Democrats Seek To Outlaw Suburban, Single-Family House Zoning, Calling It Racist And Bad For The Environment

Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.

The measure could quickly transform the suburban lifestyle enjoyed by millions, permitting duplexes to be built on suburban lots in neighborhoods previously consisting of quiet streets and open green spaces. Proponents of “upzoning” say the changes are necessary because suburbs are bastions of segregation and elitism, as well as bad for the environment.

The move, which aims to provide “affordable housing,” might be fiercely opposed by local officials throughout the state, who have deliberately created and preserved neighborhoods with particular character — some dense and walkable, others semi-rural and private — to accommodate people’s various preferences.

But Democrats tout a state-level law’s ability to replace “not in my backyard” with “yes, in your backyard.”

House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat, introduced six housing measures Dec. 19, coinciding with Democrats’ takeover of the state legislature in November.

“Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned,” Samirah told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out.”

“The real issues are the areas in between very dense areas which are single-family zoned. Those are the areas that the state is having significant trouble dealing with. They’re living in a bubble,” he said.

He said suburbs were “mostly white and wealthy” and that their local officials — who have historically been in charge of zoning — were ignoring the desires of poor people, who did not have time to lobby them to increase suburban density.

In response to a question about whether people who bought homes in spacious suburbs have valid reasons, not based on discrimination, for preferring to live that way — including a love for nature and desire to preserve woods and streams — he said: “Caring about nature is very important, but the more dense a neighborhood is, the more energy efficient it is.”

He said if local officials seek to change requirements like setbacks to make it impossible to build dense housing in areas zoned to preserve a nature feel, “if they make setbacks to block duplexes, there’d have to be a lawsuit to resolve whether those zoning provisions were necessary.”

He wrote on Facebook, “Because middle housing is what’s most affordable for low-income people and people of color, banning that housing in well-off neighborhoods chalks up to modern-day redlining, locking folks out of areas with better access to schools, jobs, transit, and other services and amenities.”

“I will certainly get pushback for this. Some will call it ‘state overreach.’ Some will express anxiety about neighborhood change. Some may even say that the supply issue doesn’t exist. But the research is clear: zoning is a barrier to more housing and integrated communities,” he continued.

He tweeted Sunday that that would include public housing. “Important Q about new social/public housing programs: where are we going to put the units? Under current zoning, new low-income housing is relegated to underinvested neighborhoods, concentrating poverty more. Ending exclusionary zoning has to be part of broader housing reform,” he said.

Tim Hannigan, chairman of the Fairfax County Republican Committee — in one of the areas Samirah represents — said that urban Democrats were waging war on the suburbs.

“This could completely change the character of suburban residential life, because of the urbanization that would develop,” he told the DCNF. “So much of the American dream is built upon this idea of finding a nice quiet place to raise your family, and that is under assault.”

“This is a power-grab to take away the ability of local communities to establish their own zoning practices … literally trying to change the character of our communities,” he said.

He said suburbs were not equipped to handle the increased traffic, and “inevitably it will just push people to places where they feel they’ll get away from that, they may move to West Virginia to get their little plot of land.”

Minneapolis became the first city to eliminated single family zoning in December 2018, after a push by progressive advocacy groups promoting “equity.” Austin, Texas, and Seattle soon followed suit.

But those cities were amending zoning codes that have always been the domain of local governments. Oregon passed state legislation blocking local governments’ single-family zoning in July, CityLab reported.

It quoted Alex Baca, a Washington, D.C., urbanist with the site Greater Greater Washington, saying that single-family zoning is a tool for wealthy whites to maintain segregated neighborhoods and that the abolition of low-density neighborhoods is necessary for equity.

CityLab acknowledged that “residents might reasonably desire to keep the neighborhoods they love the way they are,” but said that implementing the law at the state level makes sure that those concerns can be more easily ignored.

“By preempting the ability of local governments to set their own restrictive zoning policies, the state policy would circumnavigate the complaints of local NIMBY homeowners who want to block denser housing,” it wrote.

While he implied that suburbs are prejudiced, Samirah himself has a history of anti-Semitic comments, including saying sending money to Israel is worse than funding the Klu Klux Klan.

“I am so sorry that my ill-chosen words added to the pain of the Jewish community, and I seek your understanding and compassion as I prove to you our common humanity,” he said in February.

