Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

needleinacamelseye t1_iwr6bya wrote

Reply to comment by MontisQ in Baltimore’s Math Equation: Housing in the City is a Number’s Game by Skontradiction

Torrence's objection to calling Dorsey's bill 'city-wide' is that Roland Park and Guilford (among other wealthy, majority-white neighborhoods) have covenants that explicitly ban the conversion of single-family houses (attached or detached) into multi-family units. Legalizing by-right conversions of single-family into multi-family without enabling it to spread into all corners of the city concentrates any growth pressure that may exist into the places where it is legal. Thus, any growth will only occur in less-wealthy, less-white places, accelerating gentrification and displacement in poorer neighborhoods while preserving the neighborhood character and property values of already-wealthy (largely white) neighborhoods.

I find this position frustrating, especially because West Baltimore's housing stock is on the average fairly large, as it was the wealthy side of town back in the day. Big houses throw big bills, and conversion of 4000 sq. ft. rowhouses into three or four 1000 sq. ft. condominiums would help ensure that folks with lower incomes would be able to afford to purchase and maintain their residences.

3

MontisQ t1_iwr7sly wrote

Yea, just seems like covenants need to be done with altogether. But I'm still confused by Torrence's argument. If multifamily is already extremely concentrated, wouldn't Dorsey's bill help alleviate that concentration even if it excludes certain neighborhoods?

3

needleinacamelseye t1_iwrb7ft wrote

I think you'll have a tough time convincing Roland Park and Guilford residents that they need to make their neighborhoods more accessible to 'affordable' housing when the people who live there largely bought there because it wasn't affordable to the sort of people they don't want to live near...

As far as the city zoning code goes: the single-family zones (R-1 through R-4) explicitly ban multi-family properties. Multi-family are already allowed in zones R-5 through R-10 (including basically all the rowhouse neighborhoods), but isn't always economically feasible, as converting a house from SF to MF requires a zoning variance plus conformation with parking regulations. The zoning variances are issued at councilmembers' discretion, and I believe that parking regulations require off-street parking to be provided for all units if you have more than three units on one lot - which is tough to do with rowhouses. Both of these requirements introduce uncertainty into the conversion process, which makes investors less likely to make the conversion happen.

Dorsey's bill would allow for by-right conversion in all zones (so explicitly allowing multi-family in current single-family zones, removing the need to provide parking, and removing the need for a variance), which would lower the costs associated with converting single-family houses to multi-family units.

My guess is that if Dorsey's bill were passed, you would see a large wave of condo and apartment conversions out of existing rowhouses.

Edit: to actually answer your question - yes, I think it would help alleviate the concentration of multi-family housing. I think Torrence's concern is that the logical choice for multi-family conversions would be houses in neighborhoods where poor people currently live, and that freeing up developers to drive up prices in poor neighborhoods is only going to hurt the people living there (via unaffordable rent hikes for renters and unaffordable property tax bills for owners). I don't necessarily agree with Torrence, but my guess is that's his concern.

3

MontisQ t1_iwrej97 wrote

>I think Torrence's concern is that the logical choice for multi-family conversions would be houses in neighborhoods where poor people currently live

I just don't see how anyone would think that this would be the case, a councilmember nonetheless. We can look at the census data and see which neighborhoods are growing and which aren't. A developer would be pretty stupid if they think "Lets build where there is no demand".

3

needleinacamelseye t1_iwrjiqt wrote

I wonder if some of Torrance's opposition isn't economic, but cultural - poor Black neighborhoods have a long and sad history of getting the short end of the stick when the government decides to 'improve' the city (see Preston Gardens, Cross Keys, the Highway to Nowhere, what's currently going on in Poppleton, anything referred to as slum clearance, etc). I'd be wary of policy designed to make development easier if those policies always seemed to end up hurting my community in the past...

3

MontisQ t1_iwrl8uk wrote

I think you are probably right and that's a legit point to make. Dorsey seems to be in a shitty spot where he has to say "It'll be different THIS time!".. I wonder how many times someone like Torrence has heard that.

2

rockybalBOHa t1_iwrigxg wrote

I read about this a few weeks ago. My recollection is that the While L (except for neighborhoods with covenants) is already zoned for multifamily, while the Black Butterfly is not. I think this validates Dorsey's position even more.

2