Right of first refusal (ROFR) policies are one tool
with which to prevent displacement and
preserve affordable housing. ROFR programs
typically give the government (state or local) the
right to intervene in the sale or conversion of
naturally occurring or subsidized affordable
rental housing and purchase the property at fair
market value or a value set by a third-party offer.
This right can also be transferred by the
government body to qualified entities who will
preserve affordability. When the ROFR is
triggered, it is not required that the ROFR be
exercised. ROFR simply provides an opportunity,
not obligation, to intervene in a transaction to
preserve affordable housing.
That sounds good if the state/local government cares. Our local government is intertwined with developers.
Then that’s on us as individuals and localities to vote non corrupt people into local office who will do right by the people vs developers. To say “that won’t work due to corrupt politicians” as if that’s some reason this shouldn’t be done- that statement also still won’t solve the problem and it certainly does even less than having a protective law on the book’s that corrupt politicians won’t utilize. If the law passes at least it exists so that we can eventually get people into office who will utilize it.
So yes you’re correct, it may not be super effective right now for a lot of places due to corruption, but then I’d say- consider what the next most important action for you to take is to solve this multistep problem? Most of the time it comes down to voting in better local representatives. But this is one step that could give those future representatives an opportunity to intervene and make better decisions.
The supply side is one part of the problem. My interpretation is it would give the government a way to prevent the sale of housing to corporations, which could help keep existing affordable housing affordable.
What a lot of "landlords are evil" people don't think or care about is that owning property includes a lot of costs, not the least of which are perpetually rising tax and insurance costs.
It isn't a huge W, and it won't do anything to stop prices from rising. Prices are rising because localities ban new supply, especially dense infill (best for environment), because the people who show up at local meetings want prices to rise.
Localities have few funds and less willpower, that proposal is highly unimpressive and will do next to nothing for overall prices. It's not bad, it'll just help a handful of people in niche scenarios in a handful of localities.
The root problem goes unaddressed because they don't want to challenge anti-housing county supervisors.
The housing stuff is half good, half bad. There’s very little that goes towards expanding supply, so it’s hard for me to see how housing costs will decrease, especially if people that aren’t paying are given more protections against eviction or funded to an ever rising floor.
We do have a lot of apartments and realpage just settled a few lawsuits on their software with the DOJ over the antitrust violations which probably won't fix the issues but should help lessen the burden a bit. Now businesses have to do the leg work again to figure out how many vacancies they can afford per rent increase.
That's what I noticed to. There's no mention in there about zoning or permitting to increase supply. This problem will not improve without building more homes. It's that simple.
Local government is the choke point for housing supply. The state can't force them to change restrictive zoning laws, change building requirements, or force nimbys to accept new builds
The assembly could change zoning laws if it’s so chose. The authority of counties flows from the state not the other way around. Restrictive covenants are obviously private contracts, and therefore cannot be overridden by the state assembly unless there is some kind of illegal discrimination going on. But the state could buy up a plot of land construct a bunch of homes on it, and then establish a covenant that forces it to become affordable housing in perpetuity by establishing some kind of forced maximum sale price that is capped at any additions plus a maximum of 25% of the market value of the land and property. It would perpetually be essentially a starter home.
In Virginia, the state can influence zoning laws but it can not force them to be changed. Even in your example, the state land would still need to abide by local regulations
From my understanding VA is a Dillon rule state - meaning that legal power emanates from the State Legislature to localities and the State Legislature can override local laws (including on zoning) if it so wishes.
It is a Dillon rule state but the commenter I was replying to doesn't know how the Dillon rule works. Powers given have to be legally and explicitly taken away. The state can't just do whatever it wants without passing legislation saying so
Dude, now you’re just making up stuff. This is about the GA’s powers to dictate local zoning laws. Of course it requires legislation to take away previously granted powers. Where did I say otherwise? Your contention is that the GA can only ‘“influence” zoning powers or some such nonsense. 100 percent of local zoning power comes from the state.
