So the sponsor of this bill represents people who would prefer not to live in his district (which already has lots of multi-family units)?

While much of his district is poor, multi-family housing, much of it is also single family. Some single family in the Town of Herndon, but much of it is suburban single family and townhouses.

Believe me, the houses in the single family developments do not want tear downs and new duplexes put next door.

The delegate has an urban vision that is likely not shared by his constituents. He thinks he will be helping the poor, immigrant families, but, instead, he will be gentrifying much of the area.

Frankly, I doubt he has lived in his district very long. He was raised in Jordan and then returned to attend university---American and Boston. I don't think he is as familiar with his district as he would have you believe.

Rezoning and consequent up-zoning is fine but it has to be done with an eye on concurrent rebuilding of infrastructure. And there needs to be funding put forth for that before we start upending stable neighborhoods. Where this is going to be a problem is in marginal SFH areas that are just maintaining decent schools and quality of life. With up-zoning those areas will be challenged heavily not to enter a death spiral, especially regarding the schools. Of course this won't be a problem in places like McClean or Oakton.

The truth though is housing in the DC area is actually quite affordable when compared against median incomes. The median income in Fairfax County is something like $125,000 per year, and the median home price about $550,000. There is no crisis here... it's not like say Santa Clara County where the median household income is less than $120,000 per year, and the median home price well over $900,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

1. Builders will make more money
2. Low-income residents will still live elsewhere
3. There will be more housing for people to live in, in areas where people want to live

You didn't mention that part. Why?

So the sponsor of this bill represents people who would prefer not to live in his district (which already has lots of multi-family units)?

I can sympathize.

That is a basic logic fail there, PP. Find a better argument against allowing property owners to build duplexes.

Not really. It’s like the guy is trying to push a redistricting that eliminates his own district. His district will just end up with more poor people who can’t or don’t vote, and no one else would be stupid enough to elect him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

1. Builders will make more money
2. Low-income residents will still live elsewhere
3. There will be more housing for people to live in, in areas where people want to live

You didn't mention that part. Why?

So the sponsor of this bill represents people who would prefer not to live in his district (which already has lots of multi-family units)?

I can sympathize.

That is a basic logic fail there, PP. Find a better argument against allowing property owners to build duplexes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

1. Builders will make more money
2. Low-income residents will still live elsewhere
3. There will be more housing for people to live in, in areas where people want to live

You didn't mention that part. Why?

So the sponsor of this bill represents people who would prefer not to live in his district (which already has lots of multi-family units)?

I can sympathize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

1. Builders will make more money
2. Low-income residents will still live elsewhere
3. There will be more housing for people to live in, in areas where people want to live

You didn't mention that part. Why?

Anonymous wrote:No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Except in the areas people are focusing on here it would more likely be tearing down a $850K detached SFH and building a duplex with two $1.3M units rather than a new $2.2M detached house. Builders will make even more money; low-income residents will still live elsewhere.

No, there's single-family detached (a house in a yard) and a single-family attached (a house attached to another house, side by side).

A duplex is a row of two houses.

If the units are on top of each other in detached housing, they're double-deckers (or triple-deckers) - but you really only find those in Mew England.

If the units are on top of each other in attached housing, they're "stacked townhouses" (if you're the real estate industry) or "two-over-twos" or basically just two-story condos.

Regardless, should somebody be allowed to buy and tear down an $850,000 one-unit property and build a duplex with two units, each $600,000? Yes, I think so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

This is not about subsidized housing, though.

It's like people's minds are on a one-way track: housing --> affordable housing --> subsidized housing --> Section 8 --> Pruitt-Igoe.

Ever look at row home , the old word for townhouse, prices in Mclean and Vienna? 800K? And my tax dollars are supposed to fund the next stop up a duplex for low income buyers? Look at old cities-Philly, DC. Rowhome v a twin, old term for duplex unless the duplex was an apartment.

Are there many rowhouses/townhouses in McLean and Vienna?

Also no, a rowhouse is not a duplex - although both are single-family attached dwellings. Unless you want to think of a duplex as a rowhouse where the row of houses consists of 2 houses.

Single family are detached free standing. A twin is a side by side and duplexes are commonly 1 on top of the other. We used to own a row house duplex. There were 2 rows built of townhouse duplexes. Townhouse is another term for rowhouses. All attached on 2 sides except the end units which usually bring a higher price.

Zillow Mclean:
townhouses 9- 759k-1.6m
condos/coops 63-from a foreclosure and about 250k up to 2.49m
apartments 3 -why not under condo/ccop?
SFH-235 - starts with a foreclosure then 824k up to an outlier at 24m before the next batch at about 7m.

So should someone buy and tear down an 850k property and build a row of 4 townhouses or even my old thing with 8 owners and 4 rentals on the ground floor? Should the county build a 10 story affordable housing unit on Mclean Central Park? Build on public land ? Any extra acreage behind Langley?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

+1 - Check out multifamily housing in Vienna/Tysons. None of it is affordable (except for the section 8 housing in Vienna). All this will possibly do is create expensive duplexes.

And while I am pretty liberal, I also don't like the state gov't overruling local ordinances. If these legislators want their locality to enact a law like this, go run for local government. It's a bad look.

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

It's true.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there? Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there. Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

Isn't the Mall National Park Service land? That's basically outside of local control. Write to your congressman (if you're outside of DC).

Anonymous wrote:

Expensive duplexes fit more people than expensive SFHs.

Doesn't matter. If you purchase in a neighborhood that has zoning rules, you expect them to stay--or, at least have it done at a local level that gives you the opportunity to protest.

Did you also expect the SALT deduction to stay as it was?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

This is not about subsidized housing, though.

It's like people's minds are on a one-way track: housing --> affordable housing --> subsidized housing --> Section 8 --> Pruitt-Igoe.

Ever look at row home , the old word for townhouse, prices in Mclean and Vienna? 800K? And my tax dollars are supposed to fund the next stop up a duplex for low income buyers? Look at old cities-Philly, DC. Rowhome v a twin, old term for duplex unless the duplex was an apartment.

Are there many rowhouses/townhouses in McLean and Vienna?

Also no, a rowhouse is not a duplex - although both are single-family attached dwellings. Unless you want to think of a duplex as a rowhouse where the row of houses consists of 2 houses.

Anonymous wrote:There needs to be more options for subsidized housing in affluent areas for low income families.

We need to make sure low income families can send their kids to schools like Langley, McLean and Oakton. It is the only way those kids will get as good of an education as privileged white kids.

If we can force developers to build duplexes or higher density housing in these areas, it will be more affordable and sustainable to rent to lower income families. It will help diversify these pockets as well.

This has to be a troll.

There needs to be more options for subsidized housing in affluent areas for low income families.

We need to make sure low income families can send their kids to schools like Langley, McLean and Oakton. It is the only way those kids will get as good of an education as privileged white kids.

If we can force developers to build duplexes or higher density housing in these areas, it will be more affordable and sustainable to rent to lower income families. It will help diversify these pockets as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should have as much subsidized housing in Vienna, McLean, Great Falls, and Seneca as possible. Many of the single family units could be converted into duplexes and rented out. It would also help to diversify neighborhoods and schools.

This is not about subsidized housing, though.

It's like people's minds are on a one-way track: housing --> affordable housing --> subsidized housing --> Section 8 --> Pruitt-Igoe.

Ever look at row home , the old word for townhouse, prices in Mclean and Vienna? 800K? And my tax dollars are supposed to fund the next stop up a duplex for low income buyers? Look at old cities-Philly, DC. Rowhome v a twin, old term for duplex unless the duplex was an apartment.