Anonymous wrote:You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

There are lots of people right here in this thread excited to see SFZ end in Alexandria tonight, and maybe it's even part of the reason we voted for these folks?

It should bring some incremental tax revenue to the city and at least some additional affordable units, and the only costs are the mental hardship of folks who think living next door to a 4-plex that looks like a house world ending. That's the kind of common sense trade off I'm happy to vote for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

It seems that the existing SFH benefits through the entire homebuying process. If the current SFH will only sell for $1MM because it is zoned as SFH, but literally is worth $1.5MM overnight because a developer can now build a 4-plex...well, now you can buy that $1.25MM home for cash/minimal mortgage.

Again, am I missing something? Once the zoning changes, existing SFH owners' values will be "artificially" inflated assuming their property is actually developable into a 4-plex.

You're getting closer. In your suggestion, the SFH is newly worth $1.5M with the change. You suggest selling and taking $1.25M in cash to buy something better than what you had, but fail to realize that you'd have to spend MUCH MORE than the $1.5M.

OR...you get to pack up the life you created and move away. Otherwise, all you're buying is one of those new overpriced townhomes...because the money doesn't go as far as it once did.

Also, I don't think the increase would be artificial. It's more of a by-product of the new enhanced flexibility of the land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you voted for it. Reap the rewards.

No we did not. Despite the disingenuous claims of Wilson, Gaskins and McPike, these zoning changes were in no way discussed during the last election. Committed affordable housing was a huge discussion and rising housing costs across the metro area were discussed. But these proposals were not discussed.

Sorry, but you did. Wilson et al have been talking about this for years at events, zoning and planning meetings. Wilson's claims aren't disingenuous.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. I knew because I pay a minimal amount of attention so I didn't vote for them.

Really? For years, the planning commission has been talking about ending single family zoning? What zoning meetings? And Gaskins and McPike stated that?

Wilson is disingenuous because he repackaged and fast tracked the proposal because it the bonus height density proposal didn’t go as planned in front of the planning commission.

I mean, it’s totally possible he said something at the Dem Committee meetings or some grassroots event. I can’t deny that.

Yes, really.

Zoning meetings, planning meetings, Alexandria Housing Summit...there is so much over years. Wilson allies, like Nate Macek were saying things in meetings about SF neighborhoods needing to make sacrifices. The group of women Wilson fondly calls is "mom mafia" were screaming at people that they were racist anytime SFZ was brought up. His adoration for Council on Governments and embrace of the YIMBYs. What did you think that was about?

Sometimes people who are running for office won't highlight issues that they know voters won't like. That's why you have to research, ask questions, look at the entire picture and make decisions. Be an informed voter.

Did you really think that a group of people who never disagree were suddenly going to go against Wilson and the Alexandria Dems?

Everyone will have forgotten this by the next election.

Yes, I know about those women. Not sure why he tolerate it on his FB page. That one lady is an absolute nut and her posts tagging him won’t help if he does run for higher office. They are bullies to everyone who isn’t 100% in agreement with them, even otherwise liberal Dems.

I don’t know if people will forget. There was a huge push to get a more diverse group on council during the last election. I am curious to see if McPike and Bailey will survive.

He "tolerates" it because they do his bidding.

He's not running for higher office. He's not going away.

Which lady? The one who got banned from her kid's school?

PTAC lady is definitely a member of his mommy mafia. She still bugs too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

Really? I would say: most rational people don't want to live in a too-big space that involves too much labor and expense for upkeep, when they can live in a just-right-sized space with less labor and expense, in their same neighborhood.

Less labor, maybe. But condos aren't the inexpensive choice here. A trip to Zillow shows many have monthly fees in the $500-$1,000 range. Sorry, but you're a rare bird if you think people want to pay the same mortgage for less space and to smell what they're neighbors are cooking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

I'm genuinely trying to understand the bolded. You are saying that people can't move out of their homes due to low inventory and interest rates. I get that. But how would allowing multi-unit development affect that at all? I don't get it.

