Northside’s Rich Souser weighs in on Code Refresh MYTHS:
“I received this postcard from the city regarding the current rewrite of the entire city’s zoning code. It arrived just like the ghost of Christmas past haunting Scrooge (or the Grinch visiting Whoville) on Christmas Eve. In the spirit of the season, here are my ‘Twelve Myths of Code Refresh.’
Myth 1-
Code Refresh is required to implement the city’s ‘Richmond 300 master plan.’
Reality- The drafts presented so far are not accurate reflections of the city’s 2020 master plan goals.
First, that plan is already outdated. It is past due for a mandatory 5-year update.
The city said previously the master plan calls for, ‘Re-Write the Zoning Ordinance: Direct growth to appropriate areas while maintaining existing neighborhoods as well as creating new authentic neighborhoods adjacent to enhanced transit.’
The rezoning drafts instead focused primarily on increasing density, disregarding appropriateness and preservation of existing neighborhoods.
It has completely ignored the environmental initiatives in the master plan!
The Master Plan is a long-range planning tool. The zoning code needs to be a more grounded, realistic document. It should reflect the current reality, not something that may happen 30 years in the future.
For example, a big portion of the new denser zoning is predicated on the unfunded $300 million North/South Pulse bus rapid transit line. The high-density zoning changes proposed along the route would be unrealistic without the transit infrastructure.
Any zoning changes relying on future projects should be postponed until the construction is more certain.’
Myth 2-
Density equals Affordability
The theory that increasing the number of available housing units will reduce the cost of all housing in the city.
Reality- This is an experimental concept with little real world data to support this conclusion. There is a lack of proof from other cities that significantly changing zoning to facilitate more available housing units has reduced home prices.
Theories don’t always prove accurate in the real world. ‘Trickle down’ economics seemed to be logical on paper. Making the wealthy richer should mean that they will spend more money that will then trickle down to the middle classes.
In reality, the wealthy just reinvested or saved the additional money so the economic boost to other classes never happened.
Likewise, if the additional housing density due to the Code Refresh goes into effect, there is little reason to believe this will ‘trickle up’ and improve affordability.
Myth 3-
Building more multi-unit/apartments will reduce the price of family-owned housing.
Reality- Much of the new housing construction in Richmond is for investor-owned properties and rentals. More long-term and short-term rental (AirBNB) units won’t increase affordability of owner occupied-residences.
The rental markets often act as a monopoly as occupancy and rental rates are well publicized. Rental companies keep units off the rental market in order to keep rental rates high.
At any one moment, there are close to 10,000 unoccupied housing units in the city.
Myth 4-
New construction will make all housing cheaper.
Reality- The costs of new housing construction is more than just the high price of building materials. It is a lack of building and trades people. It is not likely to to get better anytime soon. Therefore, newly-built residences are going to more expensive than similar existing structures.
Additionally, the focus on changing the zoning to allow more building in highly desirable neighborhoods makes little sense because that is where the cost of land is the highest.
If the goal is affordable housing, making more areas of the city more desirable should be a priority.
The new zoning should facilitate construction where there is plenty of undeveloped land and the land costs are cheaper.
Myth 5-
The current zoning code is 50 years old, and is therefore outdated and needs to be totally overhauled.
Reality- The statement that this is the first major zoning update in 50 years is NOT accurate.
It is the first entire ‘rewrite’ since the 1970s, but there have been regular updates.
These include MAJOR changes in just the last three years to:
- eliminate parking minimums,
- specifically allowing short term rentals,
- and allow “by-right” additional dwellings (ADUs) on almost every residential lot.
Myth 6-
The current zoning code has artificially suppressed the development of new housing units.
Reality- The current zoning code has been extremely successful.
It facilitated the creation of 28,000 additional housing units in the last 50 years. This is even more remarkable because the population of the city is lower now than in 1970.
The affordability problem isn’t due to zoning.
The proportion of housing units that are vacant, unrented, or used for short term rental, etc. are issues that need to be addressed.
Myth 7-
Updating the zoning in the city alone will solve the region’s housing issues.
Reality- Richmond City is relatively small due to the annexation moratorium.
The availability of affordable housing is a regional issue, not just the city of Richmond. The solution to that is not to focus just on ONE of several localities, but ALL.
If someone is residing in Henrico or Chesterfield, that is where they should be pushing affordable housing initiatives and rezoning for increased density.
Myth 8 –
The existing infrastructure is sufficient to meet the growing population and density increases encouraged in the new zoning.
Reality- The city is being deceitful regarding the ability of the municipal infrastructure to handle increased density caused by Code Refresh.
The overall system can barely handle the current demand.
We don’t need to be reminded about the issues with the water treatment plant based on last January.
The clean water issue in July was caused in part because the Ginter Park water tower is ‘undersized.’
The sewage and stormwater systems are equally inadequate.
The city needs $400 million just to get the current storm water/sewage system environmentally compliant for TODAY’s demand.
However, the real unaddressed issue is the pipes and sewers under our streets and the connections to individual blocks.
According to DPU, most neighborhoods don’t have the current capacity to handle ADUs, duplexes, and the new multi-family buildings envisioned by Code Refresh.
It will be extraordinarily expensive and disruptive to add capacity to already built-up areas.
Myth 9-
The plan was developed by city staff with local experience.
Reality- The bulk of the plan has been written by a paid contractor.
Many contractor staff have little knowledge of Richmond’s needs and history. They have brought in generic solutions from other cities that often are not relevant to Richmond’s situation.
The contract incentivizes size and complexity, to be done in one fell swoop, rather than a gradual, incremental, and logical development.
Myth 10-
The plan was developed with full citizen involvement.
Reality- So far, there have been three iterations of the zoning map and two on the related guidance.
The first two maps were done with minimal input from citizens and civic groups. The third was developed with input from only about 700 individuals.
The changes between each draft are hard to identify and few changes are explained in detail.
The plan consists of five separate units and over 280 pages. The map has over 50,000 parcels listed in dozens of different zoning districts.
This is a lot of very technical material for the average resident to read and comprehend.
The initial plan was done with input from a zoning advisory committee meant to provide an opportunity for community involvement. However, like the zoning board itself, the Code Refresh advisory committee is disproportionately made up of members with ties to the development, construction and related industries.
Myth 11-
The design and application of the plan is scientific, objective, and consistent.
Reality- City planning staff and contractors acknowledge errors in data used, yet have been reluctant to revisit murky areas.
They are often unable to explain the rationale for a particular zoning recommendation.
Myth 12-
The criticism of drafts from civic associations and other groups/individuals are ‘not in my backyard’ obstructionism.
Reality- Almost all groups have been supportive of realistic initiatives to address affordable housing.
Most neighborhoods have seen significant growth in housing in recent years. Additional dwelling units are being built throughout the city in traditional single-family areas.
There was a little pushback on reasonable incremental additions to the zoning plan. For instance, the MX-3 designation for most commercial nodes in residential neighborhoods is allowing a 33% increase over the current height limit in most cases.
Raising concerns about unrealistic or unjustified growth in specific instances should be just a normal constructive part of the process.