Nope. State and federal property does NOT need to comply with local zoning laws. They might comply voluntarily if they want. The state can literally abolish a locality, so I can assure you that the state can do more than influence zoning. But it’s a sensitive issue and traditionally the state gives localities wide latitude with local land use decisions. Edit-but I agree that under current law, zoning decisions are made locally, not by the state
That’s cute. Go google “Dillon Rule” and get back to me.
The General Assembly literally created the localities that exist (and have occasionally abolished them). Virginia localities literally derive all their zoning powers from the powers that the General Assembly has granted them in the Code of Virginia.
Does a public university have to get zoning approval before building a new dorm? No, it does not. Does the federal government have to get zoning approval before building a federal building? No, it does not.
Which, from my understanding, is a power the Legislature has. The governor couldn’t do this unilaterally, but there’s nothing stopping the Legislature from carving out powers it has devolved to the localities. I’d be interested in reading your paper, is it posted anywhere?
Go take a look at Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of the Code. It’s filled with numerous sections where the General Assembly has literally dictated to localities what they can and can’t include in their zoning ordinances.
I know this all sounds like a great plan, but only if it applies to something you lare in favor of. I don't think the GA would overreach in that way. It would likely end up in court.
It’s also not gonna be like what happened in DC from Jan on. Expecting sweeping changes at the state level to affect Fed orders… doesn’t usually work that way, but people have a warped sense of time and expectation reality now. When you do horrible things, the damage happens quickly. Repairing that is a slow process, unless you want worse issues.
Gotta start somewhere. And we have to understand that as a populace, we have bargaining power and can push back against geeedflation by big companies. We don't just have to accept yearly price increases for no additional improvements in services.
Data centers are terribly noisy from all of the required cooling systems. The youtube channel 'More Perfect Union' had a video showing how a massive data center had ruined a small town due to the noise
I commented last night but retracted it as I didn't have time to dwell on the topic before opening my mouth.
Housing-wise, increasing the time for renters respond to lease terminations from 5 days to 14 days is a huge proposal. If I were to rent an apartment with my current wage, this would be a lifesaver for me, as my hours can get cut on a dime. Secondly, the affordable housing proposals are decent, but I'm skeptical about how many communities will actually be cooperative and expand their affordable housing stock. Many communities still view affordable housing as slums or places that can become run-down, and many are still quite NIMBY and see the housing issue as a city issue. I'm from a rural locality, and this sentiment is strong. I am somewhat on board with local governments getting the first say in right-to-refusal for affordable properties, if localities that are committed to providing affordable housing use it in good faith. Other than the lease termination response increase, many of these policies seem to just fall flat on a broader scale. Communities need to expand housing in general, and we should make it even easier to do so! This housing crisis is a national issue and not just a city issue. Affordable options are a must, but we need to worry about increasing the housing stock in general.
Energy-wise, I'm on board with small solar panels being exempt from needing approval by adding a new class for them. Approval processes can probably take months, depending on the locality, and allow for more user freedom with their energy use. I do like the proposals of using stored energy to help the electricity demand during peak usage.
Healthcare-wise, removing extra healthcare charges for tobacco users is new to me. As long as the small premium increase is lower than the tobacco charge in the long term, I don't see an issue. The rest of the proposals seem to expand healthcare coverage in a time when it is desperately needed.
All in all, I think the healthcare proposals are good, the energy proposals are alright, and the housing proposals fall pretty flat other than the lease termination response.
Its just hypothetical. I’m currently in college and my main job is part-time where my hours can get wonky if the company feels like it. Fortunately, I’m not renting an apartment but if I was renting an apartment while not in college, it would be a little tougher as many decent places are starting out at 1500/mo.
We need data centers due to the evolution of technology and how much the internet is used in day to day life. What we don't need is "AI" focused data centers for LLMs that force out slop into everything, especially when these places are getting tax breaks at the cost of local populations.
