Ward 3 Needs More HOMES
Solving the District’s Most Complex Problem
With its excellent schools, parks, restaurants, and other amenities, Ward 3 is an amazing place to live, raise a family, and retire. Unfortunately, a history of exclusionary practices and limited housing production, has driven the costs of living here through the roof. For young families, be they renters, or those looking to purchase their first home, or seniors hoping to age in place on a fixed income, it is increasingly difficult—in many cases, impossible—to live and thrive here.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Ward 3 has recently made some progress toward meeting the extremely modest target of 1,990 new affordable units by 2025, although much work still needs to be done to hit that target. But let’s make one thing clear: meeting that goal and nothing else would be a remarkable failure. We need many more units, income-restricted and market-rate, in Ward 3 and the District as a whole.
There is no silver bullet, no magic solution to this crisis. Building more market-rate housing is essential, but not sufficient. The same is true of other strategies. Solving the housing affordability crisis is the most significant and complex challenge facing the District of Columbia. We can’t leave any tools on the table.
What we cannot do is spend another decade indulging in empty talk.
A community that fights a building that would allow renters to live in a high opportunity area is not a welcoming one, regardless of what their yard signs say.
A community that privileges aesthetics over people is not one that cares about diversity, equity, or inclusion.
If we genuinely care about racial justice, and about repairing the damage of decades of segregationist policies, redlining, and racial covenants, or about the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, we must commit to reimagining the Ward.
MY Plan in Brief:
More Densification on the relatively dense, transit-oriented corridors that already exist.
Make Public Property Part of the Solution. Whenever we redevelop libraries, fire stations, police stations, and so on, we should include deeply affordable housing as a component.
Expand Incentives for Faith-Based and Community Groups to Build Affordable Housing.
Invest in maintaining and improving existing affordable housing stock.
Improve to rent control so more tenants can benefit.
Fully fund public housing repairs and demand that DCHA follow a “build first” model when redeveloping older properties. Legalize smaller single-family homes in wealthy neighborhoods.
Encourage increased densification in low-density neighborhoods that is consistent with the spirit of current land use patterns.
Ensure the Housing Production Trust Fund is prioritizing deeply affordable units for tenants making 30% of the median family income.
Streamline the housing production process, particularly in areas near transit.
Develop incentives for universities to build more on-campus housing.
Expand the number of rental properties covered by the District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA) to give the District additional opportunities to intervene and preserve existing affordable housing.
Continue investment in solutions to reduce homelessness and provide unhoused Washingtonians the services they need and deserve.
Ward 3’s Councilmember must lead on housing, both at the Council and in the Ward. Let’s work together to get to “Yes” on projects of significance because “No” cannot be the default answer any longer.
Read a 2021 oped from Ben and other community leaders on the affordable housing challenge in Ward 3 and why there is no silver bullet solution.
A Comprehensive Plan to Reduce Housing Costs
As your Councilmember, I will support:
Densification on the relatively dense, transit-oriented corridors that already exist. There are many benefits of concentrating urban density around transit. Transit-oriented development is better for the climate and traffic, as residents typically take fewer car trips than residents living in less-transit rich areas. It can also help stimulate the creation of dynamic, thriving commercial areas, particularly if proper attention is given to promote walkability and to orient streetscapes and building frontages towards pedestrians (e.g. retail and restaurants on ground floors facing out onto the street; thoughtfully designed sidewalks and pedestrian boulevards; and attractive, climate-friendly landscaping). Fortunately, there are already many areas of Ward 3 where dense multifamily housing and/or mixed-use buildings are the norm rather than the exception. By focusing densification in these parts of the ward we can build upon the benefits of the current built landscape, resulting in even more dynamic mixed-use neighborhoods.
When the Council again discusses changes to the District’s comprehensive plan, my starting assumption is that the *entire length* and *both* sides of Ward 3’s major avenues (Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts) should be categorized as, at a minimum, medium-density residential. The reasons for densifying these avenues is obvious–these are transit-rich corridors served by Metrobus and (for Connecticut and upper Wisconsin) Metrorail. It should go without saying that a starting assumption is merely that. There will be segments where a lower-density designation is appropriate for any number of reasons, including the preferences of the ANC and residents.
But formal densification should not be reserved to Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts Avenues. I live in a 13-story multifamily building on Cathedral Avenue, across the street from the Wesley Heights neighborhood. Every day, I see how this low-density neighborhood benefits from living in close proximity to the dense stretch of multifamily buildings and townhomes on New Mexico Avenue, a busy but not major roadway. The density makes it possible to sustain restaurants and shops on New Mexico Avenue that would otherwise not survive if they depended just on the Wesley Heights neighborhood. There are other lower-density commercial corridors in Ward 3, such as MacArthur Boulevard, that would benefit from increased densification. Similarly, Nebraska Avenue, which acts as a major transit thruway for Ward 3 residents (and the many, many Maryland and Virginia commuters), has active bus lines that make it a good candidate for concentrating additional housing. Thus, on Ward 3’s “secondary” corridors (MacArthur Boulevard, Nebraska Avenue), my starting assumption when considering changes to the District’s comprehensive plan is that the entire length and both sides of these two streets should be categorized as, at a minimum, moderate-density residential.
Ben’s testimony regarding amendments to the District’s Comprehensive Plan
Making Public Property Part of the Solution. The District owns a number of non-historic buildings throughout the District—libraries, fire stations, police stations, and so on—that could be redeveloped, now or at the end of the building’s useful life, to include housing. In addition to helping us add units where there are none, we can leverage the fact we control these properties to ensure that a higher proportion of the units are affordable and deeply affordable. This is not a new idea. There are examples within the District and elsewhere of new mixed-use buildings with a fire station or library on the ground floors and housing above. But these projects are approached on a one-off rather than systematic basis. This has consequences. An effort to add housing to the Tenleytown Library was famously defeated a few years ago—we should not allow this to happen again. The Council should require the development of a long-term master plan to redevelop all non-historic District property to include a housing component with exceptions for where this is not safe or feasible. The District should also engage the federal government regarding federally-owned property in the District that could also be redeveloped to include housing (e.g. post offices).
Expanding Incentives for Faith-Based and Community Groups. The District should expand incentives to faith-based and other community organizations to redevelop their properties to include housing. These projects are not only compatible with the mission of these organizations but may enable many historic churches and congregations that are struggling financially to remain and thrive in their current communities.
Investing in maintaining and improving existing affordable housing stock. It is far less expensive to preserve an existing affordable unit than it is to build a new one. Extending the life of buildings with affordable units is also less disruptive to tenants.
Improvements to rent control so more tenants can benefit. When combined with other complementary policies, such as those aimed at increasing overall housing supply, rent stabilization policies play an important role in controlling the cost of housing.
Ensuring the Housing Production Trust Fund is prioritizing deeply affordable units for tenants making 30% of the median family income. In addition to increasing space for private developers to add to our housing stock, we must commit to doing more as a city to build affordable housing. It is critical that the Trust Fund meet its funding obligations for households with incomes below 30% of the area median income, something that has not happened. The benefits for low-income families of living close to opportunity are well-documented. As much as possible, we should be using government funds to stimulate the development of deeply affordable units in Ward 3 and other high opportunity areas. Bottom line: increasing housing supply dramatically will reduce housing costs, but it is very unlikely that the market will deliver deeply affordable units in an expensive area like Ward 3 without government intervention.
Conducting aggressive oversight of the Housing Production Trust Fund to ensure it is meeting its mission and using its funds wisely. There needs to be much greater oversight of the Trust, as well as on the developers receiving loans from the city. Millions of dollars have been misspent that should have gone towards creating more deeply affordable units. The 2020 OIG report on misspending and other issues at the Fund points to another issue: the Council must take a more active role in monitoring these programs. We cannot wait until there is an OIG report to find out that important programs are being mismanaged.
I will make oversight of the Trust Fund a priority. We must ensure that we are investing the dollars in the Housing Production Trust Fund effectively and appropriately, with a particular focus on examining how we can do a better job increasing the number of deeply affordable units (30% MFI).Fully funding public housing repairs and demand that DCHA follow a “build first” model when redeveloping older properties. We owe it to our fellow Washingtonians to do everything we can to improve conditions in public housing and hold officials accountable for failing to do right by tenants in public housing. As an initial matter, we must increase the amount of funding that is allocated to public housing repairs to over $60 million, which is what advocates are calling for. I will also support the “Public Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Amendment Act of 2020,” which will give tenants additional protections. Additionally, we must work to ensure that DCHA follows a “build first” model going forward to avoid the unnecessary and cruel displacement of public housing tenants from existing properties.
Expanding the number of rental properties covered by the District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA) to give the District additional opportunities to intervene and preserve existing affordable housing. By itself, this will not necessarily result in the District purchasing more properties, but there is value in giving the District greater scope to intervene and preserve existing affordable housing.
Legalizing smaller single-family homes in wealthy neighborhoods. We can do much more to break down housing barriers in our neighborhoods. We need to build more housing near transit and along our major corridors, but we should not give our wealthiest, most exclusive, neighborhoods a free pass when it comes to building a more welcoming and diverse Ward 3. Excessive minimum lot size requirements prevent the construction of row homes and other modest single-family homes, shutting middle class families out of exclusive neighborhoods. Reducing minimum lot size requirements that effectively only permit construction of large mansions would be a modest, yet significant, step towards filling a gap in our housing market and achieving some marginal increases in density. I am not opposed to single-family zoning, but I will not defend mansion zones, which is what we have in parts of DC today. Single-family homes are increasingly out of reach for all but the wealthiest because supply of all types of housing is so limited. The result is a steady exodus of families out of the District. By just allowing smaller homes, such as the row-homes that populate other parts of the District, could greatly increase supply without reducing singe-family zones.
Encouraging increased densification in low-density neighborhoods that is consistent with the spirit of current land use patterns. Many high-opportunity neighborhoods in Ward 3 have a documented history of excluding racial minorities and other groups. These neighborhoods remain, in large part, segregated and exclusionary today because of the high cost of housing. Legalizing “gentle density” can help reduce the exclusionary nature of some of Ward 3’s wealthy, high opportunity neighborhoods. Gentle density can mean many things—to me, it means allowing for different types of housing that meet the spirit of current land use practices, i.e. buildings that match the scale (height and mass) of other properties in the neighborhood. These are buildings that do not seem bizarrely out of place as you walk, bike, or drive down the street. It is also important that these buildings impact parking, traffic, and noise in a similar fashion to any other new construction in the neighborhood. Taken together, that means that in most low-density neighborhoods gentle density that conforms to the look and feel of current zoning and land use patterns will only allow for duplexes or possibly triplexes. In some communities, smaller 4–6-unit apartment buildings might be appropriate, but those situations will need to be studied and thoroughly vetted. In both scenarios, ANCs and community members should be consulted and given a meaningful role in evaluating design choices to ensure that a proposed building blends in effectively with the other homes in the neighborhood.
I will propose legislation and funding for a planning process to identify neighborhoods suitable for gentle densification, with a focus on neighborhoods that have a documented history of excluding racial minorities and other groups. When the status quo land use rules remain in place for these neighborhoods after this process, as may happen, there should be a reason and that reason better be a good one.
(Note, due to the nature and purpose of historic preservation laws, gentle density may not be feasible in historic neighborhoods, although such a determination would be context- and fact-specific. It may also be necessary to require developers to take additional steps to minimize the parking and traffic impact, e.g. an on-site parking requirement and/or deed restrictions limiting the number of vehicles associated with the property.)
Streamlining the housing production process, particularly in areas near transit. It is entirely appropriate to rigorously vet proposed projects, particularly when the developer is requesting zoning relief to build a nonconforming structure. But we can’t tolerate a system that bogs down every development project of significance for years, particularly when the opposition comes from the same familiar group of ideologues and anti-change curmudgeons.
I will propose legislation to reduce time, expense, and subjectivity during the review process in priority housing areas, such as around Metro stations, by creating a set of firm commitments that, once met, would result in the project being automatically fast-tracked for approval. Commitments could include agreeing to provide significantly more affordable units than required by current inclusionary zoning rules. These “fast track commitments,” which could be uniform or customized for a particular community, would be decided upon ex ante and developers would not be permitted to request flexibility. (A developer that decided to not meet the “fast track commitments” could still proceed through the process as it exists now.)
Developing incentives for universities to build more on-campus housing. We must explore ways to encourage our universities to build more on-campus housing. AU students have rented an apartment next to us since we moved to our building. They have always been great neighbors. But if they lived on campus, that unit could be rented by another family seeking to live in walking distance to a great DCPS elementary school or to a senior looking to age in place in a building that is large enough to sustain a small market and is on a bus line.
Shifting undergraduates and others to campus housing can free up rental units occupied by students, as well as minimize friction that can sometimes occur when students live off-campus in great numbers. Care would have to be taken to ensure that new dorms do not just lead to a commensurate rise in enrollment numbers. The Campus Plan process should also be reformed to enlist universities in the project of building more walkable, transit-oriented communities. Ground floor retail can coexist with a student dorm just as much as it can with an apartment building. Investment in transit infrastructure, safety upgrades, and other amenities can benefit both students and the surrounding neighborhood.
Ward 3’s Councilmember must lead on housing, both at the Council and in the Ward. Many members of the Council have incorrect assumptions about Ward 3 and are appetite for change. We need a Councilmember who will demand more housing and push their colleagues to make that a reality in Ward 3.
Within the ward, it is not enough to go on a listening tour and keep your opinions to yourself until it comes time to vote. When there are contentious fights over projects that will help us reach our housing goals, I will not remain on the sidelines. We need to take concerns seriously and I firmly believe that we can and should ask developers to do more, especially when they stand to make a significant profit. But at the end of the day, I will be consistent: we need more housing in Ward 3. If a project is bad, let’s improve it. Let’s work together to get to “Yes” because “No” cannot be the default answer any longer.
Ben’s letter of support for American University’s Campus Plan
Continuing investment in solutions to reduce homelessness and provide unhoused Washingtonians the services they need and deserve. There are no simple solutions to the homelessness crisis that the District has been dealing with in recent months. Each individual is unique, limiting the ability to adopt a one-size approach to delivering services. The current emphasis on placing individuals in housing before attending to other needs is sound. Housing-first policies have proven effective at reducing homelessness. But the key is to ensure that adequate and appropriate services are delivered to address each person’s individual needs. I have real concerns that that has not happened, either because of the pandemic, increased need, or lack of funding (or all three). Failing to provide sufficient services to individuals, especially those dealing with substance abuse, mental health, or behavioral challenges, can lead to friction with the community and ultimately to decreased support for housing-first and other compassionate, evidence-based solutions. The Council must put politics aside and exercise appropriate oversight to ensure services are being delivered appropriately.