Trailer Parks Coming to Your Neighborhood

[Anonymous]

I am not in DC but saw this in Recent topics. It’s been happening in the Bay Area in CA for some time now. Affordable housing is being built with very few parking spots. It’s supposedly public transit accessible but public transit sucks. The complexes are being built in less affluent residential neighborhoods. They don’t touch the wealthy outspoken suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

1.5 miles is too far, because that is not walkable. Many of these people will still be driving to work, if they cannot walk to the metro station. Also, that would increase the allowable zoned density too much and overwhelm the schools. This would result in around 36,200 acres of the county being subject to the zoning change. If you made this area 40 units per acre by right. The minimum allowable housing units for this area would be equal to 1,447,000 units which is 3.3 times the entire existing housing supply in the county! This level of development would completely overwhelm local infrastructure, schools and be disastrous for the county. I would suggest a 1/2 mile radius with a by right minimum of 10 units per acre and a 1/4 mile radius with a by right minimum of 40 units per acre. This would allow a minimum of around 10,000 units within walking distance of each metro station and not overwhelm the county's capacity to provide additional government services. The the total allowable density for this transit oriented development area area would be around 100,000 units which is equal to around 20% of the existing housing supply. Would allow plenty of room for future growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

Wrong thinking. Let everyone benefit from the impact of high density housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

Wrong thinking. Let everyone benefit from the impact of high density housing.

Let everyone benefit from school overcrowding and deteriorating public services. That makes zero sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not in DC but saw this in Recent topics. It’s been happening in the Bay Area in CA for some time now. Affordable housing is being built with very few parking spots. It’s supposedly public transit accessible but public transit sucks. The complexes are being built in less affluent residential neighborhoods. They don’t touch the wealthy outspoken suburbs.

I think it’s not so much that they don’t touch the wealthy suburbs, but that the wealthy suburbs have become very effective at doing damage control to mitigate the impact of potential policy changes before the bills are even proposed in the state legislature. Atherton California closed their transit station in 2021, so they are largely not affected by SB 79.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

Wrong thinking. Let everyone benefit from the impact of high density housing.

Let everyone benefit from school overcrowding and deteriorating public services. That makes zero sense

Exactly, but if they're going to do it, let everyone experience the impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with trailer parks. I’d rather them than apartments.

It will be both. They will override local zoning to allow apartment buildings by-right on these lots after they make 5,000 sq ft the minimum lot size. A six story single stair apartment building could easily include 24 units on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The minimum lot size changes in combination with zoning changes to allow single stair apartment buildings will make it feasible to build apartment complexes with a density in excess of 100+ units per acre in single family neighborhoods. It will not stop with this proposal, its a long-term strategy to eliminate local control with death by a thousand cuts. California has now passed a law to override local zoning and allow developments in excess of 100 units per acre in some parts of the state.

Apartment buildings will spring up throughout Virginia, market dynamics be damned!

In other news, the sky is ALWAYS falling when it comes to building housing.

[Anonymous]

Cool. The only way to afford a single family home for some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am not opposed to affordable housing solutions, but parking minimum reductions or waivers need to be tied to truly walkable development. Not a bus stop or a miles from the metro station. It needs to be walking distance to a metro station.

I think anything within 1.5 miles of a metro stop should be high density so that the rest of the county can be left alone. What’s the problem with that?

Wrong thinking. Let everyone benefit from the impact of high density housing.

Let everyone benefit from school overcrowding and deteriorating public services. That makes zero sense

Exactly, but if they're going to do it, let everyone experience the impact.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have an issue with trailer parks. I’d rather them than apartments.

It will be both. They will override local zoning to allow apartment buildings by-right on these lots after they make 5,000 sq ft the minimum lot size. A six story single stair apartment building could easily include 24 units on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The minimum lot size changes in combination with zoning changes to allow single stair apartment buildings will make it feasible to build apartment complexes with a density in excess of 100+ units per acre in single family neighborhoods. It will not stop with this proposal, its a long-term strategy to eliminate local control with death by a thousand cuts. California has now passed a law to override local zoning and allow developments in excess of 100 units per acre in some parts of the state.

Apartment buildings will spring up throughout Virginia, market dynamics be damned!

In other news, the sky is ALWAYS falling when it comes to building housing.

The market does not provide new public schools, roads, infrastructure, or protect the environment. If you actually believe in market-oriented solutions you would support impact fees that cover 100% fo the cost of infrastructure required for new housing units. YIMBYs don’t support this at all, they just want to privatize gains and socialize losses to taxpayers. They are the left wing version of the CATO institute nut jobs that think any/all standards to protect quality of life are bad.

[Anonymous]

This is a nothingburger.

OP go back to your hole MAGA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a nothingburger.

OP go back to your hole MAGA

Says someone who's not affected by it.