Recently, there has been a lot of buzz in Roanoke City and the Mass Rezoning. In order to help clarify what it is and to share why this type of change is negative towards the entire city I have decided to write this opinion piece. First, I will lay out what the mass rezoning does; second, I will spell out what proponents have stated as to the reasoning for the mass rezoning; finally, I will share what the harms are regardless of the proponents arguments.
The Mass Rezoning is a fundamental change in the way which zoning laws occur. Under the old law, a zone for the purposes of municipal government had to be effectively the same as the surrounding areas. For example, residential zoning would be applied to residential neighborhoods; industrial zoning to industrial areas; and commercial zoning to commercial areas. Within each of the zoning laws would be subsections which would delineate what type of buildings could be constructed in that area.
For the purposes made by Roanoke City Council, we will be focusing only on residential zoning and specifically single family housing. Single Family Housing is generally held to be a small home with a yard in front that we typically see in suburban areas. Typically, under the old law if a developer wanted to build a fundamentally different building type in a neighborhood, they would have to gain a zoning variance from the Zoning Board and would then have to typically get approval from City Council to build. This is a public process where citizens would be encouraged to participate in. However, the new Mass Zoning ordinances which were initially passed in March and then reaffirmed in September seek to change that process.
Now, developers would have the right to place certain property types which adhere to relaxed design restrictions in many places which was previously zoned as Single Family Housing. This changes the zoning to become a “by right” system meaning that no longer would developers have to go through the administrative process of a zoning variance or change for the properties they wish to develop.
The reasons for this as have been stated by a combination of the City Government, Roanoke City Council and developers themselves has been three-fold. First, the argument was to address affordable housing. Various entities have argued that removing the administrative process would lead to a reduction in cost for developers to build in neighborhoods which previously they would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. They have argued that higher density properties which are not being utilized currently would help to decrease the price both for renters and homeowners.
The second argument that has been touted has been that these types of developments adds to the “missing middle” of housing. The missing middle is a type of housing which is purported to be in-between apartments and single family housing. This type of housing is typically things such as duplexes and condominiums where a developer can reap benefits on small parcels of land.
The final argument as to why Roanoke City needs this type of change is to address the remnants of segregation and other racially motivated policies that were in the past. Each of these three arguments are illogical from the perspective of the realities of property and law.
First, consider the argument that this will address affordable housing. Previously, there would be an administrative process towards getting a variance. Developers have stated that this process can introduce uncertainty and thus increase costs as the neighborhood may not want the development there. Removing the ability of an administrative process would have an effect of reducing costs if the administrative process were the only means a neighborhood could espouse their argument.
However, this process does nothing for the myriad of law suits which would be filed against developers whose development would cause massive depreciation in value in the neighborhood. These costs would likely be passed on to the purchaser of the development or the renters of the properties. This would likely increase rather than decrease the price for housing in our region. Because of this, the argument that this type of rezoning would lead to affordable housing is not as foolproof as has been stated.
Secondly, consider the argument that this will help to increase the “Missing Middle” of housing. While this is likely the case as a developer would likely seek to maximize their profits when developing new properties, the reality is far more complicated than this. The argument that the City has proposed is that the increase in missing middle homes would allow for residents to move from apartments into these missing middle homes. This would free up those apartments resulting in a reduction in rent and housing costs.
However, Roanoke is far more complicated than that. Currently, there are many areas which are zoned in this way to permit the building of duplexes and other missing middle type homes (e.g. downtown, Grandin village, etc.). These areas have seen a robust increase in the last few years of building and developments; however, during the same time we have not seen prices decrease for rent or housing costs. If the City were to be believed, the production of this type of housing would see a reduction in costs. Unfortunately, the data does not support this.
Furthermore, in all likelihood, the creation of more missing middle homes would result in those homes being the starter homes for people coming to Roanoke for employment. This does not free up any space locally and instead would drive prices up as the supply would still remain stagnant.
Finally, a more insidious argument has been promoted by members of Roanoke City Council. Council has argued that single family zoning is inherently racist and a side effect of redlining and other segregationist policies. They argue that due to the history of redlining and the lack of predominantly African-Americans being able to get loans that this is a restorative justice piece of policy.
This characterization conveniently ignores the changes in our society that have occurred as a result of the Civil Rights Era such as the Fair Housing Act, which is a federal law that prevents discrimination in housing on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. It ignores other federal protections as well.
Ignoring the history of the Fair Housing Act for a moment, Council using this type of rhetoric during an election year is an attempt to demonize well-intentioned people concerned about their largest investment. This type of rhetoric is an attempt to paint the supporters of the change as valiant anti-racists while it paints the detractors of mass rezoning as vile bigots. However, since this is an argument which has been presented by prominent members in our community I have decided to address the absurdity of it.
Generally, when people state that a law is racist what they are describing is if the effects of the law disproportionately negatively affect one group of people which share a common racial identity. The sad reality of this mass rezoning is that it will likely disproportionately affect traditionally economically-disadvantaged areas of our City and exacerbate issues like gentrification. The reason why is economic.
Generally, a developer will look towards where they will be able to get the largest amount of money for the development of property. This can be done in two ways. The first way is to purchase property already in an area with high property values and increase the density of it. The second way is to purchase property in an economically disadvantaged area, develop it and market it as an upscale new development.
The impact of this will be to drive a lot of people from the neighborhood out of the area as the area becomes unaffordable for them to continue to live in. For the latter, we have a word for that: “gentrification.”
I would not be able to write this opinion piece in good conscience if I did not also address one of the fair concerns supporters of the Mass Rezoning changes have. There is an affordable housing crisis in Roanoke City. Due to a myriad of economic issues, Roanoke City rental and real estate property are not generally affordable to a large number of people and we are losing population because of it.
One way which has not generally been discussed by Roanoke City Council to address this would be to create grants and encourage development of delict and other historic properties which have been ignored for decades. Currently, estimates have stated we have between 4,000 and 5,000 abandoned, blighted, or dilapidated properties in Roanoke City. According to Roanoke City, we are about 3,000 housing units short of where we should be for a city of our geographical size. Ensuring that these types of properties get developed both increases the supply of housing (which according to proponents of the Mass Rezoning would decrease prices) and generally keeps the various developments in line with the neighborhoods.
The City can encourage these types of developments by doing things like issuing grants and other incentives for developers to work with communities. Should conditions on the grants be placed by the City, this could help reduce the costs of development which could be passed on to the purchaser or renter of those properties. It would take political gumption, but this is a much better solution than changing the zoning process for the entire city.
To recap, the City and a majority of those on City Council have said that the Mass Rezoning changes will help with affordable housing, to address the missing middle and to rectify our City’s history of racist policies. Unfortunately, there is no real data which suggests that it will.
While the City could have attempted a small scale zoning change for a small area to see how this would affect those issues, instead they decided to paint with a broad brush and have this apply to every single family zoned home in Roanoke City. These types of sweeping policy changes unsupported by data that affect a large majority of Roanoke City are not good for Roanoke.
Nick Hagen, Roanoke City
Fourth-generation Roanoker Nick Hagen is an attorney and also Republican candidate for City Council.