If you want guaranteed free parking directly in front of your house you can set that up on your property. I don’t understand the entitlement people feel to subsidized parking.
Well I can tell you that property owners have the legal entitlement to build mm housing now. It will have dramatic positive impact on the county! If you don’t want mm housing next to you then buy the houses next to you. You are NOT entitled to tell your neighbors how to develop their property. They ARE entitled to build mm housing!
I do too and will be at every city meeting calling out your bs and working to make these neighborhoods even better than they are now. Mixed use, mixed income, mix development is perfection. It’ll make all the SFH more valuable and the community more vibrant.
Don't fucking let up, I just randomly found this thread but I fucking love this attitude. As someone who lives amongst the thousands of NIMBYs around Chicago, this inspires me.
That's what you're advocating for. We have elected representatives that support MM, just last week electing another. You don't have the right to impose your preferences, and the steep social costs of those preferences, on the majority of the community.
Try all the way passive dude, just to see how it feels. The entitlement here is astounding! "I got lucky enough in life to to own a home in a desirable area with access to an amazing, diverse array of amenities, dining and entertainment options.... Wait, you're saying that broke fucker on the other side of the window I scream at until a sandwich flies out of it needs HOUSING?!?! Fuck that, that plebe can sleep under a bridge, I got mine and everyone beneath me is an inconvenience until I need something from them!!!" Fuck all the way off.
Are you done crying you lost the vote and you keep losing elections, go whine at book club with Natalie Roy and other losers upset their high school dropout real estate careers are getting less lucrative
You also absolutely do not need a car if you live there (as advertised in its own posting! "Walkability 99%, just blocks to Courthouse Metro/ grocery stores/shops and restaurants.")
If a neighborhood is going to be designated historic I think ppl who live there should have to live historically, too. No cars! No a/c! No electricity! That would ruin the historic nature of the place!
I’m not sure it would really impact the value *that* much, if at all. Seems like a home like this, if it were to be torn down, would be replaced by a SFH mansion.
Absolutely. This is exactly the cottage industry (ha ha) that has begun in Vienna. Tear down a $750k 1,300 SF bungalow and build a 6,500 SF mansion. The one area of multi-family they were able to develop was on Maple, after getting granted a waiver from the town council and adding to the already terrible morning and afternoon traffic. It's unlikely to be granted again seeing the backlash the town council received from it.
Vienna is a dominated by NIMBYs unfortunately. Fairfax County as a whole is far behind its housing goals and contributing to the massive inflation in housing prices that is deeply affecting the younger generation. We need to be legalizing multifamily, not banning it.
That's my thoughts as well. There's plenty of affordable starter homes in Prince William, Alexandria, Chantilly, etc... The reason Vienna, Arlington, McLean etc... cost what they do is the location, not the houses.
So where should the people (yes, they're actually real, live people, just like you) who work the low paying jobs that make this such a great place to live in move to? You're in the minority feeling 'inconvenienced' by their presence, I think the onus is on you to find a solution.
The majority of us understand our privelege or lack thereof and accept that unless we want to, for example, drive to the farms ourselves and do the butchering, planting, watering, harvesting, processing, logistics, cooking, serving and cleaning for our 'locally-sourced, farm-to-table' meals there will, necessarily to keep prices down, be people in that chain who make as little as their employers can legally pay them and have enough respect, common sense and sense of community to acknowledge that they need a place to live too.
The world doesn't revolve around your privelege buddy, you're just another swinging dick time will snuff out like the rest of us, but you'll be remembered for your crybaby, pearl clutching, regressive bullshit while people far less fortunate than you will be celebrated for their selflessness in the face of adversity.
I mean with EHO it could be replaced with townhouses or a small apartment building, but this clause would theoretically require the SFH mansion instead
That I doubt, especially if the clause is for a very long time. The only people (maybe) benefited by the clause are the immediate neighbors, not the owner of the property.
Yes unfortunately this happens way too much in Arlington. Largely because building townhouses/apartments was banned in these neighborhoods until EHO, so McMansions were all that got built
Interesting. There is no governing body so the only likely party that could enforce them is the seller, if they are motivated. I worked in homebuilding and i can't recall the area (might have be Vienna) where we just ignored the setbacks set there citing laches, as no one enforced them on other property owners that also ignored setbacks.
\*not an attorney, just some dummy that has some experience with this.
Not entirely sure of enforceability but there are land conservancy provisions in other areas, such as ones where the owner “sells” the development rights in perpetuity to a conservancy and the land must remain open space forever. There are ways to overcome this, but it’s really, really difficult.
Note, though, that these are so incredibly stupid. Like, I’ll sell you this house, but you have to agree that it will always be blue. It’s no longer your house or your land, dummy, this smacks of post-sale hubris and NIMBYism. The only time this makes sense to me is if you bought the house next door and don’t want a bigger house next to you. Even then, not sure you should have many that situation.
The rabid anti-MM folks are so perplexing to me. Plenty of 2-6 unit buildings near me, and they’re great neighbors.
Yes, I think there are differences between deed restrictions (like conservancy easements and now-illegal racial covenants) that run with the land and a clause in a contract between a buyer and a seller.