Prevent pharmacies from charging someone with insurance more than the cash price or lowest discount card (e.g. GoodRX) price.
While enhancing protections for actual tenants with a lease, remove protections for squatters. Squatters are not tenants and should be able to be removed immediately with no notice.
Sorry, those housing measures are hugely disappointing nothingburgers. Housing costs are crushing people, mostly because localities banned new supply for decades causing shortages. Local officials are petrified of NIMBY retirees who want nothing built ever again (unless its sprawl in rural/forested Virginia). Half of her proposals are "give localities more power." Not only do localities have very limited funds, most of them have demonstrated that they don't even want the housing crisis to end. They want prices and rents to skyrocket to service the handful of NIMBYs yelling at them about the ROI on their real property. The other half of the proposals are trinket agencies and programs that don't meet the crisis.
Prices will continue to skyrocket until the State government shows a little courage and forces localities to legalize housing supply. Especially walkable and transit oriented supply. Spanberger ran on this, now its time to deliver instead of caving to anti-housing county supervisors crowing about "local control." Local control to do what? Oh, right, artificially raise housing costs and exclude poor people and minorities.
The first proposal is the best, I think its the only one that will change much.
I honestly don’t think anyone saw and actually thought that the localities will in good faith, stop the increase of
Housing prices when it brings them more revenue from taxes. But here is to hope that fo the right thing.
I think a handful will. That handful will also have limited funds.
They're not necessarily bad ideas. What makes me upset is they're not addressing the cause of the housing crisis and are treating this minute, inoffensive ideas as if it's a grand plan.
To add to this a lot of localities have seen a windfall of revenue from property taxes the last five years as tax appraised values have increased 50+%. Despite this, many localities have also raised the property tax *rate*. I suspect that many foolishly think a rise in supply sufficient to cause prices to drop will also decrease their revenues.
You're right, I've seen that exact concern laid out in Richmond.
One big reason to support more supply and density is because it would raise revenues. If you replace a parking lot with an apartment building that is a huge win for the city.
Even in Arlington's missing middle case when instead of building a 2 million dollar single family home, you build two 1.2 million dollar duplexes, that's a win for tax revenues and creates more supply.
You expected big change? These PAC politicians are the problem. We forgot that politicians use language to sound smart and helpful while doing nothing. Dump just said dumb stuff and sounds reasonable bc most people don’t use Mike Johnson level lawyeresque, backpedaling word salads.
“Facilitate the adoption of portable small solar systems, Commission on Electric Utility Regulation recommendation: Easily installable systems make it easier for Virginia families - particularly in denser neighborhoods - to adopt solar, the cheapest form of energy. Define a new class of small solar systems (i.e. solar on apartment balconies) and exempt these systems from
typical utility approval requirements.”
If this is similar to the systems that are currently legal in only Utah then I am a huge fan.
None of the housing stuff makes housing, on net, more affordable. And the first point, tenant protections, sounds great and is of good intentions, but this will probably worsen rent costs as landlords adjust their rent to account for increased risks of being stuck with bad or unpaying tenants.
I'm certainly no expert on housing policy, but helping localities finance housing projects and giving localities right of refusal when rents and expenses get too high seem to be big deals. You address costs from the supply side and at the demand side. In theory, more units are built and builders are incentivized to keep prices low.
You address costs from the supply side and at the demand side
Sure, but notice, this policy doesn't really do either. It doesn't change demand (lets just say its always growing), and at best it keeps net supply constrained. Since we all see the same prices across the entire market, this doesn't actually help..... the rents will just grow a bit faster (or...put another way, it takes even higher costs to add the same quantity of supply) since lots are subject to rejection by the city.
And cities will probably respond to easier financing by just building more expensive units, not more units. We've already observed cities building units at pretty absurd costs as they "everything bagel" their plans.
I appreciate this back and forth. Can you explain *why* giving localities the right of first refusal wouldn't keep prices lower? I know that's your assertion but I don't understand why.
Can you explain *why* giving localities the right of first refusal wouldn't keep prices lower?
I think of it like this -- home prices are set on the margin. Its entirely about the cost of building that additional unit that determines the price of the current units. So any policy that seeks to keep the current units at the cost of more net units will always have an inflationary result.
And, since home price markets extend beyond municipal boundaries, a constrained supply in, say, Nova, will fuck up the prices in, say, Richmond. So even if, say, Nova keeps 100 units of "affordable" housing available, but at the cost of, say, 1000 additional units...... the demand doesn't just disappear. Existing Nova costs go up to match the demand, and the 'residual or excess demand' just comes to Rva.
So on paper an urban planner can celebrate and say 'yay we saved 100 affordable units' but they never ever actually consider the secondary effects of that -- the lost 1,000 additional units. And since demand doesn't just disappear, the remaining units in both Nova and Rva go up.
So Nova urban planner saved 100 units of "affordable housing," but made housing affordability worse in both Nova and Rva. The last 30+ years have been a grand national experiment in this kind of insular, parochial urban planning..... with the result being a hilariously bad housing shortage across the board.
--- also, remember, supply elasticity should be seen as "how sensitive is supply given a change in price" -- so if we're observing high home prices, it means that it requires large changes in price to add just a modicum of supply. A policy that prevents additional supply only makes the problem worse.
I see, but aren't you ignoring the part about localities getting enhanced financing for more supply? Wouldn't that obviate your concern? Or am I misunderstanding? It seems to me the multiple bills are addressing costs on both ends.
Another thing to remember about public housing...... is that initial cheaper financing doesn't mean that investment for future maintenance is there.
And if history is any guide -- when cities historically got large 'affordability projects' subsidized, they allowed maintenance cost to get deferred for years and years, and the quality of that housing deteriorated to what we have today.
So we could just be repeating prior failures here.
Finally, a smart and critical response that's not just "THIS GOOD" or "FUCK THE LIBS".
To answer: I'm not sure! I'm not an expert on that policy. I'd speculate that it's political - not wanting to piss off too many voters or upsetting Virginia's economy too much. But practically, without knowing as much about the policy consequences, I'd support a surcharge. Better for public health and decreases spending on cancer or smoking-related illnesses in the commonwealth.
My first thoughts were along the same lines, bad optics in a tobacco state, and for some maybe because it by default is regressive. I wonder though since rates across the board are going way up if this is an attempt to keep as many people covered as possible?
They die younger so might not cost as much in total as someone who lives to be 95. And by the time the health effects of smoking kick in they are probably already on Medicare.
I would say that Thomas Stanley, who engaged in "massive resistance" to racial integration by shutting down public schools and giving white students tuition vouchers was the worst governor. But you do you.
An actual PLAN?!! She's not just going to drive around the state glad handing and spewing platitudes before taking actions diametrically opposed to her statements? This is new.
That will never go away - or practically never. Counties have been weaponized and are so addicted to this income that they would never let it go. The state would have to make them whole, you know, as it’s done in others state that do not have it. It could be reduced but of course not.
Exactly. People need to realize that if we lose the PP tax, we'll have a higher income tax instead.
Personally I pay way less in PP tax than I would with any increase to my income tax. My car is old and wasn't fancy to begin with. And I'm happy with that.
Preventing the sunset of the law preventing insurance companies from charging more to tobacco users? That raises rates for EVERYONE except the minority of people who CHOOSE to use tobacco products. I really don't understand that one, can someone explain?
Great start. Now do something about the stupid hikes to auto insurance that happened last year. My monthly premiums doubled over the past year and it's beyond insane. I have been paying more for auto insurance each month over the past 10+ months than I do for electric AND water combined. My plan and provider has not changed for years. My premiums have gone up by ~2-4% each year as I fully expected. But to double almost overnight?!?!? Methinks someone in the current body has a vested interest in Geico and other auto insurance providers keeping their employees here and were willing to sell Virginia residents out.
She very nearly has a supermajority in the house and she's been coordinating directly with the Dems there. So it's highly likely most of this will pass, especially since a lot of it is stuff Youngkin vetoed.
I'm viewing this as something similar to the presidential state of the union address. Yeah, they can't introduce and vote on a bill, but they can lead their party in the direction they want. These are kind of like marching orders for those who are able to do those things. She's telling them what she expects to come across her desk and what she will and won't sign into law.
It is simply entirely possible for the government to operate a program at a lower cost to consumers than an equivalent program run by a public company(s) could offer - see Medicare.
Do you not understand what is being discussed? Medicare is run more cheaply than the same quality of service would be if it was run by a for-profit company. It is extremely cost effectively run. What you seem to want is a much more expensive privately run program, or simply no program at all to help older folks pay for healthcare. Sorry that you get mad at the government effectively running healthcare, but that's a you problem, and my recommendation is to fucking get over it.
You know why Medicare is "cheaper" to run? Because they vastly underpay providers for the services they perform. That's why medical providers require additional subsidies and state assistance to stay open.
Lower the cost of electricity while rejoining the RGGI, stupid idea…
Authorizing all localities to change zoning rules to mandate or incentivize "Affordable Dwelling Units" in new developments. - again stupid idea your passing on the costs to other people, who can afford the housing and affording is stretching it… what about not making developers pay for, the additional infrastructure of the housing requires since you know infrastructure is supposed to be a government service…
Subsidizing ACA Premiums - again this only affects a small portion of the population. Why not get rid of the car tax instead?
Overall, a lot of of these are terrible proposals that I don’t actually see reducing the cost of loving at any meaningful way. Why is the government trying to regulate and subsidize everything?
Not to mention some of these policies are downright stupid… for example
The Proposal: Using state funds to subsidize Affordable Care Act (ACA) premiums and removing surcharges for tobacco users.
I personally think there needs to be a different direction taken, for example, require all new housing especially townhomes, to be constructed, with only south facing roofs at 35 degrees.
Looking at henrico building codes, the smallest legally allowed townhome that can be made, would be able to produce about 15,700 KWh of power year, and only increase construction costs by about 19,200 ( probably more with the economies of scale). And assuming those were constructed with a zero interest loan, it would pay itself off in eight years..
You're being downvoted, but feel confident you're the only one who actually understands this list of policies. Very little in here has anything to do with affordability, and Spanberger gets a complete pass for wanting to rejoin RGGI, which will be $8 every month on your bill if not more.
This is the type of milquetoast garbage that make democrats not get reelected. This all will have barely any effect on having more money in our wallets.
By the summaries on the linked article, it appears none of the bills actually streamline the production of housing. Six bills boosting demand, zero bills boosting supply. This is the classic formula for rising prices.
i didn’t see anything material on streamlining development. besides, virginia is too blue make any meaningful progress on streamlining anything. dems are all about bloat and capture.
There's literally nothing in this plan about building new homes except accessory dwelling units. Better than nothing I guess. You'll be able to put your mother in law up on your property if you have a SFH.
Lower taxes just burdens public service funding which takes away resources from people who are in need. Just to make it so higher income people have to pay less effective tax rates to continue to hoard money.
Frankly we would be better served with undoing a lot of privatization of public services (they have the net result of worse services provided for a higher cost) and making more aspects of our society not handled by profit motive businesses but returning to the public sector.
I’ve always had this fond notion of an idea where you can dictate where your taxes go. Don’t like Planned Parenthood? Fine, others will pick up the slack. Local roads shit? Well guess where you need to allocate your shit…
Just another bs politician. She has never come out (that I have seen) and condemned the actions of the pos AG she now has to work with. I believe she might have actually defended him. I know the FOP has revoked her honorary membership over it.
The big stand out here that people aren't talking about? Giving localities first right of refusal. Huge W for keeping prices from rising
For those like me that don't know:
That sounds good if the state/local government cares. Our local government is intertwined with developers.
