Missing Middle middle finger -- seller insists on SFH restriction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

You truly can’t understand the difference between a single family house with 2 kids and a garage and apartment building?A minimum of 12 cars with 6 or less parking spaces. A dumpster of garbage placed right by your fence and 18 neighbors as opposed to 4. Enjoy!

I think everyone understands your life is (negatively) impacted by having a larger apartment next door to you, but come on. You’re acting like it is catastrophically impacting your quality of life. It really isn’t. Take one for the team. Your home will still appreciate.

It will negatively impact my life and that’s why I moved to my quiet neighborhood. I used to live in an apartment in Clarendon. I don’t want to live that way anymore. And it’s absurd to say take one “for the team.” You must be a troll. Also, people like me aren’t worried about appreciation. We have other investments. All our money isn’t tied up in our Arlington $hit shack. Here’s the BEST part, I can easily sell my 2.7 million dollar house and move to McLean. And the more MM that is built, that’s exactly what people like me will do. And property values will go down as Arlington becomes less desirable. More MM will be built and it will be a cycle. And viola, you’ll soon be living in Alexandria!

It's hard not to see the decline in parts of Silver Spring as a warning for what may happen in NOVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

You truly can’t understand the difference between a single family house with 2 kids and a garage and apartment building?A minimum of 12 cars with 6 or less parking spaces. A dumpster of garbage placed right by your fence and 18 neighbors as opposed to 4. Enjoy!

I think everyone understands your life is (negatively) impacted by having a larger apartment next door to you, but come on. You’re acting like it is catastrophically impacting your quality of life. It really isn’t. Take one for the team. Your home will still appreciate.

It will negatively impact my life and that’s why I moved to my quiet neighborhood. I used to live in an apartment in Clarendon. I don’t want to live that way anymore. And it’s absurd to say take one “for the team.” You must be a troll. Also, people like me aren’t worried about appreciation. We have other investments. All our money isn’t tied up in our Arlington $hit shack. Here’s the BEST part, I can easily sell my 2.7 million dollar house and move to McLean. And the more MM that is built, that’s exactly what people like me will do. And property values will go down as Arlington becomes less desirable. More MM will be built and it will be a cycle. And viola, you’ll soon be living in Alexandria!

It's hard not to see the decline in parts of Silver Spring as a warning for what may happen in NOVA.

I’m not sure Silver Spring has declined. I guess you could say downtown has suffered post pandemic but overall and looking longer term Silver Spring is doing pretty well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

You truly can’t understand the difference between a single family house with 2 kids and a garage and apartment building?A minimum of 12 cars with 6 or less parking spaces. A dumpster of garbage placed right by your fence and 18 neighbors as opposed to 4. Enjoy!

I think everyone understands your life is (negatively) impacted by having a larger apartment next door to you, but come on. You’re acting like it is catastrophically impacting your quality of life. It really isn’t. Take one for the team. Your home will still appreciate.

I live two houses down from a high rise apartment building and across the street two houses down from another. I don’t even notice them. They don’t negatively impact my day to day existence in the least.

[Anonymous]

What could possibly motivate the seller to do this? I wonder if the neighbors have said they will pay for this restriction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

You truly can’t understand the difference between a single family house with 2 kids and a garage and apartment building?A minimum of 12 cars with 6 or less parking spaces. A dumpster of garbage placed right by your fence and 18 neighbors as opposed to 4. Enjoy!

I think everyone understands your life is (negatively) impacted by having a larger apartment next door to you, but come on. You’re acting like it is catastrophically impacting your quality of life. It really isn’t. Take one for the team. Your home will still appreciate.

I live two houses down from a high rise apartment building and across the street two houses down from another. I don’t even notice them. They don’t negatively impact my day to day existence in the least.

What Zip code? Do you spend a lot of time in your yard? Gardening? Reading? Do you mind being under those windows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it stand up to legal scrutiny?

I don’t see how. Covenants like this are only valid in HOA communities.

I doubt the seller is going to even try to sue you…it’s not anything the city will enforce.

Very few HOAs in single house neighborhoods in Arlington. Covenants are in several Arlington neighborhoods that restrict the height of a house, the number of houses that can be built on a lot, despite the zoning, set back from the center line of the street and similar. There have been covenants recorded in Arlington County that restrict what a buyer can do with a lot and the covenant runs with the lot until it expires. As long as the buyer agrees to it, there is nothing wrong with the covenant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

Racist? Missing Middle will be responsible for more black and hispanic people leaving Arlington that one covenant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

I missed the part of the listing that says that a black person cannot buy the house. Can you point it out?

That would be overtly racist. Covertly racist is when the effect disproportionately effects people of color even if the intent was otherwise. For example, public schools pursuant to federal standards require milk as the drink. Why? It’s not health, although milk has healthy components. It’s because the dairy industry lobbied harder than the orange industry. Did you know that less than 10% of white people are lactose intolerant, approximately 50% of black people are lactose intolerant and over 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant.

I am presuming that the covenant is not intended as racist but it is rather indisputable that single family houses in will attract a higher percentage of white buyers than multi family in the same location.

If you pull up to a refugee camp in South Sudan and hand out milk, no one is lactose intolerant. If you pull up to a refugee camp in Bangladesh and hand out milk, no one is lactose intolerant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covenants aren't legally enforceable. Right?

Wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

I missed the part of the listing that says that a black person cannot buy the house. Can you point it out?

That would be overtly racist. Covertly racist is when the effect disproportionately effects people of color even if the intent was otherwise. For example, public schools pursuant to federal standards require milk as the drink. Why? It’s not health, although milk has healthy components. It’s because the dairy industry lobbied harder than the orange industry. Did you know that less than 10% of white people are lactose intolerant, approximately 50% of black people are lactose intolerant and over 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant.