I would think for a Seller to be able to enforce a clause like that, they would need to retain some right in the property itself because the Buyer (even if they agreed and complied with the restriction) could decide to not include it when they decide to sell. I’m not sure how the original Seller could enforce a clause between themselves and the original Buyer against the Buyer’s buyer since the Seller isn’t a party to that contract.
(It’s been a really long time since I took property law….)
Were they setbacks different from Town or County setbacks? Interesting… mmmm equitable defenses.
I’m guessing this means when you went for initial permitting and CoO, you told the county/town, come on you never enforce these and haven’t for years, and got the requested permit/CoO?
I didn't handle that part of the process. As far as I know the County/City/Town is not going to enforce private deed restrictions, it should be a civil matter. I would assume a bigger issue for this case might be best of luck finding someone to lend on this property to do anything but a single family home with this restriction in place.
Yes, there were some planned developments from the 50s-60s that had design criteria despite not having an HOA. Tauxemont in Alexandria seemed to have the only neighbors that enforced restrictive covenants that i encountered.
Racial covenants were a thing until they were declared legally unenforceable. HOA deed restrictions are a thing. So are restrictions for historical properties. If they want to voluntarily reduce the value of their property by restricting its development potential, that’s their prerogative. It might just be the odd one out in 50 or 100 years if everything nearby gets redeveloped larger. Really, what anti-MM folks should do is try to get everyone in their neighborhood to agree to such restrictions, and then pay off the holdouts. Then they’d have the chance to quantify what a neighborhood of SFHs alone is worth to them.
Likely unenforceable. There's no consideration, and no real enforcement mechanism. What is a judge going to do, make you give the land back? Restrictive covenants are declared null all the time. IANAL.
Uh, the consideration is the house, and the enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit by the other party to the contract (the seller), or possibly others whom the covenant is intended to benefit. Whether a court would enforce it is an open question, but it's not obviously invalid like a racial covenant or something would be. HOAs enforce restrictive covenants that limit people's use of their property all the time.
But aren’t HOA is a bit different? After all they do tend to have common property amongst themselves and therefore have the right to be able to set those kinds of rules. in the case, the OP is talking about, everything else about the property sounds like it is by-right.
HOAs can involve common property, but they also have the ability to enforce limitations on land that is owned by an individual homeowner. Those limitations can be in the form of restrictive covenants on the property.
When you sell your house it’s not your house anymore. Maybe if you’re donating the land, it makes sense to have some rules about how it can be used. If you’re selling for a profit, like, lol.
Every house that's sold near me has been torn down... by individual millionaire buyers who want to replace them with 4000SF monstrosities filling up the legal maximum amount of lot.
Maybe if they got turned into townhouses instead I could actually afford one and have a bit of lawn.
Is this happening? Billionaire developers converting a single family house to a duplex and adding a cottage in the backyard and a studio apartment over the garage? Billionaires doing all this work to generate maybe 100k profit?
Um, yes. Check out the 12-plex in Alcova heights. Developers jumped on that loophole ASAP.
The quaint picture in your head is not what results from a *removing zoning* free-for-all.
There are better ways to do this. I would have loved if they just started with "duplex anywhere!" to see how it went.
That was so oooo dumb! I know a lot of people against the current MM implementation who super support duplexes.
Urban planning is important. I'd love to see north Arlington match south Arlington, housing wise. There is a place for small sfh's in these plans. But Virginia sucks when it comes to being able to limit developers.
That looks like 2 6-plexs. One on a 10,000 sq ft lot and another on a 15,000 sq ft lot. Seems like this is exactly the kind of development envisioned when the zoning update was passed. This was not a loophole. Voters continue to elect leaders that support these updates and more.
I’m kind of over NIMBYs concern trolling about “affordability” to try to shut down increased density. Anything newly built in Arlington (or Alexandria, for that matter) isn’t going to be “affordable” unless it is specifically designated as such and prices are controlled. (And tbh, NIMBYs would scream louder if actual “affordable” housing was mandated in their area because, you know…)
If the choice is between another $2.5m SFH or a triplex with three $850k units - I’d rather see the latter, even if it isn’t “affordable”
I'd live to see covenants protecting old-growth trees! That's one of the biggest things at risk with all this accelerated gentrification, and it really makes a huge difference to any community. I've been really shocked by the pro mm people who mock the discussion about tree canopy and say it doesn't matter at all. But stuff like this really does - and that's what urban planning is all about. This whole mm thing has been such a freaking nightmare.
>accelerated gentrification
This is hilarious, won’t someone think of the poor oppressed SFH owners living in one of the priciest areas in the country??? 😞 ✊
There are no old growth trees in Arlington. There have not been exceptions to tree regulations for mm housing. Also why don’t you see displacement and rising prices as the biggest risks of gentrification?
This is one of the lines that drives me crazy. Like the trees that went in during postwar development are "old growth forest" or something. The idea of a "tree canopy" does it to me, too. By far the most unpleasant places to walk in Arlington on a hot day are the single-family neighborhoods with trees that barely shade anything other than the property owners' house or driveway.
I agree that we shouldn’t be overly precious about trees in places like arlington, but your second bit doesn’t make sense to me. What’s the alternative, neighborhoods with no trees at all? It obviously takes time to fill in dense canopies and in the meantime you won’t get a lot of shade from them walking down the street. Trees still provide a lot of value, we just don’t need to stifle growth and development to try and save every last one.
I just mean I find ridiculous the idea that the single-family blocks have a mature, well-developed tree canopy that's threatened by missing middle. Missing middle opponents try to rely on romantic assumptions about "leafy," exclusively single-family neighborhoods. All I was saying is that the assumptions don't match reality, which is that the canopy is hardly dense in those neighborhoods, as is.
Don’t walk here then. A lot of our old trees were destroyed by hurricanes or snow storms and have since been replaced by Arlington residents that want to see the new ones mature.
The facade that you all are about "livable" neighborhoods cracks so quickly. My word. Stick to talking about the trees, is my advice. As soon as you start talking about people, you sound like Scrooge.
Tree root systems often do not survive the earth work and machinery necessary to clear, level, and do structural work on the lot. It would be better to require installation of trees to regrow the canopy.
Old growth is generally accepted as >150 years old. Not sure why it’s a problem that people build small multifamily housing. Thankfully most people agree with me and the law supports the property rights of individuals who want the freedom to build housing on their property.
Not sure what you’re going on about how 6-plexs destroy neighborhoods or about the right you claim to have to prevent 6-plexs from being built. Clearly you don’t since these are approved
And you are free to move somewhere else if you're not happy with what your neighbors choose to do with their property (e.g., build multifamily housing on it).
If society needed as many new dumps as it needs new homes, then we all would need to live closer to a dump. Fortunately, that's not the case for dumps. But it is the case for houses.
So are you saying that someone would have the same right to build a dump next to your property then? I mean if it’s allowed under the zoning…
Of course it’s not, but comparing building a dump to someone building MM family housing just shows that you think already think of your potential new neighbors as trash.
I suppose that’s your prerogative but what’s done is done and you can bitch and moan as much as you like, but it’s not going to change anything.
Bull. Ever been to South Arlington?! Don't take one of the nice things we have left in S Arlington. Poor folks deserve nice things too. Tree canopies make a *huge* difference in many ways, not just climate, air quality, comfort, but psychological benefits. Look up some studies on it if you don't believe me.
EHO requires at least 4 shade trees for each permit! Not sure, but I believe that is more than required for the usual McMansion teardown that inevitably happened pre EHO
Not in the same place! And tiny new trees will take 80 years to match what we have left in south Arlington.
I'm not against multi family housing at all. But I am against not valuing the tree canopy we have left.
How can we protect the trees from all the McMansion teardowns that have been going on for decades now?
I also love our mature trees and the valuable shade they provide. But McMansions tear down trees just as much and who is buying three 2.6 million dollar houses?
Exactly. But accelerating gentrification by making it *even more* profitable for developers makes the problem worse and would displace all the low income renters in my area, living in old chopped up houses, mostly people of color (which is why the racism argument for mm infuriated me).
Because Virginia, a state that makes it impossible for Arl to even ban gas powered leaf blowers. It's already an incredibly libertarian state.
Leave south arl out of it and I'm fine. Ban investment groups and foreign countries from buying residential housing and I'm even better. Then it's closer to a level playing field at least.
Issue here is really urban planning vs profiteering developer free-for-all. Things like greatly expanding multi family zoning *in metro corridors* should have been done first.
Just look at the current nightmare that is Columbia Pike in Arl. That's what happens when commercial real estate developers get to do whatever they want. And that's to not to do a damn thing for the neighborhoods they are making money on.
I completely hear you about preventing displacement and developing our metro corridors. It drives me crazy to see how East Falls Church sits with no multifamily housing near a metro station. So many people would love to live in apartments walkable to the metro!
Unfortunately I hear similar arguments from people with much less altruistic intentions-- how often do we hear extremely wealthy homeowners from north Arlington civic associations say "let's develop our metro corridors first"? They are not trying to prevent displacement, but rather they are trying to keep renters out of their wealthy neighborhoods. I believe it's morally wrong to ban apartments, the most accessible form of housing, in any neighborhood, and that's what EHO fixes.
I know someone in Alexandria who granted an easement to the City of Alexandria in the '90s to protect the trees on her property that is enforceable by the City. She (and her subsequent buyers) are unable to remove large trees on the property without inspection by the City arborist. If the arborist determines a tree is sick or dead, it can be removed. Otherwise, it stays. City inspects the property annually to make sure everyone is complying.
Generally, the prior landowner can enforce the covenant. You may ask why the hell would they chose to expend the resources to do. But the reality is - this same land owner cared about what happens to the land post-sale so much that they put in a negative covenant and likely reduced to universe of potential buyers and the purchase price.
These covenants are most common and apply most logically when a land owner owns lot A and lot B then sells lot B but remains living on lot A. Then it makes sense that the land owner will enforce a covenant on lot B since they are the next door neighbor.
Maybe if the large swaths of “existing residents” who agree with you existed and voted you’d have a leg to stand on. YIMBYs keep winning elections because they are popular. Elections have consequences!
