Youngkin Affordable-Housing Plan: Reform Regs to Increase Supply

by James A. Bacon

Governor Glenn Youngkin unveiled his plan Friday to promote the supply of affordable housing across Virginia. Other than a couple of television stations, the legacy media ignored the story on how the Governor proposes to address one of the most pressing public policy issues in Virginia. Too bad. The plan represents a significant philosophical shift for the Old Dominion.

The plan is notable for its emphasis on increasing the private-sector supply of housing rather than dumping endless sums of money into government housing projects.

The plan, said Youngkin in making the announcement, “is designed to address the restrictions on housing supply, improve and streamline permitting processes, and protect property owner rights. For far too long, Virginians have faced unnecessary burdens that have limited their housing options and opportunities.”

Caren Merrick, secretary of Commerce and Trade, also framed the plan as an economic development initiative. “The availability of workforce housing for their future employees [is] consistently raised by employers,” she said in the announcement. “The plan will align housing development with economic growth as part of our site development process and we will engage with site selectors earlier in the recruitment process on housing to ensure workforce housing needs are addressed.”

The “Make Virginia Home Plan” will focus on the following areas:

Increase the supply of land for housing 

  • Use state grants to support local policies and actions that encourage housing growth;
  • Establish guard rails for zoning/land use processes that include deadlines by which localities must act, and consequences if they do not, for localities seeking state assistance to increase the growth of their economies;
  • Create transparency by requiring localities to report on their policies and actions that impact housing development;
  • Investigate comprehensive reforms of Virginia’s land use and zoning laws.

Remove regulatory barriers to housing development 

  • Provide a more efficient way for public and private economic development and infrastructure projects to meet mandated wetlands and stream-mitigation requirements in a way that does not jeopardize the quality of that mitigation;
  • Improve and streamline environmental permitting processes;
  • Translate Virginia’s building regulations into Spanish;
  • Investigate potential procedural changes in the building code adoption process that balance technical code provisions more closely with construction cost controls.

Align housing development with economic growth 

  • Include housing more prominently in the Commonwealth’s economic development planning and site-development process;
  • Establish public/private partnerships with site selectors early on to include workforce housing in the site development and selection process.

Bacon’s bottom line:

This is a roadmap, not a detailed action plan. It is aspirational. It will require extensive cooperation from lawmakers, particularly where it contemplates changes to zoning codes, building codes, and environmental regulations.

From a sales-pitch perspective, the Make Virginia Home Plan leaves a lot to be desired. It’s vague and abstract, leaving little for members of the public to latch on to. Youngkin needs to get more specific. He should be saying, there’s something wrong with public apartment projects that cost $350,000 or more per unit. He should be highlighting alternatives: Virginia needs more tiny houses, more container dwellings, more granny suites, more Single-Room-Occupancy housing, more trailer parks, that sort of thing.

While Youngkin needs to work on the messaging, the overall thrust is very positive. The way to address the housing affordability crisis — and it is a crisis for lower-income households especially — is to increase the supply. And to increase the housing supply, we need to reform the regulations governing that supply.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

26 responses to “Youngkin Affordable-Housing Plan: Reform Regs to Increase Supply”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    “This is a roadmap, not a detailed action plan. It is aspirational. It will require extensive cooperation from lawmakers, particular where it contemplates changes to zoning codes, building codes, and environmental regulations.”

    Exactly my reaction to the “energy plan.” Youngkin is about to bump into a reality his predecessors have faced. Pick two, perhaps three things you really, really want to get done and attack in detail, and don’t spread too thin. Year one of four is essentially over. His fourth and final GA session starts in 26 months.

  2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    The least expensive form of housing is multifamily, but townhouses can help increase the supply as well. Fairfax County requires both workforce and affordable housing (terms of art) with certain rezoning grants. But more recently, it’s been finding that, often, price-limited workforce housing is often more costly than market-priced workforce housing. It makes no sense to require workforce housing priced above the market.

    As a result and with the support of a number of community groups, the County converted the formula for mandatory workforce housing at Tysons into a comparable economic burden formula for affordable housing. X number of more expensive affordable housing units equals Y number of less expensive workforce housing units. (Amount of needed rental assistance)

    Housing for lower-income people needs to be near reliable, all-day transit, as well as reasonable levels of parking and other amenities, including shopping and outdoor space.

    Uncle Sam could help out by allowing small landlords to offset other income with some level of rental losses. It could more than make up for the lost tax revenue by ending the tax-exempt status for nonprofits involved in advocacy or influencing public opinion with employees or paid contractors. Ditto for putting a limit on the length of time a private foundation can exist.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Maybe be he can do away with those pesky health department regs. Voluntary septic design standards!!

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Republican affordable housing with indoor plumbing… refrigerator box with a pickle jar.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    The man is beating around the bush… pontification without purpose!

    He and his merry band of “conservatives” have the perfect opportunity to get to the NUT of the issue and you KNOW where he is on the issue when Conservatives in BR are also asking “where’s the beef”.

    I swear. All this talk from Conservatives on this issue and the main man is blathering like he has cotton in his craw!

    Haner is right again. If Youngkin wants to do something, he better get some GA folks and more importantly some local jurisdictional folks – who may well help identify where the regulatory obstacles are.

    The truth is that “affordable” housing – requires, water/sewer, streets, schools, all the infrastructure and services that regular housing requires. Making it a “tiny” house won’t negate the need for that 30K hookup to water/sewer or the 50-100 million for a school or a fire/ems station.

    And I’m surprised that Youngkin hasn’t suggested a law that empowers non-profits to build units less “profit”? Why not use a model like Goodwill or Habitat for Humanity with govt grants, tax-advantages, etc. Make it a c3 corporation and people can donate money instead of sending that money to the govt! Let them sell non-taxable muni bonds, etc. You’d think a man with his business background would have ideas like this out the wazoo instead of blather out the other end!

  5. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Let’s go back to Youngkin’s “town halls” on housing several months ago. I use the term loosely, because they were invitation-only events, with limited press, limited local engagement, and heavy on developers. All to give the appearance that “the people” want a solution Youngkin’s consultants are pushing for, controlling the message.

    With Youngkin’s team controlling the message, you would imagine the plan would be more specific, more detailed, more robust. Instead, you have a policymaking process contrived to give legitimacy to a pre-determined end; but the end result being a half-baked plan.

    Once again, an indication that Youngkin surrounds himself with too many people who believe they know how to “do it better”, but in reality are in over their heads when it comes to the business of running state government.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Most developers and homebuilders are Republicans, at least the ones I see in the Fburg Area and they group up at an organization called Fredericksburg Area Builders Association and I don’t know for a fact but if they donated to Youngkin no big shock!

      With Youngkins connection to the business community, I would expect really good ideas. Instead, it feels a little like he has surrounded himself mostly with partisans.

      Spends more time on “investigations”, “tip lines” and mucking up History standards and campaigning for election deniers.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      And what progress was made during the 8 years that McAuliffe and Northam were governor?

    3. DJRippert Avatar

      And what progress was made during the 8 years that McAuliffe and Northam were governor?

  6. Cassie Gentry Avatar
    Cassie Gentry

    It would help if high fallutin’ zoning restrictions that keep getting ratcheted up could be rolled back and if permitting could be streamlined with restrictions eased. A case in point is Albemarle County which restricts subdivision rights in the majority of its 770 sq. miles. This resulted in many old farm and estate properties having exhausted subdivision rights. With the introduction of the county’s “comprehensive plan”, an example would be an 800 acre property whose owner exhausted his 20 parcel by right subdivision option by breaking off 20 3 acre lots. At that point his remaining 740 acres would essentially become a “rural conservation” property which couldn’t ever be subdivided further, even if sold to a new owner. This is to “preserve farmland” and protect the scenery and rural character of the county. Of course very little true farming goes on, but there are plenty of “gentleman farmers” who take advantage of Federal tax subsidies, but they just keep horses or have vanity vineyards. People keep moving here and would like to be able to buy a few acres and build a house that’s within their means, but that’s hard to do when (near where I live) a 3 acre plot just sold for $350K. Factors that produce this situation can all be laid at the feet of numerous organized development restrictions imposed over the years, which share in common an anti growth agenda. You can’t simultaneously strangle growth and provide “affordable housing”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Spotsylvania does something similar but does allow by-right “family” subdivisions.

      And you can propose a regular subdivision but you have to go through a rezone process and developers do it all the time. It costs money. All the lots have to perk. The roads have to be built to state standards. The houses have to built to code. A financial analysis has to be presented to demonstrate if the taxes collected are enough to pay for schools and services. The Conservative BOS points out that when a house does not pay for the services it uses/needs, other taxpayers have to.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      Of course, the costs of roads (paid for by the state) and the cost of new schools (paid for by a combination of state mandated transfers and locality taxes) have to be managed in order to support the increased density.

  7. An obvious way to get cheap housing built is to allow it in areas where buildings should be prohibited. Aka, flood-vulnerable zones threatened by subsidence and sea level rise.

  8. Paul Sweet Avatar

    It often costs as much to develop a site for an “affordable house” as it does for a McMansion. Roads have to meet VDOT requirements and often have to be designed to support future off-site growth. EPA keeps tightening environmental restrictions – especially runoff and expanding the definition of wetlands. Water and sewer require substantial up-front payments for expanding systems and upgrading filtration (on both ends) to meet ever-tightening EPA requirements. Several localities require a certain number & size of shade trees to be planted. Many localities require proffers to pay for future schools, fire & police stations, etc.

    Building codes keep getting more demanding. Insulation levels increase every 3 years with each new edition of the International Building Code. Residences are required to be sprinklered, although Virginia has amended it out so far. Tiny houses might work for some people, but not for a large family.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I agree. There is an implied thought that developers make enough profit that they “COULD” make less if they wanted to be generous.

      Further some folks think that localities should incentivize “affordable” housing that will not deliver high enough tax revenues to
      pay for it’s impact on infrastructure and services.

      Localities are under significant stress to deliver water/sewer, schools, fire/ems, public safety, libraries, etc… and it boils
      down to each house paying enough in taxes to pay for those services and if they do not, then others with houses have to pay more to make it up.

      The Democrat approach to “affordable” housing is usually different than the Republican approach. The Dems are usually pretty bald-faced about it… tax the higher income folks. The Republicans are often the opposite. Instead of fully disclosing how they’d do it – it’s more often than not couched in words like Youngkin provided!

    2. I agree with most of your points, but RE: proffers, do you really think it is fair to require people who already live in a particular jurisdiction to pay the cost of the new schools, increased fire & rescue needs, and increased numbers of police officers which new development causes? In my opinion, the capital costs of these increased services should be covered by those who generate the need for them.

      1. Paul Sweet Avatar

        I never heard of proffers until a couple decades ago. Expanding commercial development usually paid for new public facilities in the past.

        Virginia’s crazy system of independent cities might be to blame. When a city expanded it used to take away the most valuable (for tax revenue) part of a county, so annexation was halted. Now that it is hard to expand commercial development in cities they have had to turn to proffers, and a lot of counties have followed suit.

        The problem with proffers is that they are a higher percentage of the cost of an affordable house than of a McMansion.

  9. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    “This is a roadmap, not a detailed action plan. It is aspirational. It will require extensive cooperation from lawmakers, particular where it contemplates changes to zoning codes, building codes, and environmental regulations.”

    Exactly my reaction to the “energy plan.” Youngkin is about to bump into a reality his predecessors have faced. Pick two, perhaps three things you really, really want to get done and attack in detail, and don’t spread too thin. Year one of four is essentially over. His fourth and final GA session starts in 26 months.

  10. He should be highlighting alternatives: Virginia needs more tiny houses, more container dwellings, more granny suites, more Single-Room-Occupancy housing, more trailer parks, that sort of thing.

    None of those things are as profitable to developers as constructing high-end single family dwellings and luxury apartments/condo buildings.

    How can/will the government force developers to turn away from their most profitable products?

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Fairfax County staff proposed SRO housing expansion a number of years ago. But, instead of focusing on locations that had access to bus transit, walkable shopping and reasonable access to some open space, staff proposed to allow it anywhere. The blowback from both community groups and most supervisors was very strong.

      You cannot add housing without also ensuring corresponding increases in public facilities or everyone’s quality of life decreases. So, that means proffers, impact fees or higher taxes.

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        They should handle it like Prince William County does–turn a blind eye to the 3-bedroom houses where 8 people live.

  11. Paul Sweet Avatar

    There are a lot of closed or older non-profitable motels that could be easily converted into SRO. Unfortunately some code officials consider this change from transient to long-term occupancy as triggering many expensive building code upgrades.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There’s actually a significant Federal involvement in finding housing for those that are homeless – both temporary and permanent.

      And controversy.

      Google “Continuum of Care” as well as “Housing First”:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/719c9270ee8ebe8d407a357e05fdf30c8286da3706764a863848780fe9bf017c.jpg

      https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4814f2406c462ff54f85bf6e5053d72a7de7ba594b85dedf8a2961ad177e5712.jpg

  12. DJRippert Avatar

    Seems like work-from-home and hybrid work will continue to put downward pressure on the commercial office space market. Vacancy rates are up in Arlington, for example.

    Wouldn’t a program to convert office space to apartments and condos solve two problems – reduce unused commercial space and increase residential space (which would normally reduce the costs)? The roads are already built, the water and sewer already exists.

    Deferred taxes for commercial property owners who convert their commercial property to residential is just one thought.

    https://www.arlnow.com/2022/07/11/arlington-office-vacancy-rate-continues-to-rise-amid-work-from-home-trends/

  13. DJRippert Avatar

    Once again, Virginia’s political structure impedes progress.

    1) The one-term governor does not have enough time to push meaningful change. He or she is a lame duck on inauguration day.

    2) Unlimited political donations from anybody to anybody guarantees that the rent seekers who benefit from favorable regulation get favorable regulation. This very much includes land developers.

    3) Independent (and undersized) cities become a combination of office space and poverty centers. No annexation is allowed, congestion increases and counties (like Prince William) struggle to maintain their “rural character” while dealing with increased population.

    4) The separation of land use (i.e. zoning) from transportation funding all but guarantees that localities pursuing greater density will be flummoxed by The Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.

    The answers are obvious, if not easy.

    1) Allow the governor to stand for immediate re-election.
    2) Severely restrict / eliminate any large political donations.
    3) Put cities inside counties.
    4) Allow annexation.
    5) Make funding for transportation (other than roads of statewide significance) a locality – by – locality matter (including raising transportation funds).
    6) Implement term limits for the General Assembly.

  14. Elliott Webb Avatar
    Elliott Webb

    There is more to creating affordable housing than increasing supply. I own a handful of rental units in Norfolk and the real estate taxes I pay to the city represent the largest share of my gross income (roughly 18%) paid out to anyone – nothing else even comes close. The assessed values bear no resemblance to actual market values and never have. They go up practically every year, and the tax rate itself goes up every few years as well. I am forced to increase rents every year to net the same figure, but dare not raise them more on top of this to give myself a raise to combat higher costs of living, lest I price my tenants into going elsewhere. So they pay more, and I live on less. I’m sure landlords in other municipalities face the same problem, having to shoulder a disproportional share of supporting bloated city budgets, relative to other taxes/fees the city collects. Meanwhile, the schools and roads are a mess and the police don’t show up when you need them. So every quarter when I write that big check I ask myself: “What exactly am I getting in return?”

    One could argue that increasing the supply of housing would bring down the tax rate, but the cynic in me believes that the city would simply find more ways to spend the extra revenue.

Leave a Reply