Then that’s on us as individuals and localities to vote non corrupt people into local office who will do right by the people vs developers. To say “that won’t work due to corrupt politicians” as if that’s some reason this shouldn’t be done- that statement also still won’t solve the problem and it certainly does even less than having a protective law on the book’s that corrupt politicians won’t utilize. If the law passes at least it exists so that we can eventually get people into office who will utilize it.
So yes you’re correct, it may not be super effective right now for a lot of places due to corruption, but then I’d say- consider what the next most important action for you to take is to solve this multistep problem? Most of the time it comes down to voting in better local representatives. But this is one step that could give those future representatives an opportunity to intervene and make better decisions.
these land developers are actually doing the work of Satan i stg
That doesn't make housing more affordable at all since nothing is occurring on the supply margin.
The supply side is one part of the problem. My interpretation is it would give the government a way to prevent the sale of housing to corporations, which could help keep existing affordable housing affordable.
What a lot of "landlords are evil" people don't think or care about is that owning property includes a lot of costs, not the least of which are perpetually rising tax and insurance costs.
(Ofc, provided localities capitalize on it)
That’ll be the kicker for sure. Some are definitely already on board.
It isn't a huge W, and it won't do anything to stop prices from rising. Prices are rising because localities ban new supply, especially dense infill (best for environment), because the people who show up at local meetings want prices to rise.
Localities have few funds and less willpower, that proposal is highly unimpressive and will do next to nothing for overall prices. It's not bad, it'll just help a handful of people in niche scenarios in a handful of localities.
The root problem goes unaddressed because they don't want to challenge anti-housing county supervisors.
Common sense governing right here, love it and missed it
The housing stuff is half good, half bad. There’s very little that goes towards expanding supply, so it’s hard for me to see how housing costs will decrease, especially if people that aren’t paying are given more protections against eviction or funded to an ever rising floor.
We do have a lot of apartments and realpage just settled a few lawsuits on their software with the DOJ over the antitrust violations which probably won't fix the issues but should help lessen the burden a bit. Now businesses have to do the leg work again to figure out how many vacancies they can afford per rent increase.
That's what I noticed to. There's no mention in there about zoning or permitting to increase supply. This problem will not improve without building more homes. It's that simple.
Local government is the choke point for housing supply. The state can't force them to change restrictive zoning laws, change building requirements, or force nimbys to accept new builds
We need some kind of builders remedy, where city's have to meet supply and price targets, and if they don't, they loose the local control.
That is exactly my opinion actually, California's builders remedy should be a model for VA
The assembly could change zoning laws if it’s so chose. The authority of counties flows from the state not the other way around. Restrictive covenants are obviously private contracts, and therefore cannot be overridden by the state assembly unless there is some kind of illegal discrimination going on. But the state could buy up a plot of land construct a bunch of homes on it, and then establish a covenant that forces it to become affordable housing in perpetuity by establishing some kind of forced maximum sale price that is capped at any additions plus a maximum of 25% of the market value of the land and property. It would perpetually be essentially a starter home.
In Virginia, the state can influence zoning laws but it can not force them to be changed. Even in your example, the state land would still need to abide by local regulations
From my understanding VA is a Dillon rule state - meaning that legal power emanates from the State Legislature to localities and the State Legislature can override local laws (including on zoning) if it so wishes.
See: this article.
It is a Dillon rule state but the commenter I was replying to doesn't know how the Dillon rule works. Powers given have to be legally and explicitly taken away. The state can't just do whatever it wants without passing legislation saying so
Dude, now you’re just making up stuff. This is about the GA’s powers to dictate local zoning laws. Of course it requires legislation to take away previously granted powers. Where did I say otherwise? Your contention is that the GA can only ‘“influence” zoning powers or some such nonsense. 100 percent of local zoning power comes from the state.