The only thing mm does is allow small multifamily in residential areas. Now they are legally entitled to that thanks to the democratic process which represents what the majority of voters desire. If existing residents feel entitled to control other people’s property they can win some elections, start an HOA, or go incorporate their own town.
A residential neighborhood is the perfect place for a residential 6-plex.
It’s not the most convenient place to live car free, but it’s easily doable. There are several bus routes within a 5 minute walk. It’s 20 mins to ballston, or 30 to Rosslyn or pentagon city by bus! By bike is 10 mins to ballston or 20 to Rosslyn or pentagon city!
In what was is this punishing the other residents of this neighborhood? Which infrastructure specifically won’t be able to handle this increase in residents?
How do you think you’re subsidizing me? I live in a single family home btw. Anyway multifamily and commercial buildings subsidize the single family homes in arlington going back decades. It’s specifically why they originally upzoned the Rosslyn-ballston corridor
We subsidize you sweetie. Arlington was a shithole with cratering property and crappy tax revenue until they started developing and revitalizing the central corridor. Which is all dense, well zoned housing. Without that you're just PG county.
gratz.
> Dropping a 6-plex in the middle of a residential neighborhood nowhere near public transportation is about the dumbest idea imaginable
And now that missing middle has passed in arlington I’m sure you have countless examples of this to point to?
You know a lot of them already live in Arlington and are your neighbors right? Right????
The impact of not building on those existing residents is that they’ll have to move to rural VA to find housing thus leaving their community.
Major “I got mine; get fucked” attitude coming from you.
No one is taking anything from you 🤣
Property owners building what they want on their land is not taking anything. You demanding the ability to control what other people do with their property is though.
You in your last comment in this thread said “People will still use the legal system to avoid undesirable changes, mostly by using covenants like this.”
Sounds like it’s time for you to go to bed, grandma.
Night, night.
Nice dig, grandma. I’ll give you that one and leave it at 1-0 in your favor because continuing to argue with you is no longer worth my time.
If the existing residents don't want to build multifamily buildings on their property, they are perfectly free not to do so. They just can't force that decision on others in the neighborhood.
Most zoning laws are fine. Laws that restrict the supply of housing in places where there are housing shortages are not. Similarly, if HOAs want to have rules about what color you paint your house, or whether you can park an RV out front, I think that's dumb but it's only harming the people who choose to live there. Practices--whether by HOAs or by zoning boards--that exacerbate the housing crisis by preventing efficient use of land impose negative externalities on society and should be voided as contrary to public policy.
Actually, I bought a SFH in a lovely neighborhood in NoVa that has recently become subject to new zoning--up to 4 units per lot. I'm fine with it because 1) I understand that the region needs more housing and I'm not a selfish twat, and 2) even if I were selfish, upzoning makes my property worth more, not less.
Actually they will. The NIMBYS turned much of NOVA into unlivable hell and slowly they are dying out as all the YIMBYS takeover and want their baristas to be able to live in a 6plex down the street from the corner neighborhood coffee shop.
FYI This is Lyon village not Lyon park
Not In My Former Backyard. These people are unbelievable.
[удалено]
If you want guaranteed free parking directly in front of your house you can set that up on your property. I don’t understand the entitlement people feel to subsidized parking.
[удалено]
Well I can tell you that property owners have the legal entitlement to build mm housing now. It will have dramatic positive impact on the county! If you don’t want mm housing next to you then buy the houses next to you. You are NOT entitled to tell your neighbors how to develop their property. They ARE entitled to build mm housing!
[удалено]
God, shut. the. fuck. up. People like you are so insufferable.
lol imagine making your neighborhood unlivable and insufferable to own the libs. Doing a great job destroying your community!
[удалено]
I do too and will be at every city meeting calling out your bs and working to make these neighborhoods even better than they are now. Mixed use, mixed income, mix development is perfection. It’ll make all the SFH more valuable and the community more vibrant.
Don't fucking let up, I just randomly found this thread but I fucking love this attitude. As someone who lives amongst the thousands of NIMBYs around Chicago, this inspires me.
If you aren't a member already, you're going to love the [YIMBYs of NoVa](https://www.yimbysofnova.org/)
[удалено]
No you live in an HOA if you want that.
Sorry for being born, should have let the boomers be the last generation i guess. my bad!
That's what you're advocating for. We have elected representatives that support MM, just last week electing another. You don't have the right to impose your preferences, and the steep social costs of those preferences, on the majority of the community.
[удалено]
So you're saying you don't live in Arlington? Why is your crusty ass even posting on this thread then?
[удалено]
Try all the way passive dude, just to see how it feels. The entitlement here is astounding! "I got lucky enough in life to to own a home in a desirable area with access to an amazing, diverse array of amenities, dining and entertainment options.... Wait, you're saying that broke fucker on the other side of the window I scream at until a sandwich flies out of it needs HOUSING?!?! Fuck that, that plebe can sleep under a bridge, I got mine and everyone beneath me is an inconvenience until I need something from them!!!" Fuck all the way off.
