Trailer Parks Coming to Your Neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tiny homes are a waste of land. What is the difference between tiny homes compared to townhouses and condos? People that demand it are just people who can't afford the land demanding their own land.

No they are not. It's an affordable option for people that want single family homes. You can fit a tiny home with a cute backyard on smaller lots.

You are not understanding that it is the land that is expensive. If you go to places with cheap land, like texas, then they are building small single family homes. When land is expensive, then townhouse or condo is how you get a little bit more affordable.

Nobody is going to build a $200k tiny house on a $800k lot.

There's no reason to build a tiny house on a 2 acre lot. That's why tiny houses are impractical until the minimum lot size changes.

There are plenty of places in NOVA with smaller minimum lot sizes. R-4 is a very common zoning category for land in Fairfax. That only requires a quarter acre for lots.

Citation?

This is very easy to verify yourself. Here is the share of county land that is zoned with higher density residential zoning categories that could be suitable for smaller single family homes.
R-3: 12.54% = (31,350 acres, up to 94,050 units)
R-4: 3.36% = (8,400 acres, up to 33,600 units)
R-5: 2.78% = (6,950 acres, up to 34,750 units)
R-8: 2.91% = (7,725 acres, up to 52,200 units)
21.6% of the entire county is zoned for higher density residential development that is suitable for smaller single family houses. These zoning categories effectively allow for the development of up to 215,000 housing unite, which is equal to around half of the existing housing supply in the county. Yes, I will concede that most of this land is already developed but there are still tens of thousands of unbuilt units allowed under the existing zoning in this portion of the county. My proposal to increase affordability for single family housing, is to rezone all land in the county that is currently zoned R-3 to R-4. This will allow minimally impactful redevelopment by allowing the subdivision of larger R-4 lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tiny homes are a waste of land. What is the difference between tiny homes compared to townhouses and condos? People that demand it are just people who can't afford the land demanding their own land.

No they are not. It's an affordable option for people that want single family homes. You can fit a tiny home with a cute backyard on smaller lots.

You are not understanding that it is the land that is expensive. If you go to places with cheap land, like texas, then they are building small single family homes. When land is expensive, then townhouse or condo is how you get a little bit more affordable.

Nobody is going to build a $200k tiny house on a $800k lot.

There's no reason to build a tiny house on a 2 acre lot. That's why tiny houses are impractical until the minimum lot size changes.

There are plenty of places in NOVA with smaller minimum lot sizes. R-4 is a very common zoning category for land in Fairfax. That only requires a quarter acre for lots.

Citation?

This is very easy to verify yourself. Here is the share of county land that is zoned with higher density residential zoning categories that could be suitable for smaller single family homes.
R-3: 12.54% = (31,350 acres, up to 94,050 units)
R-4: 3.36% = (8,400 acres, up to 33,600 units)
R-5: 2.78% = (6,950 acres, up to 34,750 units)
R-8: 2.91% = (7,725 acres, up to 52,200 units)
21.6% of the entire county is zoned for higher density residential development that is suitable for smaller single family houses. These zoning categories effectively allow for the development of up to 215,000 housing unite, which is equal to around half of the existing housing supply in the county. Yes, I will concede that most of this land is already developed but there are still tens of thousands of unbuilt units allowed under the existing zoning in this portion of the county. My proposal to increase affordability for single family housing, is to rezone all land in the county that is currently zoned R-3 to R-4. This will allow minimally impactful redevelopment by allowing the subdivision of larger R-4 lots.

Everything with residential zoning that is currently zoned less than R-4 within a mile radius of the metro stations or VRE stations canalso be upzoned to R-4.

[Anonymous]

Trailer parks are bad if you own the trailer, because you have to dump it when you leave the land you rent. Rental trailer parks are fine.

[Anonymous]

Manufactured housing is generally flimsy and at risk from severe weather events. It's a big risk or save money temporarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the land in Fairfax County is too expensive for trailer parks. Who cares if they add trailer parks in Prince William or places like that

Those of us in Prince William ...

Gasp! How did you get onto DCUM! This isn’t for people like you!

[Anonymous]

Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trailer parks are bad if you own the trailer, because you have to dump it when you leave the land you rent. Rental trailer parks are fine.

You could sell the trailer to another owner.

[Anonymous]

Who cares! Move if you’re concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares! Move if you’re concerned.

Do your solution is that people should just move if their neighborhood they have lived in 15 years where their kids are currently attending school, they should just move? Oh well I guess I should just give up and let the developers destroy my community with data centers, pollute my water with chemicals. This logic is very flawed and circular, there is nowhere to just move to which is protected from asinine policy decisions if every state legislature has been captured by developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

Call you state senator to voice opposition to this propose bill if you are against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

Read this again, but from the perspective of someone with a combined HHI of $100k per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

Read this again, but from the perspective of someone with a combined HHI of $100k per year.

The developer lied to buyers and misled them about the parking situation. They are not getting what they paid for when they bought into this neighborhood. This why you need parking minimums to prevent developers from screwing over buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

Read this again, but from the perspective of someone with a combined HHI of $100k per year.

The developer lied to buyers and misled them about the parking situation. They are not getting what they paid for when they bought into this neighborhood. This why you need parking minimums to prevent developers from screwing over buyers.

Developers don’t care about livability or quality of life after they finish selling the units. They just want to offload everything and have no concern for residents.

[Anonymous]

I’d have to look at the specifics here, but obviously, there need to be more affordable housing solutions in this area. I love to see what other cities and communities have done with tiny home communities.

Stable housing goes a long way for anyone who has fallen on hard times. Study after study shows this.

I will follow this with interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Minimum parking requirements should not be changed. Where I live the builders built a section of our neighborhood townhomes going by the minimum parking requirements. Often the developers are more generous. The section where they built to the minimum is a nightmare to live in. Our neighborhood has to give up parking at clubhouses and other areas because the parking doesn't consider that more than 1 car will be associated with a dwelling. You people agreeing to this have no clue how hard it makes it to live.

Read this again, but from the perspective of someone with a combined HHI of $100k per year.

The developer lied to buyers and misled them about the parking situation. They are not getting what they paid for when they bought into this neighborhood. This why you need parking minimums to prevent developers from screwing over buyers.

Developers don’t care about livability or quality of life after they finish selling the units. They just want to offload everything and have no concern for residents.

+1