Free market housing

Recently this paper published an article about the well-documented problem of Charlottesville’s housing unaffordability. It claimed that nearly half the city’s population now pays over 30 percent of income on housing, making it Virginia’s second-costliest city.

To a degree this problem exists because many residents here are unemployed or hold low-wage jobs. But it is also because of Charlottesville’s high housing costs. From 2000-2010, average home values doubled to $321,000, with rents rising as well. And while an inflated market has contributed to this, so too have local policies, which, like in other highly-sought-after cities, have prevented supply from meeting demand. To understand how this has lessened affordability here, just look at San Francisco, where I spent much of 2012 studying, and which mirrors Charlottesville’s situation.

San Francisco is a place that outsiders pay dearly to live in, but that existing residents fight to protect. The government has accommodated these outsiders somewhat by allowing mild amounts of new development. But mainly it channels into law the city’s spirit of NIMBYism. It does this with various zoning regulations—from height limitations to setback requirements—that drastically reduce how many units can go on given lots.

Before construction, developers endure multi-year approval processes that address numerous, often unnecessary factors, far in excess of those found in other cities. This adds costs that ultimately get passed onto customers, and sometimes discourages construction altogether.

As a result, San Francisco is America’s most expensive city, and one of a few, writes economist Edward Glaeser, where “because of zoning and other land use controls…the price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs.” This has harmed its poorest residents, who have rapidly been forced to move out; and the environment, since these exiles often just occupy cheaper suburban housing, gobbling up the Bay Area.

Unfortunately the same mentality threatens Charlottesville. In recent years, attempts by various city bureaucracies to stifle housing growth have included:

– The Planning Commission’s strengthening of an ordinance that discourages development on “critical slopes.”

– The unwillingness of the CRHA to redevelop public housing at greater densities, even though this was recommended by consultants, and would add to the housing stock.

– Numerous design rejections by the Board of Architectural Review, which have so frustrated developers like Gabe Silverman that he publicly stated his hesitations about doing future work here.  

– The constant refusal by City Council to grant density increases and/or speed up the approval for numerous developments, including recent ones proposed for Cherry Avenue, Eton Road, Rose Hill Drive, and Quarry Road.

These incidences just exacerbate the broader problems of the zoning code itself, which favors suburbanized, low-density development throughout most the city. What has resulted are the same problems here that have become urban buzzwords in San Francisco—gentrification, displacement, sprawl, and the suburbanization of poverty. This is evident in city population numbers, which since 1990 have increased only by 3,000, while metro Charlottesville has grown by over 40 percent to over 200,000. And it has been most problematic in black neighborhoods, causing councilor Dede Smith to complain that “what we’re losing is our history.”

Yet council’s response to this “severe deficit” (in TJPDC’s words) of affordable housing is the same as in other cities. Having mistaken it as a market failure, rather than the work of their own policies, they have subsidized new housing at taxpayer expense, through a combination of local non-profits, government projects, and a $1.4 million fund. They also demand that builders seeking special use permits make a percentage of their units affordable, even though economists widely agree that this discourages development and increases costs for market-rate units.

What would result if, instead of all this, council merely deregulated land uses in Charlottesville? Even skeptics who agree that this would increase housing still think those units would be unaffordable. But Ed Olsen, a UVA economics professor who specializes in housing policy, said doing this can bring downward pressures on nearby units. The example he used was the Venable neighborhood, where residential homes tend to become subdivided by students, thus pricing out families. When the city rezoned the nearby Wertland area for mid-rise apartments, many students began flocking there instead, easing pressure on Venable. The lesson, he explained, is that “how the city zones properties certainly can have an effect on prices,” sending them up or down based on the permissiveness of given regulations.

This lesson should inspire a looser approach for other Charlottesville areas. Like in Wertland, more housing could be encouraged on West Main, Cherry, JPA, and the aptly-titled “Strategic Investment Area” south of Downtown. Deregulating them, through easier permitting and rezoning for higher density, would relieve the costs of development and encourage more units. Then Charlottesville would be better prepared not only for the ongoing influx of new residents, but for the longtime ones who wish to remain.

Scott Beyer is a Charlottesville native who is writing a book on revitalizing U.S. cities through “Market Urbanism.” He also writes weekly columns on urban development for his blog, BigCitySparkplug.com. 