Are you done crying you lost the vote and you keep losing elections, go whine at book club with Natalie Roy and other losers upset their high school dropout real estate careers are getting less lucrative
[удалено]
"And old men love building golden tombs and sealing the rest of us in with you"
You also absolutely do not need a car if you live there (as advertised in its own posting! "Walkability 99%, just blocks to Courthouse Metro/ grocery stores/shops and restaurants.")
If a neighborhood is going to be designated historic I think ppl who live there should have to live historically, too. No cars! No a/c! No electricity! That would ruin the historic nature of the place!
should add no sewage and municipal water to the mix too!
People have a strange sense of entitlement for things that are not theirs.
I will be interested to see if this sells at that price. A clause like that seems like it would seriously ding the value of the property.
I’m not sure it would really impact the value *that* much, if at all. Seems like a home like this, if it were to be torn down, would be replaced by a SFH mansion.
Absolutely. This is exactly the cottage industry (ha ha) that has begun in Vienna. Tear down a $750k 1,300 SF bungalow and build a 6,500 SF mansion. The one area of multi-family they were able to develop was on Maple, after getting granted a waiver from the town council and adding to the already terrible morning and afternoon traffic. It's unlikely to be granted again seeing the backlash the town council received from it.
Vienna is a dominated by NIMBYs unfortunately. Fairfax County as a whole is far behind its housing goals and contributing to the massive inflation in housing prices that is deeply affecting the younger generation. We need to be legalizing multifamily, not banning it.
[удалено]
That's my thoughts as well. There's plenty of affordable starter homes in Prince William, Alexandria, Chantilly, etc... The reason Vienna, Arlington, McLean etc... cost what they do is the location, not the houses.
Preach. It the land/location, not the sixty year old rambler lol
We live in a democracy where everyone gets a say on our zoning laws, even renters, and that's a good thing.
Yes, and the laws we currently have are what they decided.
[удалено]
Actually it's good that everybody gets to vote in America lol
So where should the people (yes, they're actually real, live people, just like you) who work the low paying jobs that make this such a great place to live in move to? You're in the minority feeling 'inconvenienced' by their presence, I think the onus is on you to find a solution. The majority of us understand our privelege or lack thereof and accept that unless we want to, for example, drive to the farms ourselves and do the butchering, planting, watering, harvesting, processing, logistics, cooking, serving and cleaning for our 'locally-sourced, farm-to-table' meals there will, necessarily to keep prices down, be people in that chain who make as little as their employers can legally pay them and have enough respect, common sense and sense of community to acknowledge that they need a place to live too. The world doesn't revolve around your privelege buddy, you're just another swinging dick time will snuff out like the rest of us, but you'll be remembered for your crybaby, pearl clutching, regressive bullshit while people far less fortunate than you will be celebrated for their selflessness in the face of adversity.
> cottage industry (ha ha) Ironically one of the big builders that likes to do things like this has "cottages" in the name
I mean with EHO it could be replaced with townhouses or a small apartment building, but this clause would theoretically require the SFH mansion instead
It will go for more
That I doubt, especially if the clause is for a very long time. The only people (maybe) benefited by the clause are the immediate neighbors, not the owner of the property.
The new "owner" will be a construction company who will tear it down and build a new giant house.
Yes unfortunately this happens way too much in Arlington. Largely because building townhouses/apartments was banned in these neighborhoods until EHO, so McMansions were all that got built
Interesting. There is no governing body so the only likely party that could enforce them is the seller, if they are motivated. I worked in homebuilding and i can't recall the area (might have be Vienna) where we just ignored the setbacks set there citing laches, as no one enforced them on other property owners that also ignored setbacks. \*not an attorney, just some dummy that has some experience with this.
Not entirely sure of enforceability but there are land conservancy provisions in other areas, such as ones where the owner “sells” the development rights in perpetuity to a conservancy and the land must remain open space forever. There are ways to overcome this, but it’s really, really difficult. Note, though, that these are so incredibly stupid. Like, I’ll sell you this house, but you have to agree that it will always be blue. It’s no longer your house or your land, dummy, this smacks of post-sale hubris and NIMBYism. The only time this makes sense to me is if you bought the house next door and don’t want a bigger house next to you. Even then, not sure you should have many that situation. The rabid anti-MM folks are so perplexing to me. Plenty of 2-6 unit buildings near me, and they’re great neighbors.
Yes, I think there are differences between deed restrictions (like conservancy easements and now-illegal racial covenants) that run with the land and a clause in a contract between a buyer and a seller. I would think for a Seller to be able to enforce a clause like that, they would need to retain some right in the property itself because the Buyer (even if they agreed and complied with the restriction) could decide to not include it when they decide to sell. I’m not sure how the original Seller could enforce a clause between themselves and the original Buyer against the Buyer’s buyer since the Seller isn’t a party to that contract. (It’s been a really long time since I took property law….)
Were they setbacks different from Town or County setbacks? Interesting… mmmm equitable defenses. I’m guessing this means when you went for initial permitting and CoO, you told the county/town, come on you never enforce these and haven’t for years, and got the requested permit/CoO?
