Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are mixing a lot of things here together that are not necessarily true. I am not against housing. What I am against is legalizing things they were not enforcing when they were illegal which just moves the line so that they will not enforce the next step. I see a lot of younger people that want their first home to be their forever home and like something they see Kim Kardashian in and because they cannot have that they think people are screwing them over.
Thinking allowing granny flats will make prices more affordable without evidence to back it up is flawed thinking but you seem not to care because you do not own a home and if it ****s everything up for your amusement you can just move and not even acknowledge you may have been wrong.
To me one of the biggest factor raising housing prices is investors. That is just Americans buying houses for investment and foreign investors buying houses for investment and to get a foot in the door. There are a lot of people in areas such as Australia and New Zealand that feel that foreign investors have priced them out of the market.
Personally I feel zMod just makes the investment factor a better bet and will just raise prices more. There is a house in my neighborhood that has not been occupied for the last 3-4 years and has sold at least 3 times. Now they have had a crew working there for a few months. The basement floods so I am not sure what they are doing but I think they are trying to remedy that problem but having 3-10 people there everyday for at least 3 months is not cheap. I wonder what will happen when they put this thing on the market again? My guess is that it sells for even more, making my house potentially more valuable but if it ends up being a flop house with a lot of transients in it I am not going to be happy.
I didn't say you were, hence why my prior message was "I can respect that at least" since you weren't just cart blanch against new housing anywhere as many people can be. Sorry for the confusion.
I do own a home, again, I said so in a previous post. More housing supply always makes prices more affordable than they otherwise would be, so granny flats would apply there. There's plenty of research showing more housing supply lowers equilibrium rents and prices (or causes them to rise less than in the counterfactual where less housing is built). You can find plenty of linked research in the link I posted with my first comment:
The whole foreign buyer/investor thing is always an interesting argument. It gets a ton of attention in the media but nobody ever presents any data showing that it makes any meaningful difference in the regional housing market (i.e. these things always tend to be a bit data-agnostic and based on anecdotes). For example, a foreign investor is not going to put money into a 30-story apartment tower and NOT rent out the units, that would be an insane investment strategy and a big money losing investment. Frankly, it matters very little where the investment money for new housing comes from, as long as new supply is getting added.
Yes, there is a unique case in global cities where some jet-setting billionaires want to buy a fancy condo where they don't even live, but that's far from the norm and there aren't that many billionaires out there. Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to NOT build more housing on account of that, since those billionaires are buying for location not just amenities, they'll find an existing unit to buy if they can't get a new one, and the musical chairs phenomenon kicks in (i.e., if a billionaire can't get the Manhattan penthouse, they'll find a Park Slope rowhome, and someone in Park Slope will be forced to move to X, and somewhere in X will be pushed to Y, and so on and so forth). Lastly, if it were reeeaally true that we could build a bunch of housing that would be occupied by absent billionaires (it's not true) that would actually be fantastic. No parking/traffic issues. Adding a bunch of property tax money for the city to pay for social programs, but not adding to traffic or using up any city services. That would be a win-win! Sadly, it's not actually the thing it is made out to be.
In any case, I hope your new neighbors are great ones and you don't have the issues that the other poster had!
You've said you own a home yet your posts have the tone of someone who has never owned one. IOW, you seem to be tone deaf when it comes to the concerns homeowners have. You have little concern as to how the changes you are pushing for would have on property values. If your home depreciated, you appear to have no concerns about that ever happening to you.
Again, what kind of home? SFH? TH? Condo? Are you living in one of those dense mixed use areas that you seem to covet?
If you are referring to me when you mention neighbor issues, I had no issues with my immediate neighbors. In fact, I couldn't have asked for better neighbors. Our next door neighbors were concerned when we put our house on the market, as they were worried about someone buying it and creating a flophouse. We certainly didn't want that to happen to them. I told them that if we got more than one offer, we would learn about the potential buyers. As it turned out, the house sold quickly to a single young man. We were in touch with them after we moved and they told us that he kept to himself.
Our concerns were for those who didn't live on our street and were using it for their overflow parking. Unless you have been in that situation, you can't imagine what it is like.
BTW, if you think foreign investors don't screw up housing markets, I suggest you look into what happened in Vancouver, BC.
This concept, championed by the real estate industry, where homeowners are entitled to perpetual property value increases has wide ranging negative effects on our communities. School segregation, dependence on personal vehicles, wealth consolidation - all exacerbated by nice, totally not racist people pushing their agenda through zoning law.
A house is shelter, simple as that. I purchased a house because I was tired of landlords, condo associations and shared walls. Some day I'll sell it and get something for it, but I'm not foolish enough to treat it as a financial instrument. People who think this way are likely stretching their finances too thin, and the result is that they reject any policy that won't boost the value of their primary asset.
I don't love many of the choices my neighbors make, but this all too common notion that I should petition the county to bully them into conforming with my preferred way of life is a step too far for me.
Lastly - it seems like parking is the main point of contention for all this, and I agree. There is clearly an abuse of this public resource. Perhaps it's time for Fairfax to institute a county-wide parking permit program. Limit the number of passes per household. Charge extra for RVs, Trailers, Boats, etc. Other places I've lived enforce policies such as street sweeping or snow event parking rules, which results in inoperable vehicles being forced onto private property or into the junk yard.
This concept, championed by the real estate industry, where homeowners are entitled to perpetual property value increases has wide ranging negative effects on our communities. School segregation, dependence on personal vehicles, wealth consolidation - all exacerbated by nice, totally not racist people pushing their agenda through zoning law.
A house is shelter, simple as that. I purchased a house because I was tired of landlords, condo associations and shared walls. Some day I'll sell it and get something for it, but I'm not foolish enough to treat it as a financial instrument. People who think this way are likely stretching their finances too thin, and the result is that they reject any policy that won't boost the value of their primary asset.
I don't love many of the choices my neighbors make, but this all too common notion that I should petition the county to bully them into conforming with my preferred way of life is a step too far for me.
Lastly - it seems like parking is the main point of contention for all this, and I agree. There is clearly an abuse of this public resource. Perhaps it's time for Fairfax to institute a county-wide parking permit program. Limit the number of passes per household. Charge extra for RVs, Trailers, Boats, etc. Other places I've lived enforce policies such as street sweeping or snow event parking rules, which results in inoperable vehicles being forced onto private property or into the junk yard.
Per the bolded --- For you, what is your threshold for "a step too far"? Would you shrug it off if the house next door to you were to become a crack house, brothel, overcrowded flophouse or a party house?
As for treating your house as a "financial investment", well...it is a "financial investment". I would hope that you would put money into your house to keep it in good shape. If you had to sell it, you would want buyers to take an interest and hope that it will sell quickly. I'm sure you wouldn't want it selling so cheaply that you have to bring money to the table at settlement, correct?
If you never maintained your home and had a crack house, brothel, overcrowded flophouse or a party house next door, your house won't sell quickly. And, when it does sell, you would be bringing money to the table at settlement.
Per the bolded --- For you, what is your threshold for "a step too far"? Would you shrug it off if the house next door to you were to become a crack house, brothel, overcrowded flophouse or a party house?
As for treating your house as a "financial investment", well...it is a "financial investment". I would hope that you would put money into your house to keep it in good shape. If you had to sell it, you would want buyers to take an interest and hope that it will sell quickly. I'm sure you wouldn't want it selling so cheaply that you have to bring money to the table at settlement, correct?
If you never maintained your home and had a crack house, brothel, overcrowded flophouse or a party house next door, your house won't sell quickly. And, when it does sell, you would be bringing money to the table at settlement.
I do think this comparison of having a granny flat/accessory dwelling unit, basement apartment, or a duplex next door is somehow the equivalent of a crackhouse, brothel, or flop house is a bit hyperbolic. Yea, nobody wants a crackhouse next door, but insinuating that literally any minute increase in the number of dwelling units equates to a crackhouse is ridiculous.
I do think this comparison of having a granny flat/accessory dwelling unit, basement apartment, or a duplex next door is somehow the equivalent of a crackhouse, brothel, or flop house is a bit hyperbolic. Yea, nobody wants a crackhouse next door, but insinuating that literally any minute increase in the number of dwelling units equates to a crackhouse is ridiculous.
Again, what kind of house do you have? Single family house? Townhouse? Condo? Are you close to a Metrorail station? IOW, one of those mixed density neighborhoods that you so covet?
No, there is no hyperbole. Tell that to those who have witnessed the house next door becoming an overcrowded flophouse.
I never said that having a duplex equates to a crackhouse. Stop putting words in my mouth
You seem to not want to get the fact that if a duplex gets built next door to a house in a SFH area, there will have to be enough land to provide a driveway for each unit. Have you seen the latest, newest SFH areas? The houses, unless they are McMansions, are so close together that one could just about reach out a side window and touch their neighbor's home. A duplex would never fly there.
FWIW, there is an area of Sterling Park that has duplexes. In recent times, many of them have morphed into flophouses thus creating parking issues. You seem to have a utopian view of such communities. Truth be told, that if those communities are done right and the residents don't make flophouses, they work well. I've also seen areas with piggyback units and villas. If there is no overcrowding occurring, they work out well, too.
I used to be a big champion of townhouse, villa and piggyback units as they provided an entry to the housing market for first time buyers. Over the many years I've lived in this area, my outlook has changed after seeing one too many community of such housing hitting the skids due to flophouses showing up.
Again, tell us about the house you own---if you, indeed, really own one.
Again, what kind of house do you have? Single family house? Townhouse? Condo? Are you close to a Metrorail station? IOW, one of those mixed density neighborhoods that you so covet?
No, there is no hyperbole. Tell that to those who have witnessed the house next door becoming an overcrowded flophouse.
I never said that having a duplex equates to a crackhouse. Stop putting words in my mouth
You seem to not want to get the fact that if a duplex gets built next door to a house in a SFH area, there will have to be enough land to provide a driveway for each unit. Have you seen the latest, newest SFH areas? The houses, unless they are McMansions, are so close together that one could just about reach out a side window and touch their neighbor's home. A duplex would never fly there.
FWIW, there is an area of Sterling Park that has duplexes. In recent times, many of them have morphed into flophouses thus creating parking issues. You seem to have a utopian view of such communities. Truth be told, that if those communities are done right and the residents don't make flophouses, they work well. I've also seen areas with piggyback units and villas. If there is no overcrowding occurring, they work out well, too.
I used to be a big champion of townhouse, villa and piggyback units as they provided an entry to the housing market for first time buyers. Over the many years I've lived in this area, my outlook has changed after seeing one too many community of such housing hitting the skids due to flophouses showing up.
Again, tell us about the house you own---if you, indeed, really own one.
Yea but the implicit assertion keeps being made that allowing X (entry level housing) will somehow invariably lead to Y (flophouses, crackhouses, etc.), or that Y is so remarkably common, given X, which I felt was a bit overblown. In any case, then doesn't that mean your real issue isn't adding piggyback units/villas and more just a lack of enforcement of occupancy standards? Wouldn't it be better to allow for incremental increases in housing and also enforce occupancy standards?
Yea but the implicit assertion keeps being made that allowing X (entry level housing) will somehow invariably lead to Y (flophouses, crackhouses, etc.), or that Y is so remarkably common, given X, which I felt was a bit overblown. In any case, then doesn't that mean your real issue isn't adding piggyback units/villas and more just a lack of enforcement of occupancy standards? Wouldn't it be better to allow for incremental increases in housing and also enforce occupancy standards?
Is there a way to have cake and eat it too?
So...why aren't you answering these questions? What type of house do you have? Single family? Townhouse? Villa home? Duplex? Condo? Are you near a Metrorail station? Are you living in a mixed high density area that you covet? Your answers to these questions won't give away your exact address, you know.
If local governments made laws that have teeth in them (which they won't do) the housing you want and cheer for could happen. There was once a time that when such housing was built, there were no worries about overcrowding happening. People who moved into such units knew better than to overcrowd. First time buyers would gladly buy such places without worries of living next to a flophouse. As I said, over the years I've watched what has happened to those areas---and it hasn't been pretty.
My concerns aren't overblown. As for "incremental increases in housing", that ship sailed a long time ago. the DMV has been dealing with exponential growth now for decades.
You act like there is no affordable dwelling units around. For example, That apartment building at the Tysons Corner Metro station, The Vita, has some. Getting off at the station, if you were to walk in there, you would be on the 9th floor. The 8 floors below are low income units. They have a separate entrance and there is no way they can get into the upscale part of the building. There is also a building near the Rosslyn Metro station that has such a set up. Reston and Ashburn also have some low income apartment buildings.
I'll await your answers to the questions that have been posed to you many times. I've been honest about my housing experiences, now it's time for you to do the same.
I do think this comparison of having a granny flat/accessory dwelling unit, basement apartment, or a duplex next door is somehow the equivalent of a crackhouse, brothel, or flop house is a bit hyperbolic. Yea, nobody wants a crackhouse next door, but insinuating that literally any minute increase in the number of dwelling units equates to a crackhouse is ridiculous.
I confess I'm not a Fairfax resident (I've been there, great area, could live there), but the urban planner in me does not like this. Much of Fairfax isn't built with the infrastructure to add density in single family areas. What *would* help is creating more TOD districts with high to mid rise zoning.
-Extend the Orange down 66, build TOD's at 66/Va 123, 66/US 50, 66/Va 28 with metro stops. Build a silver line bypass under I-66 from East Falls Church to Foggy Bottom so the Silver is a totally separate express line to DC, skipping Arlington stops (still served by Orange)
-Extend Blue down from Springfield and redevelop Newington and Lorton. Also build a Metro along the VRE to Burke and build a TOD around Burke Center and Backlick Rd.
-Build mid rise (4-6 stories) apartments along main roads like US 29, US 50, Va 7, US 1 and Fairfax County Parkway
Just some ideas....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