Fit the crime 

Imagine how heartbroken survivors of rape and domestic abuse must feel now that the petition to remove Chris Dumler from the Board of Supervisors has been denied, allowing him to resign on his own terms. That Dumler was handed the reins of the judicial process—first with the offer of a plea deal, then with a token sentence served at his convenience, and finally this—illustrates that the courts’ priority was to preserve a man’s career rather than to protect the women he sexually assaulted.

This unwillingness to punish Chris Dumler sends the message to the next woman or girl agonizing over whether to report a sexual assault, that if she stands up to her attacker, our courts will defend him instead of her, especially if he’s a popular white guy. Even if her attacker admits guilt, he’s likely to suffer few consequences, or none at all.

Judging by the actions of many in our community, this traumatized person might also expect to have her integrity doubted every step of the way. She could be accused of having some kind of agenda, or of making it all up, and be subjected to a barrage of cruel comments and harassment on news sites and social media.

If, after seeing all that Dumler’s victims went through, this person is still courageous enough to press charges against the man who raped her, no doubt those same critics will have the audacity to question why she ever hesitated to come forward. But I hope she sees that at least some people understood the seriousness of Chris Dumler’s pattern of violence against women, even if their efforts were in vain. This case makes it clear why so many rapes go unreported.

Russell U. Richards

Charlottesville

Line of fire

News is finally getting out of the controversial decision by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to build an open air police firing range at the old Keene Landfill in southern Albemarle [“Albemarle County approves new police training facility despite neighborhood opposition,” November 13]. The Board, with the persistence of Police Chief Sellers, has quickly and quietly shoved the proposal through despite growing opposition. Area citizens are outraged.

Unacceptable issues at the forefront are: unrelenting gun noise (six times the county ordinance level barraging a 78 square mile area); real and eminent risk of errant and ricocheting bullets around populated areas (including two elementary schools); lead and heavy metal contamination of the air and water; and a projected 35 percent drop in property values.

We’re all for the best police training available, but strong arguments for far better alternatives have fallen on deaf ears; the most logical being the availability of a safely enclosed multimillion dollar state of the art live fire and simulator training facility down the road in Nottoway County or an enclosed complex in Scottsville.

The public needs to be aware that the Chief and the Board are not thinking progressively. They are ignoring the well being of area residents, and making up their own rules. This whole issue seems suspicious and we deserve better.

All area citizens should visit www.saveruralalb.com to get informed, read letters, write letters, attend meetings, and sign the petition against this proposal. It’s not too late to reverse this hasty decision and stop this mess from ever starting!

Hal West, Keene

Great guns      

Dear Dan Catalano: I read your article [“Suffer the children, Will the killing never end?” December 25], and I applaud your obvious passion as to the subject, no matter how uninformed.

Within the body of the text you allude to certain “facts” which only serve to support your lack of knowledge as to the question at hand. You mention the “…unfettered access to military hardware for all citizens…” None of the weapons that you allude to, utilized by the mentally ill persons who were mentioned in the article, were military weapons.

Military weapons are fully automatic. None of the weapons used were fully automatic. You mention “large caliber”…the .223 is not a large caliber weapon. As to “unfettered”; in most states there are extensive requirements that must be met before ownership of any firearm  may be achieved. It is currently against the law for anyone in any state who is mentally ill to own or possess a firearm of any kind and the ammunition associated with that firearm. Why pass another law if the current laws are not enforced? The irony is, that as relates to the most recent tragedy, Connecticut has one of the most restrictive set of regulations in the nation. All of the firearms used were acquired legally.

The NRA does not advocate “…arming everyone in sight…” but merely retired or off duty police officers or firemen. If you believe that our schools and the children who attend them are our most precious asset as I do, the question would seem to be why has this not been done sooner? You must agree with me given your alluding to the “thousands of innocent souls” who will be “lost to madmen with easy access to the tools of death.”

I agree with your premise that the subject offenders are “madmen” in need of mental health services. I disagree with your assertion as to easy access. There are more than 50,000 laws addressing firearms ownership in this country. That is not easy access. It has become obvious that in many cases the problem is enforcing the current laws on the books. Ironically, the problem as to the FBI data banks being incomplete as required by law, is a greater problem then so called “gun show sales.” These facts seem to negate your miss-informed allusion to “our current gun laws.”

I do not dispute the fact that “the number of criminal background checks requested by prospective gun owners shot to an all time high the day after the Newtown massacre.” I would ask you to cite the NRA communication that caused this to occur? I would suggest that this was a response to the uninformed rants that occur after each incident of this kind…no mater how well intentioned. I would further assert that the lawful utilization of the “background check system” is what lawful citizens are supposed to do when exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Please note that “arms” is plural. You have a constitutionally protected right to more than one.

You obviously have a problem with the existing Second Amendment right to own a firearm. You also seem to have a problem with the right to private property which, while not specifically addressed in the United States Constitution, was protected with the ratification in 1791 of the Fifth Amendment. I assume that you want your right of Free Speech protected no matter how uniformed. The NRA and its members merely ask that their rights be protected as well with equal passion.

You might find this understandable given that their remarks are informed and factually correct. I would suggest that even the right to free speech is not “protected” when it takes the form of yelling fire in a movie theater when there is no fire. It would seem that the hastily and uninformed construction of your article is perilously close to rising to that level.

I would also suggest that your remarks would be more understandable, no matter how uninformed, if they were in the majority. However, the most recent Today/Gallop Poll of December 19-22 indicates that 51 percent of those polled do not want an assault weapons ban (After all we had one and it did not work from 1994-2004) and 54 percent support the NRA.

The real issue… the one you would be raising if you has some sense of the issues…is the almost total lack of mental health care in this country. Raise this issue sir, and I will be Downtown manning the barricades with you tossing informed remarks rather then emotional “gab” to the cheap seats. You think “assault weapons” are bad? There is not a farm kid in Albemarle County that does not know how to make a bomb with common fertilizer (see Oklahoma City).

Jim Newman, Charlottesville

History speaks

The anticipation of Spielberg’s Lincoln has been marked with numerous reviews, interviews, and personal stories. No doubt that such a highly financed production by both the state and Hollywood’s most successful director can bring about national attention. For many, as you have written [“Shooting Lincoln,” November 6], this event has marked an important point in people’s lives; a departure from the usual and mundane into something almost dreamlike. To say the least, it was a thrilling time.

But there-in lies another question: Will our interest continue in the days or months to come? Historical films can serve not only as entertainment but often as thought-provoking tools to understanding American stories. They add realism and feelings otherwise unavailable from classroom text books. Walt Whitman reflected that, “the real [civil] war will never get in the books.” As contributors, financiers, movie-goers, and common people, we need to believe this subject not only important to our Commonwealth and personal memory, but also to what it stands for on the Sesquicentennial of the war itself.

From what has already been commemorated, newly discovered and reinterpreted, we are not selling ourselves short.

Jason Spellman

Richmond

 

Grateful doc

I’ve read and reread your article about Charlottesville’s gay community [“Before out was in,” November 13], and I was deeply moved. The background work you did for the article and the thought you put into its construction were simply superb. I know the wider community needs to read it and I hope it has the impact on many that it had on me.

I have been an HIV primary and specialty care doctor since 1990, in the Miami, Florida area, and I am all too familiar with the devastating impact of HIV on the gay, and other, populations it has ravaged over the past 30 years. My wife and I moved to Charlottesville in August 2011, and I was soon embraced by the AIDS/HIV Services Group, about which you wrote so lucidly and admiringly. I knew little of the formation of the outstanding organization of which I am now a board member other than a broad overview, and now I look forward to meeting some of the wonderful, devoted people who brought it into being.

I salute you for your effort, insight, and talent.

David Schmitt, MD

Charlottesville

 

Stereotyping

In an article about tolerance and the need to move beyond stereotypes [“Before out was in,” November 13] I would like to object to J. Tobias Beard’s prominent use of the phrase, “feared redneck hordes,” printed once in the article and then highlighted again in large, bold type.

Surely you realize that the Charlottesville/Albemarle region is one that faces deep class divides. The verbal “ghettoization” of some of the members of our non-middle classes is insensitive and offensive. Further, it marginalizes members of our community who have much to offer—culturally, musically, as local historians…and in many other ways.

If there are those who, as members of this subgroup, would like to appropriate ownership of such phrases, I encourage them to do so. For the rest of us, let’s put such language to rest.

Beth Norford

Charlottesville

 

Neighborly interaction

Like those quoted in the article [“Critical mass: Planning Commission approves permit for an even bigger Plaza on Main Street,” November 13], I was deeply disappointed that Planning Commission Chairman Ginnie Keller endorsed a massive student rental complex on West Main Street despite reservations about the impact and impersonality of such a structure. But I was further distressed at the example she cited for her concern, i.e. the complex opposite her North First Street home. I recognized it by location, but not by her characterization.

Charlottesville Towers (511 N. First), was built in 1967 in a style that will always clash with the historic houses around it. But its residents didn’t clash with those who lived in those houses. I know that because my parents became renters there in 1968 after the city condemned for a public parking lot the house we lived in nearby. Convenience prompted their choice. My father could continue walking to work at the Main Post Office, then on Market Street. Coincidence favored it, too. My father’s grandfather, early Charlottesville photographer William Roads (as he spelled it), had 422 N. First St. built in 1870, and my father’s father was born there.

Many of 511’s early residents also had tight local ties, and that remained true even in the years just after the complex went condominium about 1981. Among my parents’ neighbors were several downsizers who’d owned homes nearby for decades. Another old timer, a retired railroad worker, recalled being dispatched from the depot as a young messenger boy with notes for my mother’s train conductor father. Among newer comers were a young chef-restaurateur busily upgrading Charlottesville’s culinary scene and a physics professor emeritus whose wife invited fellow residents to student chamber music recitals in their apartment.

Lobby conversation was lively. Residents helped one another. Whenever one couple’s city police officer son visited, he would cheerfully act as ad hoc security consultant. Even though the building looked like a blocky island in its asphalt sea, however, its denizens weren’t insular. They walked out to Main Street and the library and church as did the surrounding house dwellers of similar backgrounds: a city librarian, a popular piano teacher, another faculty couple, et al.

My father died in 1980, and my mother left 511 in 1985—one year after Ms. Keller’s husband became owner of their house. Certainly, the building’s cast of characters has changed somewhat since then. Notably, some units have been bought by investors. But familiar names still appear in its ownership records
—more, in fact, than appear on the rest of North First, where current owners are clearly much more affluent than their predecessors and much less likely to have local roots.

At the November 13 hearing, Ms. Keller complained that 511 displays a “Keep Out” sign and that neighborhood children cannot ride bikes there. That would be because such complexes have chronic problems with non residents poaching residents’ spaces and that children on bikes are legal liabilities in that they can easily become casualties.

But even if all who dwell in 511’s 64 units (with about 100 bedrooms) and park in its completely adequate lot were the aloof aliens Ms. Keller implied, her comparison of them to the undergraduates who will turn over constantly in the West Main complex’s 219 units (with 595 bedrooms) and overflow its completely inadequate garage is egregious. Residents of 511 may not “interact” as Ms. Keller would dictate, but I’m quite sure they’ve never prevented her peaceful enjoyment of her own property. Those of us forced to be neighbors of the behemoth she endorsed will not be able to say the same.

Antoinette W. Roades

Charlottesville

 

Unpopular populist

Good luck with the optimism of the Read This First blurb this week [“Dems celebrate demographic shift, hail rebirth of populism,” November 14]. I’m going to save the blurb next to my computer. You (and maybe Perriello) like the demographics and the “working class” and “populism”? They don’t call it “working class” for nothing.

They don’t call it the “risk taker” class or the “creativity” class or the “entrepreneur” class or the “investment” class or the “job creation” class. I don’t even think it’s the “savings” class. Maybe those Midwest manufacturers actually do exist. By the way, your president dropped almost 7 million votes from 2008— the first time a president has been reelected with fewer votes (about 10 percent fewer!) in a long time if ever. 49.4 percent of voters looked at the Obama name and voted for somebody else. I wonder what analysis Operative Perriello has for that one.

My two cents: Indiana is the first state in the rust belt to get the message. Look for the other rusties to follow soon. But you do have me reading.

Rob Tureman 

Afton