Doesnt seem like a necessary priority in a state and especially region with relatively low growth. Has Fairfax even hit its pre covid population levels? House prices in real terms haven’t exactly grown much.

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody done research into how many churches own large swaths of land in Northern Virginia? This area is already pretty built up. While annoying for some who live near these potential buildings, I don't think it's going to ruin public schools.

A church near my home has about 8 acres of land next to it. They want to put up to 178 units on it, right up against single family homes. There is no direct access to a main road where they want to build the housing. Residents of the new housing would have to cut through a daycare parking lot onto a two-lane road that already gets very congested at rush hour. An access road for emergency vehicles would be built between two homes in a cul de sac.

The church and the developer they are partnered with have been working through the county process to get approval to build the housing. The process includes noise and traffic studies and some other things. From what I heard, these things were not going too well for them. If this bill doesn't get vetoed, they will apparently get to just ignore these very real issues and do a massive upzoning of the land -- from 1-2 units per acre to 178 units per acre -- all so they and a developer can make money.

This is in an HOA run neighborhood, and the church is supposedly subject to HOA approval. Our only option to stop it might be a vote by our architectural review board. But I don't know the details of that.

It's easy to be YIMBY in principle; harder when there is a project that will go right next to a bunch of SFHs that simply does not make logical sense.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the veto proof Virginia legislature is trying to create an exodus of high income taxpayers out of Virginia and into states like West Virginia, the Carolinas, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia.

I feel like no one is leaving VA for schools in any of those states except maybe the research triangle part of NC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

God forbid you can build an ADU for your aging parent on your property, rather than put Mom in a nursing home.

We'll put her in your back yard instead, and her car can siot in front of your house. And she can consume social services you pay for with your tax dollars.

She'll consumer social services in a nursing home paid for with everyone's tax dollars anyway? And I doubt someone who would need a nursing home needs a car.

A backyard shed is no replacement for a nursing home. It's merely a way to cram more people into a lot, without having them living inside the primary structure on the property. They still need public services, make noise, need parking, and all the other things which make high-density environments unappealing to many.

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody done research into how many churches own large swaths of land in Northern Virginia? This area is already pretty built up. While annoying for some who live near these potential buildings, I don't think it's going to ruin public schools.

The other problem with the law is that there is no cutoff date for eligibility. So a church could buy a 1,000 acres of farmland now and then do a massive by-right development after 5 years. It would be better to have the law only cover properties that were purchased by a non-profit before January 1st of this year to prevent gaming of the law where nonprofits can create massive developments that will overwhelm local infrastructure.

20 units per acre is actually pretty low density housing. I own a 1970s low rise garden apt style condo. There are 30 two bedroom units on plot. Each unit has a spot and we have 25 guest spots, each unit has s deck or patio and we have lawns and grass. All on one acre.

That area later on they allowed high rises. They could jam today a 30 story building on plot with underground parking and fit 150 units on plot east.

If complex was rental that would have happened since condo and supermajority required to sell land that will never happen unless a crazy high offer. And I guarantee the neighbor would sue and block it for years.

Has anybody done research into how many churches own large swaths of land in Northern Virginia? This area is already pretty built up. While annoying for some who live near these potential buildings, I don't think it's going to ruin public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

God forbid you can build an ADU for your aging parent on your property, rather than put Mom in a nursing home.

We'll put her in your back yard instead, and her car can siot in front of your house. And she can consume social services you pay for with your tax dollars.

She'll consumer social services in a nursing home paid for with everyone's tax dollars anyway? And I doubt someone who would need a nursing home needs a car.

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

The population is growing. Where do you expect people to live?

It seems like the veto proof Virginia legislature is trying to create an exodus of high income taxpayers out of Virginia and into states like West Virginia, the Carolinas, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia.

Anonymous wrote:What are they building nunneries? This seems like a Bill that has one or two applications in mind rather than one that will have broad impact.
Explain this to me, because I’m not getting it.

The point is homeless shelters and group homes for substance abusers or non functioning people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Richmond is going to override local zoning rules and force Fairfax to approve development at a minimum of 20 units per acre on any land owned by churches or non-profits. The only requirement is that 60% of the housing units must be reserved for low income housing. Which areas of the county and school pyramids will be the least impacted by this policy? At this point. I'm honestly just thinking about sending my kids to private school k-12. This state zoning law is going to ruin all of the schools in Fairfax county

God forbid your kid has to have contact with some low-income families.

I am explaining the limitations of the law. Not saying that the low income housing is bad, but that my kids schools will be overcrowded if every church can now build high density apartments by right.

NIMBY

In the battle of NIMBYs vs developers, I'll always stand with the NIMBYs. The developers don't care about schools, traffic, and the strain on resources that their projects cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

God forbid you can build an ADU for your aging parent on your property, rather than put Mom in a nursing home.

We'll put her in your back yard instead, and her car can siot in front of your house. And she can consume social services you pay for with your tax dollars.

Like some other states, it should be more like 20% that the builder sets aside. 60% is unrealistic. But it should be an ordinary occurrence, not seen as a special program

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County is also interested in approving more tiny houses in backyards, to further increase and concentrate the population. Motivated by the prospect of more tax revenue, presumably.

God forbid you can build an ADU for your aging parent on your property, rather than put Mom in a nursing home.

I think ADUs with proper setbacks are much better than this stupid law.

ADUs actually help families to create generational wealth. Permanent rental housing will just keep people poor.