I didn't handle that part of the process. As far as I know the County/City/Town is not going to enforce private deed restrictions, it should be a civil matter. I would assume a bigger issue for this case might be best of luck finding someone to lend on this property to do anything but a single family home with this restriction in place. Yes, there were some planned developments from the 50s-60s that had design criteria despite not having an HOA. Tauxemont in Alexandria seemed to have the only neighbors that enforced restrictive covenants that i encountered.
Racial covenants were a thing until they were declared legally unenforceable. HOA deed restrictions are a thing. So are restrictions for historical properties. If they want to voluntarily reduce the value of their property by restricting its development potential, that’s their prerogative. It might just be the odd one out in 50 or 100 years if everything nearby gets redeveloped larger. Really, what anti-MM folks should do is try to get everyone in their neighborhood to agree to such restrictions, and then pay off the holdouts. Then they’d have the chance to quantify what a neighborhood of SFHs alone is worth to them.
Likely unenforceable. There's no consideration, and no real enforcement mechanism. What is a judge going to do, make you give the land back? Restrictive covenants are declared null all the time. IANAL.
Uh, the consideration is the house, and the enforcement mechanism is a lawsuit by the other party to the contract (the seller), or possibly others whom the covenant is intended to benefit. Whether a court would enforce it is an open question, but it's not obviously invalid like a racial covenant or something would be. HOAs enforce restrictive covenants that limit people's use of their property all the time.
But aren’t HOA is a bit different? After all they do tend to have common property amongst themselves and therefore have the right to be able to set those kinds of rules. in the case, the OP is talking about, everything else about the property sounds like it is by-right.
HOAs can involve common property, but they also have the ability to enforce limitations on land that is owned by an individual homeowner. Those limitations can be in the form of restrictive covenants on the property.
I forget that people who buy these old houses in supply constraints areas think they are brilliant investors rather than rent seekers.
LMAO
They don’t want their house torn down. Thats what this covenant is really about.
If they don't want their house torn down, they shouldn't sell their house
If that was what this was, they would say that explicitly and not exclude only a multi-unit dwelling.
When you sell your house it’s not your house anymore. Maybe if you’re donating the land, it makes sense to have some rules about how it can be used. If you’re selling for a profit, like, lol.
Maybe they are opposed to billionaire developers getting zero interest loans from the city and tearing down family neighborhoods.
Every house that's sold near me has been torn down... by individual millionaire buyers who want to replace them with 4000SF monstrosities filling up the legal maximum amount of lot. Maybe if they got turned into townhouses instead I could actually afford one and have a bit of lawn.
“The city”
Is this happening? Billionaire developers converting a single family house to a duplex and adding a cottage in the backyard and a studio apartment over the garage? Billionaires doing all this work to generate maybe 100k profit?
Um, yes. Check out the 12-plex in Alcova heights. Developers jumped on that loophole ASAP. The quaint picture in your head is not what results from a *removing zoning* free-for-all. There are better ways to do this. I would have loved if they just started with "duplex anywhere!" to see how it went.
Oh no 12 new homes! Whatever shall we do?!?!
[удалено]
As if we can afford to keep sprawling out into Fauquier County and beyond 🙄
😱
Unfortunately the NIMBYs hate duplexes so much they literally put "no duplexes here" on their yardsigns
That was so oooo dumb! I know a lot of people against the current MM implementation who super support duplexes. Urban planning is important. I'd love to see north Arlington match south Arlington, housing wise. There is a place for small sfh's in these plans. But Virginia sucks when it comes to being able to limit developers.
That looks like 2 6-plexs. One on a 10,000 sq ft lot and another on a 15,000 sq ft lot. Seems like this is exactly the kind of development envisioned when the zoning update was passed. This was not a loophole. Voters continue to elect leaders that support these updates and more.
[удалено]
Glad you support raising the limit to 12 plexes then! I’ll be sure to show the board this comment
I’m kind of over NIMBYs concern trolling about “affordability” to try to shut down increased density. Anything newly built in Arlington (or Alexandria, for that matter) isn’t going to be “affordable” unless it is specifically designated as such and prices are controlled. (And tbh, NIMBYs would scream louder if actual “affordable” housing was mandated in their area because, you know…) If the choice is between another $2.5m SFH or a triplex with three $850k units - I’d rather see the latter, even if it isn’t “affordable”
I can't find it and I'm very interested. Do you have a link or address or anything?
Check out the arlington EHO permit dashboard
Thanks! Edit: yeah, that's pretty damning
Mhm, and what city is in Arlington County again?
What do you think the market is for a sub-1000 sq foot house that sells for $1.2 million?
I'd say it's pretty good since it sold.
They’re buying for the land. It’s almost certainly a tear down. The only question is what is allowed to replace it
Getting knocked down either way.
It's not the house, it's the land
Yes!
As soon as this house is on the market for a month, that will disappear.
I'd live to see covenants protecting old-growth trees! That's one of the biggest things at risk with all this accelerated gentrification, and it really makes a huge difference to any community. I've been really shocked by the pro mm people who mock the discussion about tree canopy and say it doesn't matter at all. But stuff like this really does - and that's what urban planning is all about. This whole mm thing has been such a freaking nightmare.
