Reply to Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]People need to really relax about how a big a deal this is.

"Alexandria’s effort was less ambitious — at its most expansive, it allows for four-unit buildings rather than six-unit buildings — and it will affect fewer neighborhoods because much of the city is already zoned to include townhouses and tall apartment towers."
"The new policy is expected to lead to the redevelopment of about 66 properties and add 150 to 178 units over the next decade, according to estimates from Alexandria city planners."
"One- and two-unit buildings will be required to have at least one off-street parking spot and three- and four-unit buildings will be required to have at least two spots."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/29/alexandria-single-family-zoning-housing-vote/
[/quote]

Then why do it at all? Argument cuts both ways. [/quote]

Small impact/small benefit is just as with doing as big impact/big benefit

It just isn’t the breakthrough sea change moment that many YIMBYS think.  Nor is it the sky is falling disaster that many NIMBYS think.[/quote]

[b]It will feel like a disaster to people who suddenly live next door to some ridiculous building towering over their house. [/b]

But, no, otherwise this will make no difference to prices or anything like that. Housing is expensive here not because of zoning laws or mean old NIMBYs, but because there is a huge number of very wealthy people who can pay. [/quote]

A multi-unit building that is the same height as a single-unit building will not "tower over" the single-unit building because it is the same height as the single-unit building.[/quote]

For now. It has the same height allowance for now. [/quote]

See how we are making up hypothetical things to be scared of (and presenting them like actual things that will happen to scare people)?

That's what you have to do to work people into a frenzy over something incredibly moderate and tempered.[/quote]

Are you new to politics or are you just a liar?

This is how politicians do things they know the public doesn’t want. They do a little bit now and claim it’s oh so moderate and then later, when people stop paying attention, they’ll come back and raise the height requirement over and over and over.

This is the camels nose. [/quote]

OK, so you think more things are going to come.  Got it.

Do you see anything terribly wrong with what has already actually happened?[/quote]

It seems like a real net negative for the community. Sure, you can always cram more people into a given area, but what for? It's a big country. Everyone doesnt have to live on top of each other. If you want things to be more like New York City, you can just move to New York City. [/quote]

And you equate about 150 new units over 10 years to people living on top of eachother like New York City?[/quote]

Ha! If the politicians really thought it was only 150 units over ten years, they never would have bothered. Not worth the grief from voters. But good try, I guess?[/quote]

So we are now just disregarding the PROFESSIONAL STAFF predictions and WaPo reporting and assuming that the real number is what, exactly?[/quote]

NP here. [b]The “professional staff” probably meant they paid money for consultants to calculate this number.[/b] The fact that they even assume 1 affordable housing unit (without even defining what affordable means, so they mean 60% of average income by household size as determined by HUD or what?) would be contributed is just ludicrous.

So yeah, I am going to disregard all the time and tax dollars spent on this because it shows a complete lack in understanding about housing, public finance and economics. [/quote]

Are you really unaware that the city employees dozens of full time staff with degrees and certification in these issues?
https://www.alexandriava.gov/Planning

[/quote]

Are you unaware that posters, like myself, also have degrees (not sure what a certification would do) in urban planning, finance, business and law AND have decades of experience in public finance and housing. I worked for 15 years with ARHA and the City of Alexandria in their housing projects, from their Section 8 to mortgage back securities to GO bonds, TIFs, tax credits, the construction of Potomac Yards, the straightening of Route 1, Chatham Square, workforce housing, elder housing, etc.  Yeah, I know how they operate. And that's not even touching city council, which often has a revolving door.

People can come up with all kinds of analysis or read a study or have theories of how things should work, about anything. And then in reality it doesn't work that way. So analysts theorized that x number of "affordable" units could be built in y number of years with the zoning changes. What is the definition of affordable? What kind of housing (rent, own)? And who would built it (private citizens, developers, nonprofit developers)? Because utilizing federal affordable housing incentives aka tax-exempt financing, is a HUGE undertaking, and often requires both HUD and IRS certifications (annual if it's a rental). If it's for home ownership, then you have to have a third party verify the purchaser qualifies, and I've seen that go wrong so many times. Developers don't want this headache and they also don't want to lose money. So what developers have these consultants identified who will build these affordable units that they project can be built?

I don't have a problem with the zoning changes, but I do have a problem with no transparency and wasting time and money. If the end goal is to truly make what HUD defines as affordable housing to people who would qualify under the regs, then the focus should be on enhancing and supporting programs that actually attract developers to commit to this. I see NONE of that being discussed. 
[/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