I am presuming that the covenant is not intended as racist but it is rather indisputable that single family houses in will attract a higher percentage of white buyers than multi family in the same location.

Your argument only holds if the MM units were affordably priced. However, this SFH would be replaced with, at minimum, two units that would EACH sell for 1.2M. Look at ARL real estate for proof.

Why is this a problem? Fine, get a minimum of two luxury units. Two units entering the housing supply is a win in my book.

The problem is that it forces at the middle they claim they are trying to help. Two luxury units is really where the racists/classist neighborhood turnover takes place.

So a black or brown person cannot afford a luxury unit? The soft bigotry of low expectations is your strong suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not good, that area needs more housing and more affordable than what SFHs fetch there.

As soon as they line Langston Blvd. with affordable rental apartments, Lyon Village will revert to where it was in the 1960s and 1970s -- group houses for Georgetown students, owned by batty people who inherited the house from their granny, and GS 12s who could afford to live in the houses because they need so much work.

Do you mean market rate apartments or Affordable Housing? As a practical
matter, nobody can build 100 percent Affordable Housing complexes (CAFs) in places where they don't already exist. Where these type of buildings already exist, they can be redeveloped to include more units. But any new buildings that aren't currently Affordable Housing buildings with a will be luxury rentals with a paltry amount of Affordable units sprinkled in (if this ever even happens, which for a variety of reasons, is unlikely as proposed).

What do you think they are doing with the apartments at the end of Cleveland St. off Langston or the Leckie mid rise buildings behind the Lee Heights shops off Langston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not good, that area needs more housing and more affordable than what SFHs fetch there.

As soon as they line Langston Blvd. with affordable rental apartments, Lyon Village will revert to where it was in the 1960s and 1970s -- group houses for Georgetown students, owned by batty people who inherited the house from their granny, and GS 12s who could afford to live in the houses because they need so much work.

Do you mean market rate apartments or Affordable Housing? As a practical
matter, nobody can build 100 percent Affordable Housing complexes (CAFs) in places where they don't already exist. Where these type of buildings already exist, they can be redeveloped to include more units. But any new buildings that aren't currently Affordable Housing buildings with a will be luxury rentals with a paltry amount of Affordable units sprinkled in (if this ever even happens, which for a variety of reasons, is unlikely as proposed).

What do you think they are doing with the apartments at the end of Cleveland St. off Langston or the Leckie mid rise buildings behind the Lee Heights shops off Langston?

Are you saying they are redeveloping market rate apartments as a CAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love to see it. “Missing middle” serves to enrich developers and nothing more. Hopefully people have begun to recognize that.

Agree. I'm over developers ruining neighborhoods.

Ah yes, your home was built by...whom?

The original owner in 1892.

That’s great but like 95% of the homes built in the late 19th century at least in DC were built by developers. Literally they did it to restrict any undesirables buying land and building something themselves.

From Arlington Wikipedia entry:

"In 1900, Blacks were more than a third of Arlington County's population. Over the course of the century, the Black population dwindled. Neighborhoods in Arlington set up racial covenants and forbade Blacks from owning or domiciling property.[21][22] In 1938, Arlington banned row houses, a type of housing that was heavily used by Black residents. By October 1942, not a single rental unit was available in the county.[23] In the 1940s, the federal government evicted black neighborhoods to build the Pentagon and make room for highway construction.[21]"

Another proof that the most horrible racist laws and rules were started in Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not good, that area needs more housing and more affordable than what SFHs fetch there.

As soon as they line Langston Blvd. with affordable rental apartments, Lyon Village will revert to where it was in the 1960s and 1970s -- group houses for Georgetown students, owned by batty people who inherited the house from their granny, and GS 12s who could afford to live in the houses because they need so much work.

Do you mean market rate apartments or Affordable Housing? As a practical
matter, nobody can build 100 percent Affordable Housing complexes (CAFs) in places where they don't already exist. Where these type of buildings already exist, they can be redeveloped to include more units. But any new buildings that aren't currently Affordable Housing buildings with a will be luxury rentals with a paltry amount of Affordable units sprinkled in (if this ever even happens, which for a variety of reasons, is unlikely as proposed).

What do you think they are doing with the apartments at the end of Cleveland St. off Langston or the Leckie mid rise buildings behind the Lee Heights shops off Langston?

Leckie is already affordable housing and if I'm not mistaken so are the other apartments you are referencing. It's already owned by an affordable housing provider and yes they can redevelop it as such. Who can purchase market rate apartments to redevelop as subsidized units? I just don't see this happening but would be interested to hear opposing views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love to see it. “Missing middle” serves to enrich developers and nothing more. Hopefully people have begun to recognize that.

Agree. I'm over developers ruining neighborhoods.

Ah yes, your home was built by...whom?

The original owner in 1892.

That’s great but like 95% of the homes built in the late 19th century at least in DC were built by developers. Literally they did it to restrict any undesirables buying land and building something themselves.

From Arlington Wikipedia entry:

"In 1900, Blacks were more than a third of Arlington County's population. Over the course of the century, the Black population dwindled. Neighborhoods in Arlington set up racial covenants and forbade Blacks from owning or domiciling property.[21][22] In 1938, Arlington banned row houses, a type of housing that was heavily used by Black residents. By October 1942, not a single rental unit was available in the county.[23] In the 1940s, the federal government evicted black neighborhoods to build the Pentagon and make room for highway construction.[21]"

Another proof that the most horrible racist laws and rules were started in Virginia.

Later start, but Oregon is a strong contender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Oregon