And if you're saying that developers will have less incentive to build the "level up" housing ("mcmansions") I guess that is true. But it is also the point. You would also be free to buy an existing one or a tear down/land yourself and build on it.

I think we can all agree that $1M townhomes can't be built fast enough to keep up with local demand. That's part of the problem. The other build down to when builders are able to squish four $1M townhomes on a lot that would have previously held a $2M new build, the land becomes more attractive/profitable.

Builders generally have access to more cash than the typical buyer and will be willing to pay a higher price to elbow out competition if the profit margins are right. Whenever a property sells, it becomes a sales comp for nearby properties. The side effect of properties selling for more is that the increases are factored in with neighbors go to sell their homes and adjust asking prices accordingly. Those $1M townhomes of today, become $1.1M townhomes tomorrow. As a baseline, we'll assume most folk's incomes aren't growing at a speed that tracks with the local home prices.

Everything gradually becomes more expensive, adding to the number of people who can't afford to move to the next level up.

Also, thinking that locals are free to manage their own tear down and build ignores that they'll have to likely outbid a more flush developer, hire a builder at a premium and require access to a greater deal of cash when compared to standard financing. It's like saying you can have this widget as long as you're willing to pay way more than it's worth. On the flip side, developers have talent and efficiencies in place, which puts them in the lead in most purchasing situations. It's a falsehood to say there's equal opportunity in the scenario. This is why we're screwed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Maybe this is true for some older people but for both sets of our parents the last thing they want is shared walls after living in a detached home for so many years. They would rather outsource maintenance than move to a place with more density, noise, battles for parking, and everything else that comes with changing the format of neighborhoods. Or live next door to it after many years of their quiet sfh neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forcing newly retired seniors out is what happened in Falls Church many years ago. It was sad. But people these days don’t care about anyone 50+. They just want them to die.

This honestly would be an ideal outcome. I support whatever zoning changes send the elderly packing. Retired seniors are a blight on SFH or dense TH neighborhoods. They're crotchety, noise sensitive, impatient with young kids, and kill the vibe of wherever they park themselves till they expire.

I can only assume you’re either uninformed or mentally ill. Maybe both. Many seniors contribute an incredible amount of time volunteering and supporting the community in ways that are important but not exactly newsworthy. If they go, the quality of life for everyone leaves with them.

Sincerely,
Not a senior citizen

Sure, if by this you mean contributing an incredible amount of time to calling the police on "youths", reporting people for minute overages on their street parking, or casting a stink eye on crying babies. Guess what, Doris, it's time to let life happen and move to a retirement community where you don't have to worry about any of that.

Hmmm...guess you and your family have been a focus of your neighborhood?!

No, but we will be when we buy the SFH next to old man Eugene, tear it down, build a quadplex in its place, and rent it out to the minorities old people are all scared of.

Sure you will. Written like an immature person, who clearly can’t afford a home.

No, I'm just an immature builder who is delighted about the $$$$$ the zoning change is gonna net me. I'm already projecting over $1.3M profit per quadplex planned.

The 2021 Democratic Primary electorate was pretty clear in their preference. Despite the BIBA crowd not knowing anyone who supports upzoning, plenty of Alexandrians do, and they vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, you voted for it. Reap the rewards.

No we did not. Despite the disingenuous claims of Wilson, Gaskins and McPike, these zoning changes were in no way discussed during the last election. Committed affordable housing was a huge discussion and rising housing costs across the metro area were discussed. But these proposals were not discussed.

Sorry, but you did. Wilson et al have been talking about this for years at events, zoning and planning meetings. Wilson's claims aren't disingenuous.

Ignorance isn't an excuse. I knew because I pay a minimal amount of attention so I didn't vote for them.

Really? For years, the planning commission has been talking about ending single family zoning? What zoning meetings? And Gaskins and McPike stated that?

