On Zoning

Last weekend, Ashley & I drove by a new construction open house. I say, "drove by" in that we didn't actually stop and go in. There were three primary reasons for this. One, it was a two-story dwelling, and we're primarily looking for something that's one level. Next, the house is situated by a golf course, and if the news is any indication, golf courses are having a difficult time of it, so that introduces an element of built-in instability to the home purchase. Finally, there's a bit of mixed zoning going on in the developing neighborhood. Across the street from the house (and its fellow single-family residences) is a rather utilitarian-looking apartment complex. 

The final aforementioned point reminded me of a recent article by Matthew Yglesias, one whose angle is often injected with partisan politics, though ostensibly is about the clash of changing zoning to allow more than just single family development in a particular area. Yglesias' piece is kicked-off by a proposed zoning legislation change from the Virginia House of Delegates, then seeks to expand the conflict of single-family vs. multi-family zoning to the nation as a whole. Again, it's dripping with capital 'P' politics, and it's an issue that isn't always so, meaning you'll need to look past some of the rhetoric. Still, it's an interesting read.

From the article:

"... places where geography and the existing size of the cities has constrained further sprawl, meaning that if new homes don't go in someone's backyard, they don't really go anywhere. The result is housing shortages, sky-high prices, and limited economic opportunity."

In a nutshell, the era of sprawling growth of single-family homes (and lots of land for them to sit on) is supposedly coming under scrutiny, for a myriad of reasons -- environmental and infrastructure concerns being two of the big ones. One alternative that we're seeing proposed by planning & zoning administrators (and some politicians), in several areas of the country, is to have newer developments be mixed-use, including both multi-family and single-family construction within the same neighborhood. That's one thing. What is also being proposed -- to much greater vexation -- is to retroactively zone single-family parts of communities so that they do not exclude multi-family development.

Older neighborhoods who have found themselves a part of the re-zoning process have, understandably, not always reacted well to the proposals. Some may bristle at the use of "understandably," however, that defines the crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. For decades, it has been reinforced over and over again into our society that home ownership (often single-family home ownership) is, well, the "American dream." How's that for a start? It's been drilled into so many generations that home ownership is, among other things, a pathway to freedom, an investment, a way to build wealth. Part and parcel with this philosophy has been the phrase, 'Location! Location! Location!' Built into that phrase has been the desirability of stability. Proposing to change the physical landscape of an established neighborhood cuts against that grain.

None of that is to say that things such as future environment and infrastructure issues aren't valid concerns. Of course they are. And many communities are attempting to address these issues, some better than others. But, if we are to propose a sea change in how neighborhoods develop -- and exist from the way they've been for several decades --  it will have to be helped along with the right language. People have to be communicated with in a way that makes sense. You can't ingrain into folks that option A is the great way to be, then start saying, 'Sorry, option A was wrong, you need to go with option B now.' It will take time, if it is to happen at all.