He interrupted a speech in July by President Donald Trump in Jamestown, Virginia, and said, “You can’t send us back! Virginia is our home.”

His father is Jordanian refugee Sabri Samirah, who authorities banned from the U.S. for a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, in part because of his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2014.

There are probably a few duplexes around though I can't picture one, but many of the rowhouses have been subdivided into two, three and four unit buildings. We have quite a few smaller apartment buildings; these were part of the Victorian urban style and they've survived the transition. We have converted schools. We have converted churches.

Guessing it's mostly younger hipsters and other gentrifiers who live in these units.

Here and there, especially along our major arterial streets, we have large scale rebuilds, and some of these have a mix of price points including supported low income units.

Okay, so here's where you might find some actual low-income people.

Sounds like folks in the historic district have insisted on a zoning approach that allows a sprinkling of low-income housing in the arterial areas but keeps it away from the nicer parts.

LOL. Capitol Hill doesn't do hipsters. We are a starched and buttoned down demographic. The Hill is very centrally located. It has always attracted people who work for Congress or downtown and don't want a brutal commute. When the city crashed and burned, the schools went south. The Hill continued to attract young people for the traditional job reasons, but they tended to move when they got married and kids reached school age. The public schools became no-go areas for the middle class of all races, so if you stayed on the Hill, you sucked it up and paid for private school. Most left for the burbs. But the Hill has always been a nice place to live.

Gentrification is driven largely by the awful traffic congestion in the suburbs. Commuters are spending two to four hours a day in their cars. Private schooling looks a lot more affordable if you put a dollar value on your time wasted in traffic. About 20 years ago, young people started staying on the Hill when their kids went to school. A snowball effect kicked in. A couple of our local elementary schools have flipped, and people are actually moving to the Hill to be in bounds for public schools. High school remains an issue.

Historically, the Hill has always been a mixed use, mixed income neighborhood. It is only very recently that it has emerged as an expensive area. People my age routinely reflect that we wouldn't have moved to the Hill in the first place at today's price points. But for those of us who bought 20-30 years ago, gentrification has been a financial windfall. I don't know how the young people can afford it.

Most of central Capitol Hill is in the historic district and has some protection against being torn down. It is also mostly built out. Here and there, there are small scale infills. Major projects in the historic district are few and far between, but there are a few.

Our local Safeway, for example, was torn down last year. It will reopen next year, but the old one-story, big parking lot plan is gone. Safeway will occupy the first floor. There will be four floors of condos or apartments above that. All the parking will be underground, so the dead space of a big parking lot becomes usable space. I think that project will bring 150 units. I don't know the price point.

A local underutilized junior high school on Pennsylvania Avenue at Eastern Market was torn down with a new, major development taking its place. Again, all the parking is underground. The full footprint of the site is used. There's ground floor retail and residences and offices above. There are some affordable housing units, but the top end is extremely pricey. This is in a premier location.

We've had a couple of LBJ era housing projects torn down. The replacements are attractive, mixed income developments. There is significant densification all around the perimeter of the historic district where developers have more latitude to tear things down. The Anacostia and Potomac River waterfronts, along the foot of Capitol Hill, are being intensively redeveloped, at high density. The H Street N.E. corridor, which was burned out in the '68 riots, is finally being rebuilt. More densification.

This kind of thing is now happening all over the city, while congestion in the suburbs only gets worse, and already insane commutes turn into nightmares.

But hey: Maryland wants to add another lane to I-270 inside the beltway (which is already six lanes, eight including the shoulders, each way). And they want to add another lane to the Maryland portion of the beltway. Even if this is eventually built, ten or more years from now, it will not make a dent in the problem, as new sprawl development even further out will overtake it before the first shovel of dirt is turned.

The simple fact is that DC's traditional spokes and hub commuter system is collapsing under its own weight. It is no longer scalable. And even if you could build more lanes on arterial roads, there is nowhere to put the cars once they get downtown. We are at terminal congestion. People are going to have to take the train or live closer to their jobs. And this includes poor people.

Our urban planning was car centric for over 50 years. That has to change. We have to redevelop into a city in which significantly more people can live closer to work. That translates into walkable and bikeable, mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods all over the metro area. Suburban NIMBYism has to go.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.