Wilson is disingenuous because he repackaged and fast tracked the proposal because it the bonus height density proposal didn’t go as planned in front of the planning commission.

I mean, it’s totally possible he said something at the Dem Committee meetings or some grassroots event. I can’t deny that.

Yes, really.

Zoning meetings, planning meetings, Alexandria Housing Summit...there is so much over years. Wilson allies, like Nate Macek were saying things in meetings about SF neighborhoods needing to make sacrifices. The group of women Wilson fondly calls is "mom mafia" were screaming at people that they were racist anytime SFZ was brought up. His adoration for Council on Governments and embrace of the YIMBYs. What did you think that was about?

Sometimes people who are running for office won't highlight issues that they know voters won't like. That's why you have to research, ask questions, look at the entire picture and make decisions. Be an informed voter.

Did you really think that a group of people who never disagree were suddenly going to go against Wilson and the Alexandria Dems?

Everyone will have forgotten this by the next election.

Yes, I know about those women. Not sure why he tolerate it on his FB page. That one lady is an absolute nut and her posts tagging him won’t help if he does run for higher office. They are bullies to everyone who isn’t 100% in agreement with them, even otherwise liberal Dems.

I don’t know if people will forget. There was a huge push to get a more diverse group on council during the last election. I am curious to see if McPike and Bailey will survive.

He "tolerates" it because they do his bidding.

He's not running for higher office. He's not going away.

Which lady? The one who got banned from her kid's school?

No, this mom’s kid is in college and campaigned for Justin.

Anonymous wrote:You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

A lot of voters don’t pay attention to the issues ahead of time unfortunately. I know I lot of people who simply voted for women candidates across the board last time.

Anonymous wrote:You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

I don't think any of his voters are here.

You all continue to vote for this by landslide margins every single election yet run to this forum and Facebook to complain about it.

No one is coming to save you all from yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.

Right? Suppose you love your location, you love your neighborhood, you love your neighbors, but you just don't want the big house and the big yard anymore. Currently, with the detached-house-ONLY zoning, you're out of luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

It seems that the existing SFH benefits through the entire homebuying process. If the current SFH will only sell for $1MM because it is zoned as SFH, but literally is worth $1.5MM overnight because a developer can now build a 4-plex...well, now you can buy that $1.25MM home for cash/minimal mortgage.

Again, am I missing something? Once the zoning changes, existing SFH owners' values will be "artificially" inflated assuming their property is actually developable into a 4-plex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know...sounds like eliminating SFH zoning is a boon for existing SFH owners. Won't a developer that intends to replace your SFH with a 4-plex or 6-plex be willing to offer a major premium over someone who simply will use it as a SFH?

Am I missing something?

PP here. Sure, the money's nice, but it's a one-off. We're all screwed when we go to buy a home that's the next level up. Many homeowners are already stuck in place because of interest rates and increased home values over the last few years. The issue is ill-timed and will only add to the inventory problem. And no, four townhomes here and there won't help.

Housing aside, my real issue has more to do with Council's arrogance and dismissive behavior, paired with how they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's affordable housing all the live long day and then they pull this. It's a betrayal of trust. I'm actually not sure they even know what they're advocating for. It's like they're easily distracted by shiny buzzwords.

You will benefit when you downsize. For example, if you want to stay in your neighborhood, but in a smaller living space.

Not necessarily. That's why many elderly locals haven't moved. They likely paid paid $700K for a 2500 SQFT SFH ten years ago (if that) and $700K today buys a 1,200 SQFT condo (if you're lucky).

Most rational people don't want to pay the same price in exchange for less.

I agree “not necessarily” but your example makes little sense.

I don’t think elderly people looking to downsize bought ten years ago.
And even if they did, a house purchased for 700K ten years ago would have a sale price today or at least 1M
And many people looking to downsize are doing so less to have cheaper housing and more to have less maintenance and more amenities onsite.