The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This sounds like something the old head of Arlington zoning would devise before she left to become a nun. |
Anonymous
The only reason that model works is because you get government subsidized street parking. If residents had to pay the true cost of that parking, they would probably just take all the boxes of magazines out of their garage and park there instead. |
Anonymous
We can't afford to subsidize parking for everyone, and I was here first. |
Anonymous
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding. Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like. When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl. |
Anonymous
Alright, in that case not our problem. Density doesn’t save money because the feds and state subsidize infrastructure. So the main concern for impact on taxpayers is school enrollment. Density increased school enrollment and the burden on taxpayers. |
Anonymous
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure. |
Anonymous
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not. Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development. We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros. |
Anonymous
Given the county has not done an impact assessment and won’t until the legislation is written, the speculation from YIMBYs is just that. The council members pushing this nonsense and the developers want to pretend there’s nothing to worry about, while those of us actually living in the communities affected already contend with overcrowded, old schools and frail infrastructure and we are told there’s no money to fix these issues. But somehow developers want us to believe cramming quadplexes into single family home plots will make this all better. |
Anonymous
It works in new construction, though. Obviously you can't impose these restrictions on existing buildings where people already live. |
Anonymous
That's why greenfield was mentioned at the end, there. |
Anonymous
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road. Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer. |
Anonymous
Right, but there's a decent amount of new construction in and around D.C., and I can't recall a single example of a building being retroactively rendered ineligible for RPP permits after it was already built and occupied. |
Anonymous
Gee, that's great "analysis" there! That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance. That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this. The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere. Sheesh. |
Anonymous
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex? Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex? |
Anonymous
This is not necessarily true. Arlington county has a population density of 9,200/Sq mile. The average annual CIP expenditures for Water, sewer, Stormwater management for FY25-FY34 will be $519 per resident. For Fairfax County (population density of 2940/Sq mile) the average annual CIP expenditures (for water, sewer and stormwater) will be $389 per resident. Arlington average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (FY24-34) $812 each year. Fairfax County average annual transportation CIP expenditures per resident (same time period) $331each year. So density doesn't appear to be saving Arlington any money. Arlington County is actually spending and 85% more per resident each year on CIP for utilities and transportation in comparison to Fairfax County. |