Shaun, if affordability is immaterial, then why does the Advance continue to promote it as an excuse for ADUs? It's been proven that to build an ADU in your back yard is cost prohibitive for affordable housing. Localities like Fredericksburg promote ADUs to give the illusion they are dealing with the affordable housing issue when they are not. At least Stafford and Spotsylvania just refuse to address the issue rather than create a red herring to distract the public into believing they are doing something about it.
True to our multi-partisan approach, I'm not sure the Advance has a party line on anything other than improving the public discourse.
I would agree that ADUs have zero to minus impact on affordable housing per se. Even if one admits that ADUs are affordable, the number of homes we are talking about is akin to throwing a ping pong ball at a tank. The wider area needs tens of thousands of new housing and apartment starts just to catch up. The debate on ADUs is merely treating symptoms without addressing cures.
Having yielded all of that, it's simultaneously pretty hard to deny that affordable housing isn't driving the conversation over ADUs. It's just not a solution to the problem, is all -- and once folks see the wider problem for what it is, that should spark a different and more serious conversation entirely about density and housing starts (and how we got it wrong over the last 20 years).
ADUs do not cater to affordability issues as you state. It's been proven the cost of building an ADU results in a rent comparable to higher-end apartments. When city residents buy into a single family home neighborhood, they expect it to stay that way. That's what they bought. They didn't buy into a townhouse community. Passing an ADU ordinance would change all of the city's zoning laws. That would surely result in a legal challenge. Why the push for higher density in the city? Put it where it will fit--in the counties. They have tens of thousands of acres to build on and the board's of supervisors have already approved more than 12,000 lots for new homes near Fredericksburg.
In Charlottesville the experience is different. Of course, it is truly a college town in that regard.
One might be excused to believe that cities are ideal for higher density. Most localities are pushing for UDAs in their comprehensive plans to do precisely this -- build town centers with higher density (a good example is Goochland's Centerville project).
Whether or not ADUs actually help make housing more affordable is immaterial to the wider problem -- the availability of housing. The ADU debate is merely symptomatic... and most certainly will not fix the problem with regards to affordability.
For any of this spot rezoning to happen, we would have to change half the FXBG city council. But they are all running for office again as opponents of density and defenders of single family home zoning. If change so modest as ADUs is not possible, who can imagine that anything more dense than single family houses would stand a chance in this council? High rents keep out the poor and this is just what opponents of ADUs prefer.
Part of the catch is that the density debate seems to be occurring in places where there are already single-family homes. Or worse, in places that will fundamentally change the historic nature of Downtown Fredericksburg.
Fredericksburg has other options to build up rather than build out. So do Spotsylvania and Stafford, quite honestly. Yet the wider problem -- not enough housing and apartment starts -- is a problem that can be directly attributed to local and state planning over the last two decades. When 55+ communities and large homes on 10 acre lots become preferable to small families getting started out? That's a problem indeed... and one should with confidence categorically reject the idea that density equals poverty. Scott's Addition, Short Pump, Spotsylvania Courthouse all testify to the concept that we can build beautiful and affordable communities... but we have to build them.
As for high rents keeping out the poor and the gentrification of communities, that's a tough nut to crack. Just as the free market is the solution to housing, so too does the free market dictate pricing by location. All the more reason to convince policy makers that more is indeed more.
Alas, you have more faith in our politicians than I do.
Shaun, if affordability is immaterial, then why does the Advance continue to promote it as an excuse for ADUs? It's been proven that to build an ADU in your back yard is cost prohibitive for affordable housing. Localities like Fredericksburg promote ADUs to give the illusion they are dealing with the affordable housing issue when they are not. At least Stafford and Spotsylvania just refuse to address the issue rather than create a red herring to distract the public into believing they are doing something about it.
True to our multi-partisan approach, I'm not sure the Advance has a party line on anything other than improving the public discourse.
I would agree that ADUs have zero to minus impact on affordable housing per se. Even if one admits that ADUs are affordable, the number of homes we are talking about is akin to throwing a ping pong ball at a tank. The wider area needs tens of thousands of new housing and apartment starts just to catch up. The debate on ADUs is merely treating symptoms without addressing cures.
Having yielded all of that, it's simultaneously pretty hard to deny that affordable housing isn't driving the conversation over ADUs. It's just not a solution to the problem, is all -- and once folks see the wider problem for what it is, that should spark a different and more serious conversation entirely about density and housing starts (and how we got it wrong over the last 20 years).
ADUs do not cater to affordability issues as you state. It's been proven the cost of building an ADU results in a rent comparable to higher-end apartments. When city residents buy into a single family home neighborhood, they expect it to stay that way. That's what they bought. They didn't buy into a townhouse community. Passing an ADU ordinance would change all of the city's zoning laws. That would surely result in a legal challenge. Why the push for higher density in the city? Put it where it will fit--in the counties. They have tens of thousands of acres to build on and the board's of supervisors have already approved more than 12,000 lots for new homes near Fredericksburg.
In Charlottesville the experience is different. Of course, it is truly a college town in that regard.
One might be excused to believe that cities are ideal for higher density. Most localities are pushing for UDAs in their comprehensive plans to do precisely this -- build town centers with higher density (a good example is Goochland's Centerville project).
Whether or not ADUs actually help make housing more affordable is immaterial to the wider problem -- the availability of housing. The ADU debate is merely symptomatic... and most certainly will not fix the problem with regards to affordability.
w/r
For any of this spot rezoning to happen, we would have to change half the FXBG city council. But they are all running for office again as opponents of density and defenders of single family home zoning. If change so modest as ADUs is not possible, who can imagine that anything more dense than single family houses would stand a chance in this council? High rents keep out the poor and this is just what opponents of ADUs prefer.
Part of the catch is that the density debate seems to be occurring in places where there are already single-family homes. Or worse, in places that will fundamentally change the historic nature of Downtown Fredericksburg.
Fredericksburg has other options to build up rather than build out. So do Spotsylvania and Stafford, quite honestly. Yet the wider problem -- not enough housing and apartment starts -- is a problem that can be directly attributed to local and state planning over the last two decades. When 55+ communities and large homes on 10 acre lots become preferable to small families getting started out? That's a problem indeed... and one should with confidence categorically reject the idea that density equals poverty. Scott's Addition, Short Pump, Spotsylvania Courthouse all testify to the concept that we can build beautiful and affordable communities... but we have to build them.
As for high rents keeping out the poor and the gentrification of communities, that's a tough nut to crack. Just as the free market is the solution to housing, so too does the free market dictate pricing by location. All the more reason to convince policy makers that more is indeed more.
w/r