Author: chogan@directresearch.com

Post #327: Some basic questions to ask before modifying MAC zoning

As I noted in Post #323, the deadline for end of the moratorium on new MAC applications is fast approaching, and the Town government doesn’t seem to be taking any action either to revise the MAC statute or to extend the deadline.

At the end of Post #323, I laid out my biggest fear about some glitch temporarily ending the MAC moratorium.  I’m an economist, and my firm belief is that seemingly crazy things can happen when there’s a lot of money at stake, as there is now on Maple.

In this post, by contrast, I’ll assume the moratorium is extended without a hitch.  Here, I’ll start to list out some big-picture items that I think really need to be aired in public as part of any revision of MAC zoning.

Why?  I’m afraid that any discussion of MAC will immediately devolve into tweaking the details, and will lose sight of some very-big-picture issues.  That’s certainly my impression of the Town’s discussion to date, other than Commissioner Majdi’s proposal.  So, to be clear, this posting on revising MAC has nothing to do with building height, or setbacks from the street, or requirements for open space.  It’s about other stuff.

I’ll try to keep it short, but no guarantees.

Continue reading Post #327: Some basic questions to ask before modifying MAC zoning

Post #325: Revising MAC? Time is short? Or is time your friend?

In Post #323, I noted that the process for revising the MAC statute now combines  a looming deadline with zero activity.  That obviously makes no sense, so I think I’d like to take a few guesses as to what may or may not be happening.  So please note that while the first section (Past) is largely fact-based, the end of this post (Future) is pure speculation.

Continue reading Post #325: Revising MAC? Time is short? Or is time your friend?

Post #324: Affordable housing (ADDENDUM AND FURTHER CORRECTION 7/24/2019)

Affordable housing is a weighty topic that requires a real depth of knowledge if you’re going to address it seriously.

This post, by contrast, is not a serious analysis of affordable housing.  This is just one of those quirky little things you stumble across doing a Google search, that, oddly enough, can be used to get across a few simple points.

Bottom line:  Vienna residence, furnished, utilities included.  Monthly rent is $1950 $1500.  Price includes utilities, internet and cable, as well as daily maid service and free continental breakfast.

Correction:  Turns out, a colleague knows people who have lived there.  If you prepay a week in advance, it’s just $50/night, which works out to $1500/month.

Trip Advisor breathlessly assures me that it’s the #1 rated! motel in Vienna, VA. True, by definition.

On a more serious note, how about a little arithmetic.  It looks like the Wolf Trap Motel has about 120 rooms, or “dwelling units” in this case.  Is there any hope that MAC zoning will ever provide even as many as 120 affordable housing units in Vienna? 

And by that I mean, actual, formally-defined affordable housing under some legally-administered program.  Not the fast-and-loose discussion of “the market-determined rent on these apartments will be more affordable” that has substituted for real Town public discussion of this issue so far.  (And if you have no clue what I’m talking about, in terms of a legally-defined affordable housing project, take a look at what they do in Falls Church.)

The arithmetic is easy enough:  Additional MAC dwelling units x % reserved for affordable housing = additional MAC affordable housing.  All we need are plausible estimates for each.

The table below works through all of that, projecting total dwelling units based on the current MAC average density of dwelling units per acre, and some assumed fraction of Maple that eventually undergoes redevelopment.

But what fraction of units might plausibly be affordable housing?  To model that, I took one of the recent Falls Church mixed use projects.  There, for the Broad and Washington Project, the developer proffered six percent of the units in the building for affordable housing (see this .pdf).  So, if they can do it, presumably we … might too.  (I think this figure is ballpark for the rest of the Falls Church mixed-use development.  E.g., five beds in the large Kensington assisted living facility in Falls Church are in a special affordability program.)

Reading down the table, the first three MAC projects come in at 41 units per acre.  You can then see counts of total additional units that would be built under assumptions that 30% or 70% of the total MAC acreage gets redeveloped at that density.  Finally, if 6% of all new units are set aside for affordable housing, you get the counts at the bottom:  64 affordable housing units if 30% of Maple is redeveloped, or 169 affordable housing units if 70% of Maple is redeveloped.

(N.B. for the number-oriented among you.  The acreage is not proportional to the percentages because I net out the 5.7 that have already been approved for mixed-use development.)

And so the answer to my question is, maybe, if all suns shine.  If Vienna actually had an affordable housing program.  If every mixed-use building from now on would proffer affordable units at the same rate as was seen in the model Falls Church project.  And if a very large fraction of Maple gets redeveloped.

If all that happened, you might get more affordable housing units out of MAC than there currently are rooms in the Wolf Trap Motel.

But:  You can’t get blood from a stone.  Put aside the fact that some projects would not be suitable for this program (e.g., the million-dollar condo townhouses at Marco Polo).  The bottom line remains that there is no free lunch.  Every one of those units is money out of the developers’ pockets, so affordable housing must be balanced against other competing demands for proffers.  For example, developers might not be able to afford both putting the utility lines underground and reserving 6% of units for affordable housing.  Ditto, providing significant public green space on their property and in additional supplying significant affordable housing.  And if a future MAC results in smaller buildings, there would be fewer units and less profit available from which to supply affordable housing.

My point is that instead of just talking in the abstract about affordable housing, we really ought to get into the numbers just a bit.  It’s instructive.  Best guess, any formal, legal, zoning-driven affordable housing program under MAC would be a drop in the bucket, relative to the perceived need for affordable housing.

My only other point is to study Falls Church, because, by definition, they’re doing  better at it than we are.  Interestingly, while Falls Church has this formal, legally-defined affordable housing program, they also make sure that people looking for affordable housing can find a comprehensive list of apartment and condo rental rates.  They put those right on their website, on the affordable housing page (here, .pdf.). Those aren’t “affordable housing” in the legal sense, they are just (presumably) the market rates on the cheapest housing options available in Falls Church.  And given the extremely limited supply of legally-defined affordable housing, the market rate is going to be what almost every person pays.  Like it or not.

So, no free lunch.  But maybe a free breakfast, for the time being.

Addendum

I started out this post entirely tongue-in-cheek.  But I didn’t realize there was more truth here than I bargained for.  A colleague assures me that she knows of five or six people who do, in fact, use the Wolf Trap as the only affordable housing in town.  They all work food-service jobs on Maple Avenue, as far up the block as Whole Foods, don’t own cars, and walk to work, while living (presumably two-to-a-room, so 750/month/person?) at the Wolf Trap Motel.

So, in fact, Wolf Trap Motel does function as affordable housing in Vienna.  And that peculiar old motel out on Route 50 in Fairfax — the one that looks like a ship’s wheelhouse — apparently does the same for that area.  So the recycling of downscale hotels as affordable workers’ housing is not just limited to the Wolf Trap Hotel.

As a final note, yet another colleague assures me that the Wolf Trap is the most common way-station for the newly divorced in the area.   So, yeah, it does serve as affordable housing.  Maybe not as the Town intends it, but it serves as that all the same.

Post #323: Revising MAC? Time is short.

As much as it pains me to say it, I’m going to continue to write about the future of MAC development on Maple Avenue.  As of now, not only is there no forward motion on revising MAC, I’m not sure that the Town of Vienna government is even capable of making significant changes to MAC, based on the process used so far.

My main point here is to remind people that time is short.  Continue reading Post #323: Revising MAC? Time is short.

Post #322: Moving forward (Where do we go from here, part 3).

Quick recap of the facts, in so far as I know them.  Then one additional point that I believe to be a fact, but based solely on my own research.  The conclusion (jump down to that if you wish) seems to be some fairly clear guidance on a way to revise MAC to be more in keeping with what the majority of Vienna residents appear to want. Continue reading Post #322: Moving forward (Where do we go from here, part 3).

Post #321: Why doesn’t Sunrise sue the Town now?

