Del Samirah's bills to outlaw single family zoning were tabled in committee. Hope they stay there.

Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Why should it mean that?

For 1 $1.5 million unit vs. 4 $800,000 units: more people can afford to live there, and more people can live there. Those are both good things.

Housing the teachers, first responders, etc. can afford is "workforce housing."

As for bike lanes - bike lanes would help poor people get to work, if we built bike lanes that connect areas where poor people live with areas where poor people work. Another benefit of bike lanes (good bike lanes) is that roads with good bike lanes are safer for everybody, whether on bikes or not, than roads without good bike lanes. Just because we also need better bus service, doesn't mean we don't need good bike lanes.

Yes, because all the "poor" people who work in construction can get their tools on a bike?

I've seen lots of men in neighborhoods where poor Spanish-speaking people live or work, getting around on a bike. The women and children primarily get around on the bus, but men take the bus too. If you haven't seen these things, then you probably haven't looked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Why should it mean that?

For 1 $1.5 million unit vs. 4 $800,000 units: more people can afford to live there, and more people can live there. Those are both good things.

Housing the teachers, first responders, etc. can afford is "workforce housing."

As for bike lanes - bike lanes would help poor people get to work, if we built bike lanes that connect areas where poor people live with areas where poor people work. Another benefit of bike lanes (good bike lanes) is that roads with good bike lanes are safer for everybody, whether on bikes or not, than roads without good bike lanes. Just because we also need better bus service, doesn't mean we don't need good bike lanes.

Yes, because all the "poor" people who work in construction can get their tools on a bike?

Anonymous wrote:

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Why should it mean that?

For 1 $1.5 million unit vs. 4 $800,000 units: more people can afford to live there, and more people can live there. Those are both good things.

Housing the teachers, first responders, etc. can afford is "workforce housing."

As for bike lanes - bike lanes would help poor people get to work, if we built bike lanes that connect areas where poor people live with areas where poor people work. Another benefit of bike lanes (good bike lanes) is that roads with good bike lanes are safer for everybody, whether on bikes or not, than roads without good bike lanes. Just because we also need better bus service, doesn't mean we don't need good bike lanes.

The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Anonymous wrote:NOVA resident here. Totally support the move.

The more rentals available the better for everyone. No one needs single family McMansions in urban areas like NoVa.

The only people opposing this are rich white people with single family homes who don’t want working class minorities as neighbors or uncle toms who got theirs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

This is such a lie. This will produce zilch in the way of affordable housing.

+1

Anonymous wrote:NOVA resident here. Totally support the move.

Also a NOVA resident. The state has no business doing this. Leave it up to the local jurisdiction.

NOVA resident here. Totally support the move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this stuff is actually going to happen. Messing with zoning is an extremely efficient way to lose an election.

The tide has turned and momentum is clearly in favor of laws like this. It's not that surprising since the home ownership rate has lowered around the major job centers and young families have increasingly become locked out of owning.

Fat chance. These ideas have been around for decades, and there's a reason they havent happened.

But, these guys want to take away local control. That's the real danger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this stuff is actually going to happen. Messing with zoning is an extremely efficient way to lose an election.

The tide has turned and momentum is clearly in favor of laws like this. It's not that surprising since the home ownership rate has lowered around the major job centers and young families have increasingly become locked out of owning.

Fat chance. These ideas have been around for decades, and there's a reason they havent happened.

Anonymous wrote:I hope this goes through. The more housing available in the rich neighborhoods means more opportunities for marginalized and lower income families to be able to afford them as they flip from single family to higher density housing.

It will also hopefully encourage more renting vs buying which will our homes in those areas within reach.

This is such a lie. This will produce zilch in the way of affordable housing.

I think for many people close to retirement, turning their existing homes into duplexes and renting would be a great way to bring in revenue for retirement.

Renting smaller spaces is better for the environment rather than building single family homes.

Plus we are running out of land to build more single family homes in commutable/mass transit areas.

I think for many people close to retirement, turning their existing homes into duplexes and renting would be a great way to bring in revenue for retirement.

Renting smaller spaces is better for the environment rather than building single family homes.

Yep. It's like selling some of the farm acreage to the neighbor as part of the retirement plan.