The Richardson City Council approved the Greenwood Park Planned Development (ZF 26-02) application. It will raze a nursing home and build 40 single-family detached homes. The City received 5 statements in support of the request and 3 that were neutral. No one spoke in person for or against. That sounds like a nothingburger matter for a city council. And in the end, it was a unanimous yes vote, but one that several council members seemed less than completely happy with.
"Parking is a glaring issue from my perspective." — Council member Jennifer Justice.
Where will people park has been the eternal question driving cities all over this country to be overparked. I was pleased to see that, even though the question is still on council members' minds, it didn't keep them from approving a dense redevelopment of detached homes.
"It adds traffic." "It doesn't blend in." "We need senior living." — Council member Dan Barrios.
While all these are true, they aren't winning arguments. Anything will add traffic. Anything new won't blend in to a 1950s neighborhood. The city can't force landowners to build nursing homes if the land is zoned to permit residential development.
"This really doesn't answer the need for affordable housing." — Council member Arefin.
This is a more difficult argument to dismiss. Council member Arefin is correct. These $800,000-$1,000,000 homes are not going to provide the "missing middle" housing that Richardson needs. Or housing for lower-income residents. But rejecting this application won't provide that either. Building high-end homes can help relieve a broader housing shortage, but mostly through indirect mechanisms. Adding any housing supply relieves competition and slows price increases across the market. Or at least that's the theory.
"We as a council need to really be thinking about that particular product [nursing homes] and figure out where we can put that in our city." — Council member Jennifer Justice
Bingo.
"How can we incentivize and really recruit to get the type of small starter home that we want from a bungalow court or a cottage court home?" — Council member Jennifer Justice
Bingo.
Council member Justice is right on both counts. We can't pat ourselves on our backs and say we made the right decision in this case without recognizing that there's a bigger need that isn't being met. And won't be met as long as we sit back and wait for "the market" to bring solutions to us. We need to be "incentivizing" and "recruiting" the kinds of projects we want to see.
Six months ago, the City Council discussed zoning changes, "Housing Finance Corporations, Public Facility Corporations, Opportunity Zones, Community Land Trusts, Community Development Block Grants, and more, all of which offer different variations on tax breaks or other financial incentives for builders, owners, or the City itself. Using city-owned parcels for small, pilot projects is another option. The council debated the desired balance between market forces and subsidized housing, the availability of mixed-income and senior-friendly housing, and the importance of not concentrating poverty by integrating affordable housing into existing developments."
Maybe there's work going on behind the curtains that will eventually be revealed and deliver not just more housing, but more affordable housing as well. Approving Greenwood Park Planned Development was the right decision Monday night, but it is not a substitute for the much tougher work still ahead of us.
"Starter homes desired,
but the dirt beneath the slab
costs a fortune now."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment