The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New The Hill Article on How Arlington, VA Battle over "Missing Middle" Housing is a Microcosm of Broader National Struggle Against Exclusionary Zoning
Barack Obama could have been referring to our community, when he said that “[t]he most liberal communities in the country aren’t that liberal when it comes to affordable housing.”
The Hill just published my article on the ongoing struggle over "missing middle" housing in Arlington, Virginia, where I live. The issue exemplifies the broader national issue of exclusionary zoning:
The big issue in the November election in Arlington County in northern Virginia — where I live — is the county board's proposal to legalize the construction of "missing middle" housing. Currently, some 80 percent of the county is zoned for single-family residences only. With housing demand booming over the last decade, the average price for a single-family home in Arlington has risen to some $1.2 million — unaffordable for most working and middle-class people. By abolishing single-family zoning restrictions, "missing middle" would greatly improve the situation, adding thousands of additional housing units to our stock. The fight over this issue is part of a broader nationwide struggle over affordable housing, property rights, and economic opportunity.
Arlington's housing crisis is microcosm of a broader national problem, under which zoning rules and other restrictions have priced millions of people out of areas where they could otherwise find valuable job and educational opportunities. As a result, we have greatly reduced the productivity of our economy. Economists estimate that U.S. Gross Domestic Product could be as much as 36 percent higher than it actually is if major metropolitan areas with severely restrictive zoning, in recent decades, had kept rules no more constraining than the national average….
Historically, restrictions like those currently in force in Arlington were often enacted for the specific purpose of keeping out Blacks and other non-whites. That's one reason why the Arlington NAACP supports Missing Middle…..
Sadly, opposition to zoning reform isn't limited to bigots or to any one side of the political spectrum. Former President Barack Obama recently decried "NIMBY [not in my back yard] attitudes" and "regulations" that "make it very difficult to integrate communities and allow people to live close to where they work." He emphasized that "[t]he most liberal communities in the country aren't that liberal when it comes to affordable housing."
Obama could have been referring to Arlington. The area is overwhelmingly liberal, with over 80 percent of voters supporting Biden in the 2020 election. "Black Lives Matter" signs are ubiquitous. Nonetheless, the county's zoning rules effectively price out most Blacks, and Missing Middle has stimulated a strong NIMBY backlash. The situation is a test of the community's progressive values. Do we really believe that Black lives matter — or do they only matter so long as not too many of them can move here? Do we really favor increasing opportunity for the disadvantaged, or not?
Libertarians, conservatives and others who value property rights, also have good reason to support zoning reform. In Arlington and many other jurisdictions, zoning rules are the most severe constraints on owners' traditional ability to use their land as they see fit….
Later in the article, I explain why current homeowners can also benefit from "missing middle" and other similar zoning reforms. I addressed that topic in greater detail here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey Ilya, why do you choose to live in a "bigoted" community?
Where is the "missing middle on Martha's Vineyard, home of the chosen one when he isn't in Hawaii?
Rather than clichéd attacks on the OP, what do you think about single family zoning and NIMBYism?
I’m not a fan, and the liberal hypocrisy is real. But I don’t know what you can do but hope they get better, local politics being what they are.
I think use of the term, "NIMBYism," needs careful reflection, lest the person using it get into the morally equivocal position of demanding that someone else suffer uncompensated loss for the good of society. Why say, "NIMBY" to someone else, when you could step up and take on the burden yourself? Presumably, it's because you want the burden imposed elsewhere, and shaming anyone who resists seems more advantageous than stepping up yourself.
Get back to me when there are agreed-upon policies about spreading around the socially needed burdens in some way which does not return again and again to the same set of victims.
“[T]he morally equivocal position of demanding that someone else suffer uncompensated loss for the good of society.”
Like progressive taxation?
Not at all like progressive taxation. Progressive taxation does not single out victims. People's economic fortunes are not cast in concrete. Some will do less-well, and later do far better. It is not a punishment to be subjected to laws which apply alike to everyone. Sensible people have an ambition to become ever-more afflicted by progressive taxation. That means they are getting rich. I myself would greatly prefer to be in a higher, more-expensive tax bracket.
The anti-NIMBY impulse is predatory, arbitrary, and inflicts only loss. You typically have some general social benefit which will impose a localized cost to implement. You wish to implement the benefit without regard for the cost inflicted on a targeted minority who will suffer it. So you denounce their resistance as NIMBYism, to shame them. It is the denouncers who should be ashamed.
It is impressive how you tried to turn NIMBYism — the art of saying, "Yeah, sure, X is absolutely needed, but let someone else suffer the consequences of doing X" — into its exact opposite.
If only there were a way of efficiently allocating resources that did not involve government fiat!
"Missing middle" reforms typically start by permitting property owners to build whatever they think the market will bear.
If there is some demand for incremental development in Martha's Vineyard, then by all means, they should open up the standards. But absent that demand - it's not about trying to reduce home prices by forcing people to build something that no one wants.
That’s a damn shame. I’d hope Arlington would skew younger and better than that.
Arlington used to be DC suburbs, only a generation or two back - and like most suburbs, single family homes and small businesses were the way of life.
Housing prices are now above a million because a lot of people - wealthy people - have moved into the area. Demand went up, and available money chased it.
Building "affordable housing" isn't going to help, because those young people with high incomes will still snap up the apartments or town homes, leaving the median income families left out, as they are now.
The WashPo article linked directly states this: The one-bedroom apartments they want to create would be priced above $400,000 and targeted at buyers making $100,000 or more per year.
Actual median income families can't afford that.
If they want to create price-controlled housing projects to help the "lower-income" (for NoVa) people, they should just admit it, and accept the consequences it brings.
I mean, if houses are snapped up there it alleviates price pressure elsewhere.
Yeah, zoning alone isn't a panacea, but it's not useless.
Subsidized housing is also pretty good, though there are more strategic ways to do it than to create a neighborhood of 'projects' a la the 1980s.
Have you been tracking the story of Atherton, California which is attempting to resist the state mandates for housing starts? Atherton is where the richest of the rich in the Silicon Valley area live. They're special, they say, and they have an impenetrable wall of lawyers to prove it.
No - I was hearing about SF, of course. And Oakland, believe it or not.
And Cleveland has issues, IIRC.
"I mean, if houses are snapped up there it alleviates price pressure elsewhere."
Seems to work better in theory than in practice. You mention SF and Oakland, an area with which I'm quite familiar. There are plenty of apartments even close in and yet prices are still sky high. A poorly-maintained 1500 ft^2 in a bad area will still cost $3/4M. Recently saw a new (granted, luxury) apartment complex in a not-great area where you get to listen to commuter trains every three minutes, all day. 1,200 ft^2 two bedrooms were listed between $3,600 and 3,900 per month.
I have heard that Oakland has lots of room to expand, except folks are really working hard to keep density down still, including some ridiculous parking lot surface area requirements.
Michael Harriot is the guy I read on Oakland.
Interesting how things go. I looked up Michael Harriot and his website says he writes for The Root but nothing is linked. So I went to The Root but couldn't find anything with his byline. I did, however, learn that Rachael Dolezal has changed her name to Nkechi Diallo and is posting pics on OnlyFans. Not interested in continuing down THAT rabbit hole, but I will look elsewhere for Michael's writings...
Cheers.
SF, where I live, has two competing camps: NIMBYs and YIMBYs who only want 100% below market development and will fight any construction that doesn't qualify. Both camps use every means at their disposal. The NIMBYs are mostly concentrated in the wealthier districts and also the Western neighborhoods that were, until recently, single-family zoned. There's especially a lot of resistance among the Chinese immigrant households from what I can tell.
The city is building on property it owns. It converted the Balboa BART parking lot into an apartment block. A nearby building with a huge parking lot was torn down and it also reaching upward as I type. And a private pre-school property was bought and it's been turned into a large, mostly for-profit as well. But with over 80K new units to build, the city's creaky permitting process is unable to keep up with all the ways locals are empowered to stop construction they don't like. SF has plenty of space to build and plenty public transit to handle the increased population; we're not as dense as Manhattan.
The DC suburbs house the Federal Class and thus some of America's richest counties. If you want to get rich, become a Federal.
I'm not so sure the problem is single family housing. Scratch that, I'm pretty sure it isn't.
As a child, my family, which was middle to upper middle class, lived in a house not much over 600 square feet, in a neighborhood of homes of comparable size. Even if you added the undeveloped basement, 1200 square feet, tops.
Later, when I built my own house on some land in the country, the smallest house I could legally build was over 1600 square feet. A bit shy of THREE times the size of the house I'd grown up in. I'd have gladly built a smaller house, a MUCH smaller house. And had a tiny mortgage I could have swiftly paid off. It wasn't legal to, given the local zoning and building codes.
You don't need to authorize apartments and condos. You just need to reform the zoning to permit starter homes. Homes that aren't mini-mansions.
Of course, local governments don't like small homes, because the very fact that they're affordable lowers their property tax revenues. Whereas apartments can rack up some pretty impressive property tax bills per acre.
So they manipulate building codes to prevent their being built, and drive out anybody who can't afford a McMansion.
You are talking rural; this is urban.
To +1 Sarcastr0's comment...
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors (AKA: city council) voted this year to eliminate all single family zoning in the county/city (same thing.) The primary effect in this highly urban environment is to make it legal to split single family homes into duplexes (turn first floor garages into apartments or add accessory dwellings to the back yard.) New construction and major remodel projects will benefit. It easily doubles the available space for less expensive housing.
In most cases, the first step from single-family housing is to permit home owners to build an accessory dwelling unit or convert a single-family home into a duplex. You take the loft over a garage and convert it into an apartment; you take a large home and make it into two smaller homes. It's not about building towers and condos. In fact, it very much is not about that.
Eventually, in some areas, it might start to make sense to build quadplexes and then smaller walk-ups. You just let that happen. The problem is that we don't let that happen.
Are single-family homes the problem? No, not as such. But requiring that everything be a single-family home certainly is part of the problem. Permitting new development to be smaller but requiring that they be single-family wouldn't address the problem. Smaller houses on the same-size lots don't help the situation.
Actually, they do help the situation. You're talking about a change that can cut the cost of an entry level house in half.
I could be wrong, but I don't think your pricing is correct.
By changing the character of the homes but not the supply, I don't see how you're diving prices down in any kind of local way.
If zoning could be replaced by covenants, say per block, things would seem quite fair. If any given block wanted to go multi-family, or commercial, or whatever, they could do so, but it would require some kind of majority.
But if the majority preferred single family, who are we to take that away from them?
How is that not NIMBY as all hell? Who are you to decide you're rich enough the poor can suck it? A just society is all about *balancing* larger social requirements with individualism; indulging the one and neglecting the other is a recipe for a pretty crappy society.
Also...neighborhood covenants don't have a great history.
Who are you to decide you’re rich enough the poor can suck it?
I suppose if you're a hard core socialist, this is how property rights seem.
On the other hand, we know how it goes when you kill the golden goose.
A just society is all about *balancing* larger social requirements with individualism
Sort of a tell that I'm not a hard core socialist, I would think. You're the one saying individualism above all, which seems to me the more hard core position.
What is the golden goose of restrictive covenants you are talking about?
What is the golden goose of restrictive covenants you are talking about?
The "golden goose" lays the golden eggs for the benefit of a society which allows accumulation of wealth. Period.
Once you start thinking of that wealth as belonging to "the poor", you're on the road to Venezuela.
Restrictive covenants don't allow wealth accumulation, they restrict people's choices in service of locking it in.
You keep calling me socialist; you're the one calling for restrictions on the market.
You keep calling me socialist; you’re the one calling for restrictions on the market.
I don't know if you're a socialist or not. I do know that buying a house in a neighborhood with desirable characteristics and expecting those characteristics to be maintained by agreement of the neighborhood is protection of accumulated wealth.
It's one thing when the neighborhood sells out profitably.
It's quite another when the guy next door breaks his house into a 4-plex and starts renting to lowlife.
"protection of accumulated wealth" from whom?
You're turning NIMBY into some kind of virtuous thing; it is selfish tho.
It's not "selfish" to want to protect the value of the property you bought because of certain characteristics against a reduction in value because of a change in those characteristics.
Do you see how you concentrated on the personal benefits and ignored utterly any kind of external costs?
Becoming extremely self-oriented to avoid accusations of selfishness is not making anything better.
“protection of accumulated wealth” from whom?
It really doesn't matter.
Where the wealth is protected, the golden goose lays the golden eggs for everyone.
Where it is taken away, either by the state, or by thugs, or by just some general crud, the golden goose dies, and we end up with Africa vs the USA.
Who you are blocking from getting property in order to ‘maintain your wealth’ does matter.
You talk about a great engine real estate is….too great to share with those from below your class.
Growth for growth’s sake is the philosophy of a cancer cell.
Who you are blocking from getting property in order to ‘maintain your wealth’ does matter.
The other pillar of the golden goose mechanism, alongside protection of accumulated wealth, is the freedom to make money.
There’s no blocking anyone in this story, at all.
We will all one day be millionaires. So let’s cater to only them!
Havent seem that naive take since the ‘90s.
Dickensian England was just great in its economic freedom for people, and yet somehow a miserable hellhole.
Formal, economic freedom, is far from the only kind.
A just society? How about, you know, a free society? Where you don't have to live under the thumb of power hungry asshole of the decade?
So many around the world want to come here and be free of controlling jackasses. But it's already here!
I’m not the one going on about covenants. I guess you missed the bubble there.
And yet again I point to the de facto discrimination of the Jim Crow South as an example of how myopic devotion to formal freedom can lead to a shockingly unfree society by any functional measure.
That’s an interesting question, and you’ve basically nailed the entire NIMBY argument and leverage. Community control laws, which is effectively what you’re supporting here, are a key tool for NIMBYism once any zoning issues are overcome. We had group here in SF try to claim a laundromat was historic in order to prevent redevelopment into 80% for-profit units and 20% below market.
From a libertarian perspective (I am not libertarian), requiring your neighbors to agree to your own plans for property you already own is unacceptable. The conservative argument will depend on which side of the buyer/existing owner divide they fall on, most likely, as to whether the choice prevents them from maximizing their new investment versus fear that it might reduce their existing investment by changing the nature of the street. Liberal homeowners can get instantly conservative if they feel their perceived quality of life could be impacted by new development as well. But politically, liberals are more interested in building denser cities to improve affordability, reduce traffic congestion and associated pollution, etc.
In the end, single family zoning is great at keeping “the wrong sort” out by keeping housing prices higher and restricting access to better-funded public schools and tax-funded resources.
A better solution that would still keep things fair for the existing residents is form-based zoning, which doesn’t dictate what can be built but rather how it relates to the other buildings around it–it’s shape and massing.
From a libertarian perspective (I am not libertarian), requiring your neighbors to agree to your own plans for property you already own is unacceptable.
There's nothing anti-libertarian about making voluntary agreements with one's neighbors to restrict what can be done with property.
It makes far more libertarian sense to do things "as a block". The block can basically sell itself to a skyscraper developer if it wants to (presumably at double the existing values, allowing buying a nice single family home somewhere else). Or stay single family and not take the cash.
Covenants are not voluntary, for starters. And there is something non-libertarian about having to get permission from your neighbors to make use of your own property. The infamous covenant examples that I have some experience with:
– the colors you can paint your house
– whether you can park a pickup truck in your driveway
– how much lawn you are required to keep green, mowed, and weed-free.
– your race. (seriously. I had a home old enough to have this covenant. In Florida, of course.)
Agreeing to sell as a block lowers the maximum payout the last homeowner could receive if they waited everyone out. Why would a libertarian agree to sell their property for less than current market value?
Covenants are not voluntary, for starters.
I’m not sure there aren’t counter examples, but the ones I’m familiar are totally voluntary. You agree to them when you buy property. You agree to paint your house to standards in exchange for having standards enforced on others.
Agreeing to sell as a block lowers the maximum payout the last homeowner could receive if they waited everyone out.
Which makes it vanishingly unlikely that anyone will ever buy the block. Instead, they go Kelo on you. There’s nothing anti-libertarian about a block first agreeing to agree to the results of a vote, and then voting to sell. It could require a super-majority, as the covenant was written.
The covenants are not voluntary; that implies a homeowner can choose to ignore them. Rather, buying the house that is encumbered with covenants is voluntary. These days, homebuyers are not offered as much choice in the house they buy because it may be that only one is available to them in any given area. That's true in both Florida (recent disaster aside) and California. This bind in available housing is exactly why single-family zoning is bad; it helped create this issue.
Covenants are voluntary.
Zoning is not.
I’m not sure you know what a covenant is.
I’m not sure you know what a covenant is.
Sort of a passive disagreement? If you have some counter-point, go ahead and lay it out.
True. Absolutely true.
I read the covenants before I buy. I own a rrtirement home in a huge Florida development of smaller PUDs built over the past 50 years. I deliberately CHOSE a home in a older PUD with only a dozen covenants over a "fancier" one in a PUD with over 200 covenants.
It is not government's job to, 45 years later, undo my choice. At least that is what Libertarians claim to believe. Having read several of Ilya's zoning related articles and can no longer believe his claim to be a Libertarian.
I should be able to sell to someone who values MY foresight not to someone forced on me by government action.
If it isn’t about unfettering rich people, can it truly be about freedom?
If it isn't about unfettering people, period, it can hardly be libertarian. The reason people keep suggesting you're a socialist is this animus towards rich people you're constantly displaying.
It is an unfettering that only actually unfetters the rich, Brett.
You unironically believe that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread.
"If it isn’t about unfettering rich people, can it truly be about freedom?"
It won't stop at Arlington, every town with single family housing will see their wealth reduced for social engineering. Middle class suburbs will get decimated.
Please stop *precisely* echoing segregationist arguments from decades ago, Bob.
'It won't stop here' 'Local citizens have the right to preserve their current way of life' 'maintaining property values justifies the means'
I mean...I know you're not a fan of the Civil Rights Acts, but do you think that redlining is just banks defending their best customers?
"Please stop *precisely* echoing segregationist arguments "
Blacks and Latinos live in suburbs too. The less expensive suburbs will be the ones targeted because of cheaper acquisition and development costs, it won't be wealthy whites.
Is the race card the only card you have?
Unless the whites think that those Latinos and blacks bring down property values, I guess. Then it's their right, character of the neighborhood, etc.
And now that you own, the covenants you agreed to are not voluntary. You can be sued by your neighbors if you violate them. And covenants can be changed/added after the fact through whatever mechanism the HOA has established.
Your only choice is to not buy the house. You have no voluntary control of the covenants on that house.
"This bind in available housing is exactly why single-family zoning is bad"
Changing zoning will not affect existing housing that has covenants. The private covenants are still enforceable notwithstanding the zoning.
This doesn’t make sense to me. It’s understandable that the property owner and society (i.e. the government) should have a voice. You can weigh how much voice each should get based on your political philosophy. But why in the world should the immediate neighbors, the “block,” get more voice than both the property owner and society as a whole?
Are property rights irrelevant?
Are property rights irrelevant?
Property rights are one of the two foundational pillars of wealth in America, and other first world countries. The second pillar is the freedom to make money.
Bingo.
The minority, who have equal rights? Why should a majority of my neighbors get to tell me what I can do with my property?
Easy solution. End the Fed and slash the Federal Govt 50%. Demand will fall and those housing prices will crater, and hardworking folks can move in..and not work for the Federal Govt.
End the empire...the cesspool on the Potomac must be drained.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
1) I would like to see the name(s) of the economists who predicated "up to 36% increase in GDP" and their specific arguments.
2) A forensic audit (not "peer review") of these findings.
3) It seems to me that a zoning change that negatively
effects a given property is a regulative taking of value that should be compensated. (You live by the government sword, thereby die by the government sword is not a persuasive argument to me)
Mr. Somin conveniently fails to mention the facts that any "missing middle" housing with more than two units is likely to be rental housing, not owner-occupied, and that the proposal currently under consideration would require only 1/2 off-street parking space per unit, notwithstanding that townhouse developments in Arlington, along local bus lines and near a Metro station, all have at least two parking spaces per unit. Many older residents, whom the County professes to want to enable to age in place, might wind up walking a block or so to get to or from their cars.
Mr. Somin also fails to address the potential effects of additional housing on school capacity and stormwater runoff.
Such local zoning board energy here.
In theory, increasing the number of housing units should lower prices, but as mentioned in an earlier comment, it will be yuppies and rich couples without kids who will be able to afford them. You can try to designate a certain percent of these new units be below market price, but that will still be way too expensive for the teachers, firefighters, and trash collectors who work in Arlington to move their families in. At the end of the day though, the progs in power here can say they did something about it, even if it takes 20 years to see any results, if ever.
I found this comment to one of Ilya's ewrlier articles. It fits here too.
"The issue here is, Arlington is LIKE Arlington precisely because of the zoning regulations in place. It’s got a lot of nice little single family homes, cute streets, historic district, etc. The general nature of the area is rich and well off, (precisely because few other people can afford to live there). If you removed the zoning regulations from Arlington, it wouldn’t BE like Arlington anymore."
It also would not be like Arlington was when my parents brought me home from the DC hospital where I was born, to their apartment in Arlington. At that time—and for many years afterward—the character of the place was a haven for minor government employees without much means, but a need for a manageable commute. My dad worked as a lowly civilian bureaucrat at the nearly-new Pentagon. We lived in one of the many 4-story walk-up brick apartment complexes which had recently gone up.
Thus change in Arlington's character over time was notably enabled by the persistence of zoning, and of course it delivered economic benefit to a great many people. Not including my family, however, because we were renters, and shortly thereafter moved into my grandmother's previous home on the other side of the river. That place followed roughly the same economic trajectory, however, and for the same reasons—convenient to DC, and zoned to exclude incompatible uses.
A very short drive away, a stupendous example of such incompatibility—and its baleful effects—could be sensed, smelled, actually—because a rendering plant near the river was so extensively awful that its stink continued to keep much of Georgetown a slum until after the plant was closed.
When that happened, a fair number of poor black people who owned run-down Georgetown townhouses found themselves notably enriched. That put them in position to take a hand at building what has become DC's most sought-after neighborhood, and to profit handsomely from doing it.
The headline of the OP is misleading and tendentious. To frame the question as a, "Broader National Struggle Against Exclusionary Zoning," tacitly ignores every benefit zoning is meant to provide, and typically does provide.
That some zoning has been misused to be exclusionary does not properly imply that zoning to separate incompatible uses is illegitimate. The latter purpose is an appropriate property rights protection which can be achieved in no other way. Opponents of exclusionary zoning should do the work to define how to recognize it, case-by-case, and formulate policy to address it—just as was done in cases of exclusionary covenants.
To the extent that zoning is objected to on the basis of purely economic ideology, a much more complicated discussion of that ideology must occur. No economic axioms are available to prove anything about zoning, pro or con. Arguments founded on axiomatic principles need to be sifted by the methods of politics, with reference to specific cases, and consideration of their various effects.
All zoning is used to be exclusionary. That's its actual function and purpose.
So much ‘fuck you, got mine’ in this thread.
And no, you are not hiding anything with your tap dancing around what restrictive covenants and ‘character of the neighborhood’ mean.
So much, "fuck you, you can't keep it" in this thread, too.
Big excluded middle you got there.
No one is confiscating wealth, Brett.
"No one is confiscating wealth"
Existing homeowner's wealth will be reduced, probably by a lot.
You having some trouble with what confiscation means?
Are you going to argue that government zoning policy counts as a taking?
Zoning and takings was the issue in Murr v. Wisconsin (I only remember because it was highlighted here at the VC).
The New Zoning Ordinances Did Not Constitute a Taking
After considering the factors above, the Court determined that the regulation was a reasonable use of the government’s powers as zoning ordinances allowing for the orderly development of real estate have long been recognized as a legitimate government interest. The Court also found the process of bringing non-conforming lots into compliance gradually to be reasonable. Further, the fact that the Murr siblings could have avoided the merger of the lots by not bringing the two lots under common ownership weighed in favor of finding the zoning ordinances to be reasonable.
https://www.dkattorneys.com/publications/your-property-at-risk-u-s-supreme-court-decision-confirms-importance-of-understanding-zoning-during-real-estate-acquisitions/
Good recall! That’s interesting; I think I vaguely recall this test coming up. It’s a high bar, but zoning changes can be a taking if they’re basically arbitrary and capricious. Which seems right to me – local zoning politics can suuuck.
"You having some trouble with what confiscation means?"
Its a redistribution of wealth from homeowners to developers.
There are winners and losers to literally every policy, Bob. That's not confiscation or redistribution; it's a bedrock truth of policy analysis.
Sarcastro, the proposed changes are also fucking the poor over, just as before! As Somin's own links explain, the low end housing they want to build is till $400,000 single-bedroom apartments.
All they're doing is catering to developers that will be able to rake in the cash on the much more profitable multi-unit housing they'd build.
I'm not sure why you seem so eager to benefit corporate developers at the expense of the people that already live on that land. Are you so opposed to the upper middle class that you'd happily benefit the rich developers just to screw them over?
Housing issues don't stop at city/county borders and you have to take into account the entire NoVa (and actually the greater DMV [District/Maryland/Virginia]) region.
We have seven of the Top 10 richest counties in the US in the region.
1. Loudon County, VA
2. Falls Church County, VA
5. Fairfax County, VA
6. Howard County, MD
7. Arlington County, VA
Arlington isn't doing anything unusual or questionable than the rest of the region is doing.
Are you sure about that? You seem to have an unusual way to count to seven.
HA! Yeah, I meant (something something), we hold five of the top seven spots....
People move to suburbs for single family houses. These current attacks are just a modern form of "block busting", an attack on the property rights of existing home owners to benefit developers.
Local citizens have the right to preserve their current way of life by preserving existing zoning protections.
If people want to live like cattle, we have cities for that.
Local citizens have the right to preserve their current way of life
Some things never change.
I see, the race card is the only one you have.
It's more that your rationale broadly endorses every kind of bigotry and exclusion you may care to see.
We just happened to use it regarding race in the past, and this blog shows many have those same feelings now.
But heck, this could be about voting for Trump, y'all's favorite hypothetical victim du jour.
Trump! Trump!
Even more pathetic than your race card usage.
Haha - this is some great knee-jerk not reading.
Conservatives: government is too big and intrusive and there are too many regulations on private property use.
Libertarians: okay, so let's reduce zoning regulations.
Conservatives: ha, no, not those regulations.
As an Arlington resident, I see two legitimate counter-arguments. First, the existing infrastructure was built for single-family homes. If neighborhood density suddenly skyrocketed, it would cause massive problems with neighborhood traffic, school crowding, and more--problems that Arlington County has proven generally incompetent at addressing on a smaller scale.
The second problem is that it's very doubtful that changing zoning in Arlington would have much effect on housing prices, at least not enough to for middle income residents to afford, say, a townhouse built on a former single family lot. Arlington only has about 230K or so residents. Even if that went up by 30%, it's a drop in the metro area bucket of 7 million people. What you are liking to have is instead of single family homes costing 1,200,000, townhouses costing 900k. An improvement in affordability, perhaps, but not much of one. It would make more sense to change zoning laws to allow more high rise apartments and condos near metros and bus lines.
It would make more sense to change zoning laws to allow more high rise apartments and condos near metros and bus lines.
Indeed. If we really want to help out those who are moving up from a lower rung, what we need are 600 sq ft apartments in 500 or 1000 unit buildings near public transportation with effective crime control. No inexpensive parking available for residents or visitors alike.
That's where you start out from. The next step looks attractive from there, but that's the entry level place for people with an entry level job.
"As an Arlington resident"
Are there a lot of vacant lots in Arlington? Because to build townhomes you need to have a lot. If Arlington is built up, then a developer has to buy an expensive house first, tear it down and then build townhomes.
Its likely that the townhomes will be more expensive than the house that they are replacing.
You can buy a old house in my neighborhood on a 9000 square foot lot, for less than a million, tear it down, and easily replace it with 8 townhomes going for 900K each. Figure building costs of 1.5 million... seems like a deal, though of course land prices will go up to compensate. And if land prices go up enough, it kinda ruins the affordable housing point, and mostly gives a windfall to current homeowners and developers.
In brief answer: First, there’s no reason to think the infrastructure can’t handle substantially more people than it currently has. That’s especially true once you consider that 1) the County already has enormous amounts of money, and 2) the extra revenue generated by more people and economic activity. Second, it’s true that Arlington is small compared to the region as a whole. But missing middle could still enable many thousands of people to live here that would be barred otherwise. They may not be able to buy one of the new homes, but many could certainly rent one. In addition, a successful YIMBY initiative in this County could generate momentum for similar reforms elsewhere in the region – including the much larger Fairfax County. Finally, at the very least, you and I should be able to agree on the libertarian principle that there should be a strong presumption in favor of property owners having the right to use their own land as they see fit. Single-family home zoning is one of the most severe violations of that in current land-use policy in the US. Unless you can show that it prevents some kind truly enormous evil, it should be eliminated.
Arlington already has serious infrastructure problems.
Roads and parking are amongst the largest, but water/sewer is another serious one. Public schools already account for a third of the annual budget excluding capital expenses, at about $750 million per year, plus "one-time" capital expenditures of another $350 million a year (already planned for the next 16 years, so this is 'so far').
Doubling or tripling the population would have an insane impact on the roads and schools immediately. There's a very good reason that the DC exurbs are severely restricting the building of housing developments - they can't support them!
It’s more that your rationale broadly endorses every kind of bigotry
Dude, this race card stuff ain't working, because it's not convincing.
None of us are looking to suppress other people. In fact, we see the solution to the underclasses of all types to join in success. We don't see them stuck on the bottom in need forced transfer of assets to have a better life. Suggest how we can best help those starting out low to move up, and you'll get some good attention.
Unearned money is an opiate. Sometimes it's effective in reducing temporary pain, but debilitating addiction lies just around the bend.
"Dude, this race card stuff ain’t working, because it’s not convincing."
Its all they have. Its always 1950s Selma or Birmingham with them.
Weird I said it wasn't about race, but about bigotry generally and you went full 'you calling me racist, bro?'
'But my neighborhood character' is absolutely looking to suppress other people. That is in fact the argument's whole point.
Unearned money is an opiate.
Ah yes, the idea that the social safety net makes us soft and unvirtuous.
Bullshit.