The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

We're seeing the consequences of McMansion-only zoning in the Eldercare forum. How many threads are there about an elderly person who isn't safe to live in their 4000 sqft home anymore, but they don't want to downsize to something safer because it means moving far away from their neighborhood. That's because nothing smaller and safer was allowed to be built in their neighborhood!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Allowing apartments and small condos next to sfhs allows young families to afford to live near their parents. People wouldn't have to leave for North Carolina or Texas to start a family somewhere affordable.

The should move there. To help the electoral college. It’s a good thing, we don’t want all the Dems in one area. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

Come on, get real. Adult children with jobs and kids and independent lives do not do the majority of elder care in the US because they cannot due to other commitments (like young kids) or because they do not wish to, even if they live in the same neighborhood. This is ridiculous and spurious. If that were the priority multi generational families would all be living together under the parents’ roof, and there is no regulation stopping that. We don’t live like this or have this ethos, and zoning isn’t going to help or hinder it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

There's a problem with the YIMBY stuff when they say "get rid of single family zoning" and people think that you won't be able to have single family homes in that area. It just means that the mix is allowed.

I have apartment buildings down the street from me, and I love it. But I don't want my street to be SFh, 12 story apartment building, sth. There is a reason for zoning. I don't accept the libertarian view that you can build whatever the hell you want on your property.

[Anonymous]

It's a mistake for the YIMBYs to talk about getting rid of single family zoning. Better to focus on adding density to major roads near metro and maybe duplexes as you transition from high density to low density. People will never accept plopping big apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods. ADUs are a better way to add density there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

How do you think those apartments were built? Because back then there was no zoning restricting them. Now they cannot be built. SFH only zoning needs to go, as do ridiculous “historical districts” and busybody ANCs weighing in on building permit applications.

The apartments got built because the area was zoned for high density, as it is today. Apartment buildings can still be built on major thoroughfares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a mistake for the YIMBYs to talk about getting rid of single family zoning. Better to focus on adding density to major roads near metro and maybe duplexes as you transition from high density to low density. People will never accept plopping big apartment buildings in the middle of single family home neighborhoods. ADUs are a better way to add density there.

That zoning already exists. The problem is that those aren't the areas the people behind this want to live.

[Anonymous]

YIMBYs are ruining Moco. You can't possibly say the county is better today than it was 25 years ago.

Again, no one deserves or has the right to live wherever they want. Live where they can afford. There are plenty of affordable towns within 45 min of DC. People just think they are too good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Jeebus this sounds bleak. Domestic servant as the "alternative" to filling developers pockets. Just let people build more housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Jeebus this sounds bleak. Domestic servant as the "alternative" to filling developers pockets. Just let people build more housing.

They were talking about allowing multi-family occupancy in a SFH for two households -- that of the older person in their 70s with cataracts (the example provided above) and the household of their now grown child (the one finding it hard to obtain housing in that neighborhood).

People currently can have live-in help as part of the household, but that wasn't the scenario posited about the child having moved to NC for lack of a McMansion down payment.