At this point, I think it’s fairly well established that, to a significant degree, the Town of Vienna just kind of makes-it-up-as-they-go-along under MAC zoning.  I think, for people who read this website, I don’t need to list the many examples of that.  A quick reminder:  the 100-day-rule that nobody else in Virginia obeys, the four-floor limit that maybe means five floors, the mezzanine rules that don’t apply to “commercial mezzanines”, the mandatory “voluntary” proffer to bury the power lines, changing the rules to make protest petitions harder, and so on.

I’ll just note the most recent one:  Town staff simply gave a developer 4′ of extra room, more-or-less directly from the public street, by proposing to narrow Wade Hampton by 4′ as part of the redevelopment (Post #312).  Now the Town is in the position of maybe-kinda-sorta negotiating to have the developer give that back — after the Town has approved the rezoning.  Because, yeah, sure, that’s a well-specified and orderly process if ever I saw one.  And an example of the brilliant bargaining tactics that have been a hallmark of the Town’s approach to MAC zoning.

But here’s the one that has me puzzled now:  Why hasn’t Sunrise sued the Town?

Here’s the background.  In the 5/1/2019 involving Town Council, the Town Attorney said that if an application met all the required standards under MAC, the Town could not turn it down (Post #261).  If they did, they’d risk being sued for making an “arbitrary and capricious” decision.  This was in a public meeting, mind you.  In essence, the Town’s lawyer sets the Town’s legal position on this, which amounts to a Town of Vienna legal position of “please sue us if we turn you down”. 

(For this next part, I’m not going to provide links to my prior write-ups documenting these facts.  You’ll just have to take it as a given that these things all happened, and you can search this website to find them if you are sufficiently motivated to do so.)

Now, for Sunrise:  At the suggestion and direction of the Planning Commission, Sunrise eliminated retail space.  This was largely to improve the amount of parking available for the assisted living facility.  Planning Commission Chairman Gelb did some shoe-leather research and concluded (based on a nearby Sunrise) that the parking level was probably adequate, though not ample.  Town staff presented charts showing that the proposed parking levels were within the norms required by adjacent jurisdictions.

Sunrise then provided proffer after proffer to improve the parking situation further.  They would have valet parking available at all times to add more usable parking space.  They’d have a $20,000 annual fund to subsidize transit use by employees.  They’d have a transit demand management program.  They’d have employees park off-site and shuttle to the facility.  They had additional usable parking spaces that were not counted by Vienna but that would be used by employees.  They stated (correctly, I believe) that, given the site requirements, the Town was unlikely ever to find another use that required less parking than assisted living does.  They would bar residents from having cars.  I believe they stated their willingness to comply with any further requirements the Town might suggest regarding parking.

It was a good-faith effort, and then some.  And by the end of it, by my calculation, they were providing more parking than any of the surrounding jurisdictions requires for a facility of this type.  Far more than Town staff suggested was adequate.  I even went so far as to suggest that Sunrise could provide much-needed public parking in that structure by eliminating the last vestige of retail space (Post #289).

But the Town turned them down.  Near as I can recall, I heard two objections:  Inadequate parking and inadequate retail space.  That was the point at which I described working with the Town as akin to dealing with someone with severe short-term memory problems (Post #301, search for “irrational and psychotic Town government“).  I.e., it was the Town that suggested they eliminate retail space to favor parking in the first place.

So, “arbitrary and capricious”?  Strikes me that way.  But while Virginia is a strong property-rights state, it also has a strong tradition of deferring to the decisions made by local legislatures.  So it’s not clear that it would be worth suing.

In any case, I was under the vague impression that they only had 30 days or so to act on a rezoning.  After that, it’s final.  Based on this last Town Council meeting, my (again vague) understanding is that the Town pretends that the rezoning occurs when the Town Council votes on it.  So … we’re pretty much at the deadline for Sunrise to file a lawsuit, I think.  I sure haven’t heard that Sunrise has done or is even contemplating any such thing.

I just can’t quite fathom why.  Was the Town Attorney wrong, as discussed in Post #263?  Does Sunrise not consider it worthwhile to protest that zoning decision?  Is it their corporate policy not to sue?  Do they fear retribution from the Town (i.e., slow-walking any further permits and such)?  Do they consider the Town’s decision justified?

I guess we’ll never know.  Going forward, I guess the only important issue is whether or not the Town Attorney was correct in his statement that the Town cannot turn down MAC applications that meet all legal requirements.  If that’s true, then MAC has become just another form of by-right development along Maple Avenue.   I’m pretty sure it was not presented to Vienna citizens as such, and I’d say it’s a fair bet that its creators did not know they were doing that when they created it.

Post #320: The 7/16/2019 Town Council/Planning Commission joint meeting

This was a joint meeting of Town Council and Planning Commission to consider a motion to rescind the rezoning of 380 Maple West (37 condos plus retail, Wade Hampton and Maple).

The meeting lasted nearly six hours.  I went there, but could not stomach it, so I left before it started.  My wife lasted until about 1 AM.   I recorded the Town’s live stream, but even now I don’t have the stomach to watch the entire thing.

In all that time, near as I can tell, they never did make or consider a motion to rescind the zoning.

Instead, the meeting ended with a vague direction for Town Staff to negotiate with the builder about maybe possibly not narrowing Wade Hampton to 32 feet (Post #301), and perhaps keeping the street parking that is there (Post #238r).

All told, what can I say in response to that?  I am reminded of a quote from Tom Lehrer:  “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

And, as with the bait-and-switch with the Marco Polo proposal, there was not even a hint that the Town would ask how this happened in the first place.  How is it that Town staff unilaterally decided to narrow the road, to the benefit of a developer.  Asking such questions is apparently — vulgar or something.  It’s just not done in the Town of Vienna.  Do Town staff retain the power to do those sorts of things in the future?  Did they go rogue?  Did the Mayor order it?  Did they just consider it business as usual?  Was the Town Manager aware of these actions at the time they occurred?  Guess we’ll never find out.

The two newcomers I supported in the last election put in a less-than-stellar performance.  Literally phoned it in, in one case.  Clearly not as prepared as possible in the other.  The net effect was arguably a lack of effectiveness in the meeting.  I retain an abiding faith that they will get the lay of the land and that if there is a next time, they’ll be more effective next time.

At any rate, between 444 Maple West and this one, the Town has more-or-less doubled the number of people living in my neighborhood.  The most stress-free way for all of them to get to I-66 and Metro in the morning will be by coming down my street.  (Which is, by the way, a whopping 20′ wide.  But who’s counting.)  This graphic is a little outdated (the 40 should now be 37), but it gives you the gist of what’s happened so far.  And they are just getting started.

 

Ah, well, what’s a little collateral damage, right?

So, crazily enough, I moved within the Town of Vienna, a dozen years ago, so I could have a house in a quiet residential district within easy walking distance of Maple.  Paid a hefty premium to do that.  In hindsight, that was not one of my smarter investments.

Post #319: $60/sq ft/yr.

After making a few informal inquiries, it seems that $60/square foot/year is the new normal rate for prime retail space on Maple Avenue.  I’ve stumbled across that figure in several prior posts (search for it if you want).  So I thought I might comment on that a bit, in the context of what makes Maple Avenue retail property worth that.

The point of this posting is that a lot of what makes Maple Avenue tick, right now, runs contrary to a lot of what people seem to claim about Maple Avenue.  And run contrary to some of the stated goals of the current MAC statute. Continue reading Post #319: $60/sq ft/yr.

Post #318: Motion to rescind

Tomorrow (7/15/2019) the Town Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint hearing on a motion to rescind the approval of 380 Maple West (37 condos plus retail, Wade Hampton and Maple).

I have discussed the background for this in several posts but my best explanation for how we got here is Post #309.

I have just three things to add at this point.

1:  It’s just theater.

Having sat through dozens of such meetings over the past year, and having seen the Town Council approve 444 Maple West despite massive public opposition, I’m pretty sure that the “public hearing” portion of this meeting is purely for show.   It’s a legal requirement, so they have to do it.  But Town Council members already know how they will vote on this, and nothing that the public has to say will change those positions one bit.

By contrast, I have seen the Planning Commission modify its position in response to public comment.  But Town Council?  On this issue?  Nah.  Not gonna happen.

So, by all means, show up and speak.  Be heard.  Sit through the hours (?) of discussion.  Listen to our elected representatives give their speeches.  But realize that, absent the legal requirements, they could have gotten this piece of business over with in about five minutes.   Call the roll, vote, and leave.

Why am I so sanguine about that?  Because …

2:  The game is rigged.

In order to approve 380 West, in the presence of a protest petition, at least five Town Council members had to vote in favor of it.  (It used to be six, but Town Council changed that after the initial defeat of the Marco Polo proposal, one of the many times they doubled-down on MAC zoning (Post #227).

So, logically, anything under five “yes” votes for 380 — i.e., anything over two votes to rescind 380 — ought to result in rescinding the decision,.  They are revisiting a decision that required five “yes” votes.  Anything under five, now, means that the original motion would not have passed.

Under that interpretation (undoing the original decision), three or move voting to rescind would result in rescinding the original decision.  Three or more would have been enough to block the original approval.  Logically, three should be adequate to rescind the approval.

But wait, maybe that’s not fair.  Maybe this needs to be treated like any other motion before Town Council, and should require a majority of Town Council members voting in favor of it.

Under that interpretation (treat as any other motion), four or more voting to rescind would result in rescinding the original decision.  That’s a simple majority of the Town Council, that’s the way business is normally conducted.  And that’s consistent with why this is being revisited in the first place — three-quarters of votes cast in the May election were for anti-MAC candidates, and those now account for a majority of the members of the Town Council.

Under either of those interpretations, the motion to rescind would pass.  Which is precisely why the Mayor and Town Attorney aren’t going to do either of those things.   The rumor I have heard is that they are going to require a super-majority of “yes” votes in order to pass the motion to rescind the 380 approval. 

Because …. ?

Because they win, in that case.  Under that interpretation, five people would have to vote to rescind the decision.  Absent a miracle, that will not occur, as Council members DiRocco, Colbert, and Noble can be counted to vote against rescinding the 380 approval.   I’m sure there will be some legalese solemly spoken in order to bless this decision.  But the reality of it is, the remaining pro-MAC Town Council members would not win in any sort of fair fight.  But only idiots opt for a fair fight when they control the rules.  So they have taken the last two weeks to gin up a rationale that lets them win.

Which merely underscores that ….

3:  We need to vote the three remaining pro-MAC Town Council members out of office next year.  (Or, at the least, give it a good try).

Up to now, when challenged, the pro-MAC Town Council and Town employees have simply doubled-down on every objectionable aspect of MAC zoning (Post #227).  And this next meeting will NOT be the last of that of that doubling-down strategy that we have seen so far.

Why?

Because this latest episode shows that if you control the rules, and have Town staff working for you, it doesn’t really much matter that you are in the minority.  It doesn’t much matter that the most recent election should have sent a fairly strong signal about what the majority of Vienna citizens want, with three-quarters of votes case for anti-MAC candidates.

If you hold the reins of power, you can use them to ignore the results of the last election, in the hope that the next election will turn things around for you.  Given that attitude, the only option for people who oppose the current MAC setup is to prevent that from happening.  The only option is to try to vote the rest of them out, if we can.

I don’t say that lightly.  I’m pretty much sick of this issue.  But there hasn’t been the slightest indication that the pro-MAC forces are willing to consider material changes to the existing law.  I.e., Almost nobody wants to get rid of MAC entirely, but a large fraction of the population appears to want smaller buildings and more green space (as outlined in this post based on a survey of Vienna residents).  But all we have seen so far is more sleight-of-hand, such as the offer to replace the useless 15% “open space” requirement with what would in all likelihood be an equally useless 10% “gathering space” requirement.

In summary, for those who have been following this issue closely, it’s absolutely no surprise that those in power would bend the rules in their favor.  Recall that after the original Marco Polo proposal was turned down, those in power changed the voting rules to try to ensure that would not happen again.  This latest twist is just more of the same.