Reply to Missing Middle middle finger -- seller insists on SFH restriction

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Missing Middle middle finger -- seller insists on SFH restriction"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The seller wants to keep his neighborhood a wealthy enclave and free of the undesirable middle class.  I appreciate the transparency.[/quote]
It’s not middle class. It’s other wealthy people buying this stuff. They just needed the MC renters to do the developers dirty work. I don’t think a single MM project that was available for purchase is less than $1.2M[/quote]

Right. I live in Green Valley in Arlington, so maybe the least desirable Arlington neighborhood? lol. These three townhome took the spot of one SFH. And they sold for 1 million.

https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/2136-S-Nelson-St-22204/home/172271124[/quote]

I believe Green Valley has been excluded from Missing Middle, but that does not mean private developers cannot buy lots and have them rezoned to townhouse zoning.   [/quote]

No neighborhoods were excluded from EHO, which is my problem with it. [/quote]

I had also heard that Green Valley and Penrose were excluded from EHO and one of the civic leaders in Halls Hill is trying to exclude that community.  I believe there were about 150 properties excluded from EHO in these areas:  Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District, the Cherrydale Revitalization Plan, and near the East Falls Church Metro.

I also have information from Arlington County saying that Missing Middle would improve homeownership opportunities for buyers but the implications was it was for "middle class" households who could not afford a $1.3M townhouse which Missing Middle will provide. That's why the name was changed from Missing Middle to Expanded Housing Opportunities.[/quote]

I have no idea why the poster upthread said it wasn't marketed as a way to provide home ownership opportunities at lower price points.  It absolutely was.  I have multiple emails from the county spanning several years stating this point.[/quote]

The problem is that the anti-MM contingent spun the objectively true observation that smaller multifamily units would be less expensive -- or "more affordable"-- than larger SFHs into a claim that MM was intended as "affordable housing," in the urban planning sense of the term. And then, having lied about it, they proceeded to be all GOTCHA! about something that no one was claiming except the people who didn't want MM in the first place.

The only $1.3M SFHs out there are being bought for the lot and razed to make room for a $3M 7BR 6BA house. If that's what you want in your neighborhoods, keep contributing to the lawsuit fund so your taxes can continue to fight back.[/quote]

I think the extremists on both sides of the issue spun things to their benefit.   If you're a NIMBY or a YIMBY, you're a liar.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics