TLDR: Article summarizes the debate over Dorsey’s Abundant Housing Act. Dorsey and advocates say it will help bring housing costs down while Torrence says it will “destroy black wealth.” Also getting a mention is a beefed up inclusionary zoning bill proposed by Ramos.

I don't understand Torrence's argument. My impression is that Dorsey's bill is city wide, but Torrence seems to say otherwise? Or is it just the covenants that prohibit its application in certain areas? That seems like a separate issue that needs to be tackled and shouldn't hold up this bill.

Also, if Torrence believes this destroys wealth, what is his message to the neighborhoods that already permit this? Tough shit? You don't get to build wealth? Almost seems like a scapegoat

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.

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?

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.

>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".

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.

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...

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.

I think that much of the issue with development could be avoided if you gave advantages to homeowners and disadvantages to landlords. for example, you could make the rule that only houses that are currently owner-occupied can be converted to multi-family without going through the longer process. that way, folks who own their own houses can choose to either convert and sell or convert and remain in one of the units, both of which build wealth for homeowners. meanwhile a landlord would not get that benefit and still have to pursue the variance through the more complicated process. it wouldn't be perfect as people could game in my having a "straw buyer" technically own it for some period of time, but that's a lot of work and fraud, which would prevent most folks from doing that.