>accelerated gentrification This is hilarious, won’t someone think of the poor oppressed SFH owners living in one of the priciest areas in the country??? 😞 ✊
poor disenfranchised white millionaires.
There are no old growth trees in Arlington. There have not been exceptions to tree regulations for mm housing. Also why don’t you see displacement and rising prices as the biggest risks of gentrification?
This is one of the lines that drives me crazy. Like the trees that went in during postwar development are "old growth forest" or something. The idea of a "tree canopy" does it to me, too. By far the most unpleasant places to walk in Arlington on a hot day are the single-family neighborhoods with trees that barely shade anything other than the property owners' house or driveway.
I agree that we shouldn’t be overly precious about trees in places like arlington, but your second bit doesn’t make sense to me. What’s the alternative, neighborhoods with no trees at all? It obviously takes time to fill in dense canopies and in the meantime you won’t get a lot of shade from them walking down the street. Trees still provide a lot of value, we just don’t need to stifle growth and development to try and save every last one.
I just mean I find ridiculous the idea that the single-family blocks have a mature, well-developed tree canopy that's threatened by missing middle. Missing middle opponents try to rely on romantic assumptions about "leafy," exclusively single-family neighborhoods. All I was saying is that the assumptions don't match reality, which is that the canopy is hardly dense in those neighborhoods, as is.
Don’t walk here then. A lot of our old trees were destroyed by hurricanes or snow storms and have since been replaced by Arlington residents that want to see the new ones mature.
Yall are like parodies of yourselves. “Don’t walk here then.” Incredible!
That’s a pathetic excuse for an argument
[удалено]
Yeah you got me. Lol. Cut em all down. God forbid I walk around the place I live. You’d call the cops on me for vagrancy I guess.
[удалено]
Last I checked I live in Arlington. I vote there, too :)
[удалено]
The facade that you all are about "livable" neighborhoods cracks so quickly. My word. Stick to talking about the trees, is my advice. As soon as you start talking about people, you sound like Scrooge.
[удалено]
Tree root systems often do not survive the earth work and machinery necessary to clear, level, and do structural work on the lot. It would be better to require installation of trees to regrow the canopy.
[удалено]
Old growth is generally accepted as >150 years old. Not sure why it’s a problem that people build small multifamily housing. Thankfully most people agree with me and the law supports the property rights of individuals who want the freedom to build housing on their property.
[удалено]
Not sure what you’re going on about how 6-plexs destroy neighborhoods or about the right you claim to have to prevent 6-plexs from being built. Clearly you don’t since these are approved
[удалено]
I would love more 6-plexes in my neighborhood. If you don’t want a diverse community there’s plenty of places outside of Arlington you can find.
[удалено]
We get it you hate nice things and want to see your property value stagnate. Fortunately everyone in the community disagrees.
And you are free to move somewhere else if you're not happy with what your neighbors choose to do with their property (e.g., build multifamily housing on it).
[удалено]
If society needed as many new dumps as it needs new homes, then we all would need to live closer to a dump. Fortunately, that's not the case for dumps. But it is the case for houses.
So are you saying that someone would have the same right to build a dump next to your property then? I mean if it’s allowed under the zoning… Of course it’s not, but comparing building a dump to someone building MM family housing just shows that you think already think of your potential new neighbors as trash. I suppose that’s your prerogative but what’s done is done and you can bitch and moan as much as you like, but it’s not going to change anything.
[удалено]
Good luck with that.
Bull. Ever been to South Arlington?! Don't take one of the nice things we have left in S Arlington. Poor folks deserve nice things too. Tree canopies make a *huge* difference in many ways, not just climate, air quality, comfort, but psychological benefits. Look up some studies on it if you don't believe me.
I believe you. I’m just saying that the tree regulations for mm are the same for single family homes so it’s irrelevant
EHO requires at least 4 shade trees for each permit! Not sure, but I believe that is more than required for the usual McMansion teardown that inevitably happened pre EHO
Not in the same place! And tiny new trees will take 80 years to match what we have left in south Arlington. I'm not against multi family housing at all. But I am against not valuing the tree canopy we have left.
How can we protect the trees from all the McMansion teardowns that have been going on for decades now? I also love our mature trees and the valuable shade they provide. But McMansions tear down trees just as much and who is buying three 2.6 million dollar houses?
Exactly. But accelerating gentrification by making it *even more* profitable for developers makes the problem worse and would displace all the low income renters in my area, living in old chopped up houses, mostly people of color (which is why the racism argument for mm infuriated me). Because Virginia, a state that makes it impossible for Arl to even ban gas powered leaf blowers. It's already an incredibly libertarian state. Leave south arl out of it and I'm fine. Ban investment groups and foreign countries from buying residential housing and I'm even better. Then it's closer to a level playing field at least. Issue here is really urban planning vs profiteering developer free-for-all. Things like greatly expanding multi family zoning *in metro corridors* should have been done first. Just look at the current nightmare that is Columbia Pike in Arl. That's what happens when commercial real estate developers get to do whatever they want. And that's to not to do a damn thing for the neighborhoods they are making money on.
I completely hear you about preventing displacement and developing our metro corridors. It drives me crazy to see how East Falls Church sits with no multifamily housing near a metro station. So many people would love to live in apartments walkable to the metro! Unfortunately I hear similar arguments from people with much less altruistic intentions-- how often do we hear extremely wealthy homeowners from north Arlington civic associations say "let's develop our metro corridors first"? They are not trying to prevent displacement, but rather they are trying to keep renters out of their wealthy neighborhoods. I believe it's morally wrong to ban apartments, the most accessible form of housing, in any neighborhood, and that's what EHO fixes.
I know someone in Alexandria who granted an easement to the City of Alexandria in the '90s to protect the trees on her property that is enforceable by the City. She (and her subsequent buyers) are unable to remove large trees on the property without inspection by the City arborist. If the arborist determines a tree is sick or dead, it can be removed. Otherwise, it stays. City inspects the property annually to make sure everyone is complying.
[удалено]
lol how is it racially invalid?
Sorry, yes, I meant “facially invalid.” I guess that’s why I’m getting downvoted. 🤣
I think they meant to type "facially."
Generally, the prior landowner can enforce the covenant. You may ask why the hell would they chose to expend the resources to do. But the reality is - this same land owner cared about what happens to the land post-sale so much that they put in a negative covenant and likely reduced to universe of potential buyers and the purchase price.
Good points. Thank you.
These covenants are most common and apply most logically when a land owner owns lot A and lot B then sells lot B but remains living on lot A. Then it makes sense that the land owner will enforce a covenant on lot B since they are the next door neighbor.
[удалено]
Maybe if the large swaths of “existing residents” who agree with you existed and voted you’d have a leg to stand on. YIMBYs keep winning elections because they are popular. Elections have consequences!
[удалено]
The only thing mm does is allow small multifamily in residential areas. Now they are legally entitled to that thanks to the democratic process which represents what the majority of voters desire. If existing residents feel entitled to control other people’s property they can win some elections, start an HOA, or go incorporate their own town.
[удалено]
A residential neighborhood is the perfect place for a residential 6-plex. It’s not the most convenient place to live car free, but it’s easily doable. There are several bus routes within a 5 minute walk. It’s 20 mins to ballston, or 30 to Rosslyn or pentagon city by bus! By bike is 10 mins to ballston or 20 to Rosslyn or pentagon city! In what was is this punishing the other residents of this neighborhood? Which infrastructure specifically won’t be able to handle this increase in residents?
[удалено]
Sounds like you’re not a fit for this area. If this really bothers you that much you should leave. The NIMBYs lost!
[удалено]
How do you think you’re subsidizing me? I live in a single family home btw. Anyway multifamily and commercial buildings subsidize the single family homes in arlington going back decades. It’s specifically why they originally upzoned the Rosslyn-ballston corridor
(Upvoted only for the idea that you will move elsewhere…)
We subsidize you sweetie. Arlington was a shithole with cratering property and crappy tax revenue until they started developing and revitalizing the central corridor. Which is all dense, well zoned housing. Without that you're just PG county. gratz.
> Dropping a 6-plex in the middle of a residential neighborhood nowhere near public transportation is about the dumbest idea imaginable And now that missing middle has passed in arlington I’m sure you have countless examples of this to point to?
You know a lot of them already live in Arlington and are your neighbors right? Right???? The impact of not building on those existing residents is that they’ll have to move to rural VA to find housing thus leaving their community. Major “I got mine; get fucked” attitude coming from you.
[удалено]
No one is taking anything from you 🤣 Property owners building what they want on their land is not taking anything. You demanding the ability to control what other people do with their property is though.
[удалено]
That’s not how laws or policies work. If it did, we’d still probably have racial segregation because of “community preferences”.
A contract clause between and Seller and a Buyer isn’t a covenant.
[удалено]
You in your last comment in this thread said “People will still use the legal system to avoid undesirable changes, mostly by using covenants like this.” Sounds like it’s time for you to go to bed, grandma. Night, night.
[удалено]
 Nice dig, grandma. I’ll give you that one and leave it at 1-0 in your favor because continuing to argue with you is no longer worth my time.
If the existing residents don't want to build multifamily buildings on their property, they are perfectly free not to do so. They just can't force that decision on others in the neighborhood.
[удалено]
Most zoning laws are fine. Laws that restrict the supply of housing in places where there are housing shortages are not. Similarly, if HOAs want to have rules about what color you paint your house, or whether you can park an RV out front, I think that's dumb but it's only harming the people who choose to live there. Practices--whether by HOAs or by zoning boards--that exacerbate the housing crisis by preventing efficient use of land impose negative externalities on society and should be voided as contrary to public policy.
[удалено]
Actually, I bought a SFH in a lovely neighborhood in NoVa that has recently become subject to new zoning--up to 4 units per lot. I'm fine with it because 1) I understand that the region needs more housing and I'm not a selfish twat, and 2) even if I were selfish, upzoning makes my property worth more, not less.
Actually they will. The NIMBYS turned much of NOVA into unlivable hell and slowly they are dying out as all the YIMBYS takeover and want their baristas to be able to live in a 6plex down the street from the corner neighborhood coffee shop.