I hope all is well. My name is Michael A. Spotts, and I am an Arlington resident; housing and community development policy research professional; and former Vice-Chair of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP) Working Group.[1] I write today in my personal capacity to express support for the County staff Missing Middle proposal. The County staff members working on this initiative have done a tremendous job evaluating a complex, contentious issue over a multi-year process and have developed a high-quality proposal that is consistent with what is, in my professional opinion, national best practices. The staff has created a proposal to directly address our critical housing shortage, while compromising in some areas and working to resolve the legitimate concerns raised by skeptics of the missing middle concept.
The County has been receiving feedback on this proposal, both in support and opposition. I believe that the proposal would be highly beneficial to the County and should be further developed and, eventually, adopted under the currently delineated timeframe. That does not mean that all concerns of skeptics and opponents are illegitimate. However, I believe that these issues can be adequately addressed within the current framework. As for concerns about the public engagement and outreach process, County staff have conducted outreach in various forums and using broad platforms to expand outreach beyond those that typically - and more easily – participate in such engagement efforts. The fact that the County staff engaged with established institutions (such as civic associations) and considered their concerns, but did not prioritize any individual constituency is a sign of the diligence with which staff undertook their charge. Now that County staff has addressed the technical challenges and identified a potential solution, I urge the County Board to take a leadership role in advancing this proposal by making the case for missing middle housing and addressing good-faith concerns of all constituencies – whether supportive or skeptical.
The following section outlines more detailed comments on both the broad issues and specific components of the Missing Middle Proposal. I have also enclosed a written expansion on a presentation I gave to the Arlington Committee of 100 in May 2021 on the Missing Middle issue, which addresses many of the core issues in more detail.
Thank you in advance for considering these comments. As always, please feel free to contact me at mspotts@neighborhodfundamentals.com with questions, requests for additional information, or supportive references/documentation that informs the comments to follow.
The Big Picture: To equitably thrive long-term, Arlington must evolve
Arlington’s long-term and prevailing growth model has been a success on many measures. However, as documented throughout the Missing Middle study process, the past growth model has led to both intended and unintended consequences that have contributed to racial disparities and declining affordability.
During my time in Arlington, the County has been held up as a leader in addressing population growth and producing committed affordable housing. This reputation has been well earned, through actions such as the County’s commitment to the creation and preservation of affordable units through AHIF and certain innovative land use policies (such as the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Form Based Code and its focus on preservation of affordability).
However, the County’s underlying land use and zoning framework has not adequately evolved to meet the challenge of shifting markets, changing demographics, and the latest innovations in housing policy and practice. Specifically, the past model of high-density in a relatively small number of corridors and preservation of detached single-family neighborhoods has contributed to a hollowing out of the middle-cost housing stock.
While some argue that Arlington is “full” or should seek to push back against demand/growth, that perspective either does not adequately consider the needs of those currently lacking equal access to quality, affordable housing, and is often based on the fiction that “closing our doors” will make demand disappear. When we talk about “demand,” we are really talking about people. People need a place to live, and those with lesser means are the most likely to suffer the consequences if we (a) overly restrict growth; and (b) fail to take steps to support potentially vulnerable households. When debating whether Arlington should grow, it is important to consider the counterfactual – if we do not build in Arlington, where will people go?
The answers will vary. Some will be able to find a home in Arlington, but suffer financial distress. However, a non-trivial number of people will be priced out and seek housing opportunities elsewhere. This often drives development further from the urban core. Regions are complex ecosystems, and Arlington is acutely impacted by what happens elsewhere. Arlington is also “downstream,” figuratively and literally. We cannot address environmental issues (flooding, air quality) in Arlington by shifting housing production further out of the core, which results in even greater loss of tree cover, open space, impervious surface, etc. We cannot solve traffic by pushing people farther out, given that many people are commuting to – or through – Arlington.
The County’s Missing Middle proposal would rectify a mistake made decades ago to restrict all housing supply growth to a limited number of neighborhoods. This proposal allows all of Arlington to evolve. In the context of most things, evolution is a good thing. Enabling evolution allows communities to naturally respond (often, though not always, slowly over time) to market shifts, consumer preferences, and housing needs. Allowing diverse housing types can facilitate aging-in-place and provide more opportunities for people to stay in their community as their lives evolve and needs and/or preferences change.
Prescriptive policies – and lengthy processes for amending them – prevent this evolution and create the market distortions and pent-up demand that we are facing today. While this policy is not perfect from an “evolutionary” perspective (for example, maintaining the current framework for massing, setbacks, etc. is still restrictive), it would move Arlington County decidedly in a positive direction and represents a reasonable compromise. It also would provide datapoints for another critical component of sustainable growth – a focus on “iterative policymaking” based on real-world trial and error.
The current proposal to apply missing middle – and the opportunity for housing supply growth – to all parts of the County also addresses many of the concerns of those worried about the prospect of missing middle housing. Based on available literature, it is my belief that evolutionary growth and modest increases in density throughout the County (in addition to more intense development in key, robustly planned corridors) is fiscally beneficial, increasing tax revenue on a per acre basis (even while producing comparatively lower-cost housing than the prevailing model) and better supporting our existing, over-built infrastructure (inappropriately wide streets) in many low-density neighborhoods. However, even if one were to accept the disputed suggestion that restricting growth creates some fiscal benefits for Arlington (by reducing the need for infrastructure outlays), contributing to a more sprawling regional growth model would have negative fiscal impacts on the state, with long-term spillover impacts on the County’s budget. Research also supports the notion that a more diverse housing stock is more resilient in downturns. This makes logical sense, as a wider range of housing types and price points expands the potential “consumer base” seeking to live in a given place. Furthermore, allowing the whole county to absorb demand can limit speculation and dramatic land cost increases. Finally, spreading demand can also reduce the likelihood that any specific neighborhood experiences rapid, concentrated neighborhood change.
The Specific Proposal: By-Right within Existing Development Paradigm
For the reasons stated above, the by-right nature of the current proposal is one of its strongest elements and should be prioritized above most other considerations. If Arlington wants to shift the development paradigm to allow more diverse housing types, it must remove as many barriers to such development as possible. The current model of single-family additions, tear-downs, and expansions has proven to be a lucrative business model. Any barrier that continues to make the status quo the “path of least resistance” undermines the goals of actually producing middle-density homes.
A critical component of barrier removal is County staff’s proposal to reduce off-street parking requirements. The proposal is correct in prioritizing homes for people over “homes” for cars. In a space constrained environment, arduous parking requirements can reduce the viability of missing middle types or reduce the number of units a parcel can absorb. It is also important to remember that the proposal is for parking minimums, not maximums. Those producing missing middle homes will need to rent or sell homes that are viable in the market. In areas with sparse on-street parking, developers may choose to provide more than the minimum (just as many developers of larger single-family detached homes build two-car garages and include additional off-street space in excess of County minimums today). That is not to say that spillover parking challenges will not happen anywhere. However, I believe that these can be managed with more effective on-street parking management policies. The County has taken steps in that direction in recent years, but more can be done to address imbalances between managed and unmanaged zones.
Another clear benefit of this proposal is that it allows missing middle housing to be produced without tear-downs. The act of demolishing a home – especially one that still is structurally sound – literally destroys value, adds costs, and thus decreases the feasibility of missing middle housing (or raises the minimum price point at which it can be produced. Under this proposal, new missing middle homes can viably be “added on” to existing homes, creating another alternative to large additions to single-family homes.
The proposal would also allow converting existing, larger single-family detached homes to missing middle housing without any increase in footprint. Given the significant number of very large units that have replaced smaller units, this provides another option for families that no longer need as much space and improves the resilience of Arlington’s housing market. The latter issue is particularly relevant in the context of a rising interest rate environment. Many of the current home expansions have occurred during a time of historically low interest rates. Demand for resales of such homes may be considerably diminished if mortgage rates rise to those that were considered “normal” during the 1980s and 1990s (let alone during the last period of high-inflation). This change could minimize the potential financial harm to current Arlington homeowners.
Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal
As the County develops specific code revisions, it should adopt policies that facilitate the subdivision of parcels being developed or redeveloped as missing middle into individual lots. Allowing subdivision will not change the number of units that could be built on a specific parcel (pre-subdivision). However, it could make it easier to develop horizontal attached housing without the need to establish condominium associations/agreements. This enables “fee simple” ownership. The combination of horizontal attached with fee simple structures can be less costly (no condo fees) and complicated (individual owners are responsible for their own properties, rather than having to collectively manage common maintenance) to both develop and steward over the long term. To be clear, this comment should not be interpreted as a critique of condominium-style missing middle development and/or vertical missing middle models. Rather, it is a call to develop missing middle policies in a way that maximizes the number of potentially viable development and ownership models/structures.
Beyond that, I offer no specific comments on immediate opportunities for improving the proposal, other than that the County should maintain the current potential units counts and work diligently to ensure that as the proposal shifts to actual policy language that the specific details do not create de facto barriers to missing middle housing. To accomplish this, engagement with developers and builders (including nonprofit affordable homeownership developers active across the Washington, DC region) will be helpful.
Longer-Term Opportunities for Facilitating Effective Growth through Missing Middle Housing
Enabling evolutionary growth (as this proposal does) by-right is a critical first step. However, as the proposal’s initial projections suggest, the number of units produced are likely to be modest in any individual year, with benefits to housing supply growth accumulating over time. After observing initial, real-world impacts of the policy, the County could adopt complementary policies that enable additional missing middle types that do not fall within existing building envelopes, such as rowhomes (allowing the creation of neighborhoods like Glebewood) or garden-style apartments (as in Westover or Barcroft). These are existing typologies that the County has made efforts to preserve. If such neighborhoods are worth preserving, it makes sense that there should be policies that allow more of these housing types to be developed.
Flexibility in form, density, setbacks, height, coverage etc. allows for development creativity (enabling cost reductions) and can allow for the provision of community benefits such as committed affordability and the preservation of open space, trees, etc. (see additional discussion below).[2] For larger developments and/or parcel consolidation, such developments could merit additional planning beyond what the County envisions on a by-right basis. The form that such a policy could take can vary, but the County could create a specific path that enables such developments (such as a lower-density neighborhoods form-based code). Another option could be to allow neighborhoods to initiate, develop, and adopt specific plans that guide growth in their community (for example, prioritizing “cottage clusters”) provided that such plans do not have the de jure or de facto impact of restricting, rather than facilitating, missing middle beyond what the by-right provisions allow. To reiterate, the County should view such non-by-right policies as a complement to – and not a replacement for – the current by-right proposal, which is essential to the success of the missing middle policy.
Missing Middle and the Potential for Improved Affordability
Missing middle has the opportunity to serve as a platform for affordability. Some critiques of the proposal have emphasized that newly constructed missing middle housing will not be “affordable per se” to lower-income households. However, missing middle housing would certainly be comparably more affordable than the counterfactual – which is not existing, older single-family detached homes, but the results of the redevelopment of those homes into larger, higher-end single-family detached homes.
Missing middle can facilitate rental housing in predominantly owner-occupied neighborhoods, adding a degree of income diversity. It can also create a streamlined pathway to niche housing types that meet specific needs – for example, clusters of service enriched housing targeted toward older adults and/or persons with disabilities, which facilitates multigenerational neighborhoods and inclusive living regardless of age and ability.
That being said, much attention has been paid to the impacts of missing middle housing on homeownership affordability. To be clear, the current zoning paradigm ensures that over the long term, affordable homeownership is an impossibility. Given current housing costs and the pricing trajectory for single-family detached homes, there is no scalable, long-term solution that preserves even a modest level of affordability AND single-family exclusivity in such neighborhoods. It would be perverse to double down on our current, failed model in the name of affordability. Market-rate, missing middle development reaching levels of affordability for households at $108,000 (as the projections show) would be a substantial improvement over the status quo. To illustrate using data from the National Housing Conference’s Paycheck-to-Paycheck database, that price point would open up homeownership – without subsidy – to two-income households with a wide range of occupations (for example, an electrician and a bus driver, or a teacher and a janitor/cleaner).
Median Wage by Occupation for Washington, DC Metropolitan Region (Source: National Housing Conference)
Finally, missing middle provides a platform for deeper affordability. Based on initial “back-of-the-envelope” projections (and after discussions with practitioners who have constructed committed affordable homeownership developments for low-income households), the current, by-right proposal could enable 80% AMI, permanently affordable (i.e., community land trust or other forms of shared-equity structures) homeownership development with subsidy levels consistent with (and potentially below) the County’s expenditures for affordable rental housing (rather than the current status quo in which developing in single-family neighborhoods would require several multiples of that level of subsidy).
Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal
To leverage the opportunity that missing middle housing provides, the County should make its own “down payment” on affordability by committing funding for committed affordable homeownership development (potentially out of the close-out budget) concurrent with the passage of the missing middle zoning changes.
Finally, the County should work to combat predatory acquisition practices, such as harassing, all-cash offers substantially below market value that target lower-income or elderly homeowners. This can be accomplished through a combination of outreach/education and regulation. Regulatory examples include banning repeated/threatening solicitations and/or requiring that buyers provide estimates of a home’s fair market value through publicly available services such as Zillow or Redfin.
Ancillary Issues: Trees, Stormwater, Schools, and Other Infrastructure
As previously discussed, there are legitimate concerns about the impact of growth on Arlington County’s environment, infrastructure, and schools. Those concerns should be acknowledged and proactively addressed. However, these challenges exist today, before any potential changes are made related to missing middle housing. This means that our existing land use and development paradigm is contributing to, and in some cases creating those challenges. This is an argument for reform, not for maintaining the status quo, given that a “no growth” scenario is not a viable option given regional population and employment expansion, as people need to live somewhere. The question becomes where that growth should occur. The answer to that question needs to be “in every jurisdiction,” but some jurisdictions are better placed than others to sustainably grow. Given Arlington’s location within the region’s urban core, status as a diverse jobs center, and comparably strong transit access, locating growth in Arlington would be among the most sustainable options, reducing per capita environmental impact, which is the most critical measure (see additional discussion in Committee of 100 attachment).
In some ways, missing middle helps directly address environmental concerns and capacity constraints. Attached housing has the potential to open up more lot area for green space (see: Fairlington). By creating a fuller spectrum of housing opportunities, missing middle housing can also create more predictability in school and service capacity planning, as families have more options within Arlington to meet their changing needs.
This does not mean that the County should not work to make growth in Arlington even more environmentally friendly and address any resulting capacity shortages. However, since missing middle did not cause our capacity problems, it should not bear a disproportionate burden in addressing them. As such, policies that address tree coverage, stormwater capacity, school capacity, etc. should be addressed in a comprehensive manner that includes ALL housing and development types, especially those that constitute the majority of Arlington’s developable areas.
Immediate Opportunities for Improving the Proposal
To demonstrate the County’s commitment to environmentally and fiscally sustainable growth, the County should lay out a timeline (or reiterate the timelines for current projects that are already in-progress) for studies and policy changes that directly address the critical concerns that have been raised throughout this process. As with the affordable homeownership recommendation above, it can include a specific commitment of resources (potentially through the close-out budget) to support existing programs and accelerate planned projects.
Longer-Term Opportunities for Facilitating Effective Growth through Missing Middle Housing
The incremental density increases facilitated by missing middle housing can make investments in other aspects of sustainable growth more necessary and viable. Moving forward, the County should explore complementary policies such as:
· Undergrounding utilities (overhead wires can dramatically restrict opportunities for canopy trees in existing single-family neighborhoods)
· Expanding zoning for “neighborhood serving retail” and/or accessory commercial units and make modest infrastructure improvements to enable more “15 minute neighborhoods.”
· Reforming parking policies to reduce off-street requirements while adopting a more market-oriented approach to on-street parking.
· Facilitating “tactical” and longer-term investments in pedestrian infrastructure, with a focus on safety (i.e., slowing cars).
· Investing in the bus system and shared use mobility programs.
A Final Note: Missing Middle and Fair Housing
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) prohibits active discrimination and policies that lead to disparate impacts in housing. Combatting this type of discrimination is often the focus of Fair Housing evaluations and activities. However, when the baseline conditions prior to passage of the Fair Housing Act included rampant de facto and de jure discrimination and segregation, simply eliminating those actions (which society has decidedly not achieved) without some sort of restitution or remedy for the harms created would perpetuate disadvantage for people of color and African-Americans in particular. As such, the Fair Housing Act established an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and require recipients of HUD funds “to take meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”[3] Regrettably, HUD has not robustly enforced this obligation throughout much of the law’s history. However, starting with the Obama Administration, HUD has taken steps to create a more robust regulatory framework around this obligation. The Trump Administration subsequently reversed these actions, but the Biden Administration has reinstituted many of the Obama-era provisions and has signaled that it would be more closely focused on the issue. Consequences for the failure to adhere to Fair Housing Act provisions include the forfeiture of federal housing resources allocated to the recipient, among other potential actions.
The final regulatory form and specific actions required by HUD are not yet finalized (and are subject to further rulemaking). As such, it is unclear at this time what actions HUD will definitively consider as affirmatively furthering fair housing, and what actions would prompt action from the HUD Office of Fair Housing Enforcement.[4] However, given the specifics of the interim final rule and the Biden Administration’s stated focus on eliminating exclusionary zoning, it would be prudent for Arlington County to consider any action that reinforces or creates exclusionary zoning barriers to be suspect and potentially increase the risk of legal and regulatory action from HUD.
Furthermore, the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing has existed since 1968. Given the County’s vision of being “a diverse and inclusive world-class urban community,” Arlington should hold itself to a standard of ethics and practice that advances this goal, independent of specific federal regulatory requirements.
Increasing housing supply and diversity in all neighborhoods is also critically important to achieving the goals of the Affordable Housing Master Plan (AHMP). During that process, the County and the AHMP Working Group identified considerable challenges related to the lack of geographic distribution of committed affordable units and other relatively attainable housing choices.
The development opportunities brought on by missing middle reforms represent a critical opportunity for achieving a more balanced housing distribution and fulfilling the spirit of the distribution targets established in the AHMP. Failure to leverage this opportunity will only exacerbate a cycle in which market-rate housing becomes increasingly out-of-reach and rising land/property values reduce the impact of County affordable housing subsidies, widening discrepancies in income, wealth and opportunity (or put more bluntly, intensifying socioeconomic segregation).
The County has taken robust action to expand and preserve affordable housing opportunities in Arlington’s core corridors. Notable examples include the affordability incentives embedded in the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan and Form-Based Code, and the recent investment in preserving the affordability of the Barcroft Apartments. To be clear, these actions are warranted, necessary, and consistent with the principles of equity and fair housing. However, to affirmatively further fair housing it is critically necessary to show similar commitment to affordability everywhere in the County. The County has established a pattern in which it is willing to invest resources in areas that are already socioeconomically diverse and has made case-specific investments in certain higher-income neighborhoods. However, it has not established the same level of commitment to affirmatively confronting exclusionary zoning and taking proactive steps through zoning changes and financial investments to desegregating neighborhoods. The County staff proposal for missing middle reforms is a critical and commendable course correction, and the team that has worked on this study should be lauded for their leadership in this area.
Moving forward, if the County is to comply with the spirit (and potentially the letter) of the Fair Housing Act, it must take action. The legitimate concerns of those skeptical of this proposal can and should be acknowledged (as discussed above) and adequately addressed. Beyond that, failure to prioritize housing affordability and diversity would at a minimum expose as hollow the County’s stated commitment to equity. At a maximum, it could potentially and justifiably lead to regulatory action and litigation if HUD begins robust enforcement of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligation. To make true progress the County must take action to remove concrete barriers to opportunity and improve the material conditions of those that have experienced discrimination and/or are economically struggling. Now is the time for the County Board to demonstrate leadership and live up to its ideals and its obligations under the Fair Housing Act by committing to pass missing middle reforms, paired with proactive investment in reducing disparities across socioeconomic groups.
[1] Disclosure: I am a volunteer member of the Board of Directors for both the Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing and Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance. In my professional capacity, I provide research support for the Arlington Community Foundation on housing-related issues. These comments are my own, and do not represent the perspective of those organizations.
[2] For example: Portland’s Residential Infill Program allows additional height and units if ½ of units are affordable. Fully market-rate development is allowed, but at smaller scale.
[3] https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh
[4] Though I follow the issue of Fair Housing closely from a policy perspective, I am not a fair housing lawyer and this commentary does not constitute legal advice.