to provide more affordable and work force housing, you need a HUD or other government program. There is just 0 incentive or profit for private developers, even with tax credits. And with the amazon affect, there is even more 0 chance that any duplexs in the future built in single family lots in Arlington/ Alexandria/ McLean/ Falls Church, etc won’t be UMC or higher price point.

Developers are pushing this idea. And then you will start to see individuals try to be their own developer, turning a house into a duplex/ condo situation. And they aren’t going to FARM families.

OK, so - they will increase the supply of housing, in areas where people want to live. Why would that be bad?

The premise was that this law would increase the volume of affordable housing (at least that’s the argument being given by the mayor in Alexandria where I live). So the basis for the entire policy is completely false and misleading.

From an urban planning perspective there are tons of reasons why you cannot just blanket increase housing because more people want to live there. I highly doubt individual developers will be providing proffers to local municipalities to help offset the strain added to the streets, the schools, the infrastructure, the first responder forces, social services, utilities, parking, etc. In somewhere like Alexandria where the public school system is already overstrained, overpopulated and just a mess, the traffic is a mess, that has only one hospital (that is pretty subpar), where crime seems regular, etc. just packing in more housing without smartly addressing urban planning first is just a huge nightmare/mistake.

Read up on urban planning and then come back on this thread.

Urban planning, generally, is in favor of this kind of thing. It's a very simple way to potentially increase the housing supply. Read up on it. Start with Minneapolis.

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

[Anonymous]

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

[Anonymous]

Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

Dude. Check out Minneapolis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

[Anonymous]

The smart growthers have an argument for that: let’s say that you replace a $2 million Victorian house on a 50 foot lot in Metro-accessible Cleveland Park with 6 high-end condos that cost $600,000 each. They’re expensive, sure, but they’re quite affordable to more people than is the $2 million house. And DC gets more tax revenue to spend on truly affordable housing elsewhere in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

There are different schools of thought in urban planning. Increasingly many planners think that SFH only zoning (and related limits on density) do far more harm than good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

A house with a granny flat for rent, or a quarter acre lot with two THs instead of one SFH, hardly sounds "urban" to me. Still lots of space. (and of course you don't have to do any of that with YOUR property if you don't want to) So I think he is not far wrong that fear of "others" (and of course to some people racial others are precisely what "urban" means, not high rises) is one of the motives for SFH only zoning.

[Anonymous]

Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

+1

This is why NYC is both extremely dense and extremely expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

+1

This is why NYC is both extremely dense and extremely expensive.

NYC has long been extremely dense. In the period from the end of WW2 to the late 1970s it was not all that expensive.

Its expensive now because of decades of job growth, and the failure to match that with sufficient housing growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

No. People move to metro areas for jobs, not for bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

I'm guessing you haven't ever seen a duplex.

And neither a three-story duplex, nor an apartment over a garage, makes a neighborhood "urban."

[Anonymous]

If Democrats in the VA legislature voted for a bill to override local zoning, they probably won’t be in the assembly much longer. This is just some urbanist wet dream, which will never happen in the Commonwealth. Now go make some hot chocolate, urbanist Pajama Boy.