0 likes

I know that every realtor I have spoken to has told me that the affordable housing market is very much in need.

It is, but it’s an interesting issue. There would, for example, be a tremendous demand for “starter”, “affordable” single family homes under $150k (or even $175k), but that doesn’t seem to be possible any longer in Harrisonburg given development and construction costs. Or townhouses under $125k, but that also doesn’t seem viable any longer.

I think that the three people on council that voted for this did so because they believe it is best for the city, and many, many others agree

Scott — I know that you have explained here that you took your variance request to the City to ask them what they thought would be best for the City. But it would be interesting to know if that was the lens through which they viewed the request. Yes, I know, everything the Council does is, or should be, for the best of the City, but I’m not convinced that such a lens always provides an answer.

I don’t know much about your variance request, or the property that you are developing, but it seems that you were considering either (2) two-bedroom single family homes, or (3) three-bedroom townhomes. I’m sure one could effectively argue that EITHER of those additions to the City housing inventory are “best” for the city. Aiming for higher density to reduce sprawl might suggest the townhomes. Increasing the portion of detached city housing units might suggest the single family homes.

So…..absent the ability to declare one option or the other “best” for the City, I would think the City would be looking at it from a different perspective. If that is the case, even if you were intending to ask “What would you like me to develop? What would be best for the city?” I would think the Council might likely interpret the variance request as “Would it be o.k. if I develop 3 townhouses instead of single family homes?” Do you follow? After all, I believe that is the typical context for most rezoning requests, variance requests, etc.

   0 likes

   0 likes

Deb SF: Yeah, the wording that I used might not have been clear. Scott Rogers’ explanation is correct. I think most of the rest of questions are already answered above (reason why applied, street standards, planning commission). I do not know any specifics about past councils granting developers pet projects but I obviously understand the frustration stemming from that. In this case, I know it had nothing to do with that, and I think it is dangerous to lump all developer variances into that unfortunate past. One of the current planning commissioners is actually a friend of my family’s (even though I had never met him), and he voted against this project. When I met him for the first time a couple weeks after the vote, I thanked him voting for what he thought was right. I remember feeling relief when he voted ‘no’, because it would have felt tainted for me if he had voted for it.

As for the first time homebuyer, mid, upper level house buyer concept, I think Scott Rogers would handle that question best. I would just be looking at his charts. I know that every realtor I have spoken to has told me that the affordable housing market is very much in need. I think Scott’s ‘housing inventory trends’ graph shows that homes this price are much more in demand than mid and upper level homes. I understand that you are talking about percentages of each that is supposedly needed for a healthy city, but what should be done if there is no demand for mid and upper level houses. That is an interesting point that I’ll have to find out more about.

Fitzgerald: Nice, now we are getting somewhere. I’ll admit that if a screeching halt to development worked, I would stop building today. I’m not a builder because I don’t know how to do anything else, or because I think that that is where I can make the most money. I’m a builder because I enjoy it. Part of the enjoyment is building something that will benefit the community long term. I think that the three people on council that voted for this did so because they believe it is best for the city, and many, many others agree (just not on this site I guess, come one…..anybody?).

So if halting development is off the table, then the focus needs to be on what will work best if development is inevitably going to continue. I guess on this specific issue we disagree, but I will say that I’m a lot more in line with your overall thinking than you might expect. If only it worked, that would make it easier to champion. In the meantime I’m focusing on the practical, but still very interested in hearing all ideas.

   0 likes

You write: “I did not think I should “get” the variance. I took it to council so they could decide what was best for the city. ”

I think Scott was saying that he didn’t feel entitled to the variance — not that he didn’t think he should get it.

   0 likes

   0 likes

You write: “I did not think I should “get” the variance. I took it to council so they could decide what was best for the city. ”

The current law, you can only build 2 townhouses. You asked for a variance so you can build 3. It is disingenuous to claim that you did think you should get the variance. If you didn’t think you should get one; why on earth did you apply? Why not stick to the current law as written, which is clear with respect to city-street standards? Don’t the current laws reflect the community’s best guess at how we collectively want the city to grow? No one is suggesting that we change this ordinance, are they?

The economic development staff did not recommend approval of your request. PC voted against you. Twice. These staff and commission members, some paid, some appointed, are also charged with examining development in light of the city’s best interests. You got lucky, and found three votes on council willing go against the city’s own staff and two different negative PC votes and give you your three townhouses.

You join a long line of developers that have queued up, some of whom waited for the just the right mix of pro-development folks (or the right mix of their friends) on Council to get the green light to push through projects that required variances and went against the comp plan in spirit (or worse).

The long-ago housing report referred to by Councilwoman Frank in Tuesday night’s meeting did not say “we need more townhouses”. Quite the contrary; I was a member of both the Planning Commission and the HDR Board of Directors at the time, and the report was received and discussed with great interest. In a healthy city, there are desired target percentages of affordable/starter housing, mid-level and upper-end housing that are necessary to maintain health and balance in growth. We don’t have that balance here. The city has too many townhouses and too few mid/upper level housing alternatives than it should.

This affects the long run housing balance in the city and, over time, can significantly affect the tax base. Say a couple is ready to move from a starter house to mid-level, or from a mid to an upper level home and can’t find any kind of selection in the city (too few alternatives mean little choice and high prices). They leave and go to the county who says YAY!!, we lose real estate tax dollars, decreasing our ability to provide governmental services to those who remain.

And then someone else puts up another townhouse. Rinse and repeat.

Former planning commissioners who have studied this issue for years like Councilmen Baugh and Wiens get this. Others, not so much.

   0 likes

But it is counterproductive for the city to make an exception in order to create more of the same kind of housing that already exists not just in abundance, but in excess. The reference to student housing in Scott’s post is from a marketing perspective. From an economic perspective, it’s just housing. There’s too much of some, not enough of others.

There are people who spend their working lives dealing with this stuff, and elected officials who over-rule them ought to have a good reason.

As to whether you’re in business, and whether the city council is a government, and whether a variance is a favor, facts are facts. They’re not collaborative.

   0 likes

Since you seem to want to continue the circle (but I must admit, it is getting tiring), I will once again tell you that this was not a case of “business seeking government favors,” but was me, trying to find out what the city would like to have built on these lots. Secondly, my “greater goal” comment had nothing to do with the council meeting, but as it said, was about this site (website, blog, forum), which I had hoped would be a little more collaborative.

Since I’ve got you almost answering questions now, please don’t let me infer what your answering a question with question meant. Are saying that we should stop development overall? In certain areas (student housing, townhomes, non-infill land, commercial, apartment buildings, condos)? Come on, teach me something, that is what I am sincerely asking for.

   0 likes