Go bother someone else with your ignorance
Where can I read more about this? What are these laws called?
Nope. State and federal property does NOT need to comply with local zoning laws. They might comply voluntarily if they want. The state can literally abolish a locality, so I can assure you that the state can do more than influence zoning. But it’s a sensitive issue and traditionally the state gives localities wide latitude with local land use decisions. Edit-but I agree that under current law, zoning decisions are made locally, not by the state
False.
You are very misinformed, go argue with someone who doesn't have a degree in urban planning and work experience inside the VA legislative bodies
That’s cute. Go google “Dillon Rule” and get back to me.
The General Assembly literally created the localities that exist (and have occasionally abolished them). Virginia localities literally derive all their zoning powers from the powers that the General Assembly has granted them in the Code of Virginia.
Does a public university have to get zoning approval before building a new dorm? No, it does not. Does the federal government have to get zoning approval before building a federal building? No, it does not.
I did a research paper on this lmao
A whole research paper!?! WOW!!
The state government would literally have to pass a law revoking the power to zone in your scenario
Which, from my understanding, is a power the Legislature has. The governor couldn’t do this unilaterally, but there’s nothing stopping the Legislature from carving out powers it has devolved to the localities. I’d be interested in reading your paper, is it posted anywhere?
Go take a look at Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of the Code. It’s filled with numerous sections where the General Assembly has literally dictated to localities what they can and can’t include in their zoning ordinances.
I know this all sounds like a great plan, but only if it applies to something you lare in favor of. I don't think the GA would overreach in that way. It would likely end up in court.
Yeah it’s the exact ineffective policy that upsets no one and fixes nothing
Which part? It’s a pretty broad range of proposals, some of which are pretty technical.
It’s also not gonna be like what happened in DC from Jan on. Expecting sweeping changes at the state level to affect Fed orders… doesn’t usually work that way, but people have a warped sense of time and expectation reality now. When you do horrible things, the damage happens quickly. Repairing that is a slow process, unless you want worse issues.
You can't take the stated goal of a bill and call it common sense governing
Gotta start somewhere. And we have to understand that as a populace, we have bargaining power and can push back against geeedflation by big companies. We don't just have to accept yearly price increases for no additional improvements in services.
Make data centers build condos.
I get the sentiment but this makes me think of old coal towns (in movies) where the company owned everything in the city.
Like on top of them? I'm lost. But usually am.
On top of or just around. There should be a formula based on the amount of land they buy. X units of affordable housing per acre purchased.
[deleted]
You need to think… better.
Make data centers air-cooled and generate their own solar power.
Data centers are terribly noisy from all of the required cooling systems. The youtube channel 'More Perfect Union' had a video showing how a massive data center had ruined a small town due to the noise
What does this even mean lmao
I commented last night but retracted it as I didn't have time to dwell on the topic before opening my mouth.
Housing-wise, increasing the time for renters respond to lease terminations from 5 days to 14 days is a huge proposal. If I were to rent an apartment with my current wage, this would be a lifesaver for me, as my hours can get cut on a dime. Secondly, the affordable housing proposals are decent, but I'm skeptical about how many communities will actually be cooperative and expand their affordable housing stock. Many communities still view affordable housing as slums or places that can become run-down, and many are still quite NIMBY and see the housing issue as a city issue. I'm from a rural locality, and this sentiment is strong. I am somewhat on board with local governments getting the first say in right-to-refusal for affordable properties, if localities that are committed to providing affordable housing use it in good faith. Other than the lease termination response increase, many of these policies seem to just fall flat on a broader scale. Communities need to expand housing in general, and we should make it even easier to do so! This housing crisis is a national issue and not just a city issue. Affordable options are a must, but we need to worry about increasing the housing stock in general.
Energy-wise, I'm on board with small solar panels being exempt from needing approval by adding a new class for them. Approval processes can probably take months, depending on the locality, and allow for more user freedom with their energy use. I do like the proposals of using stored energy to help the electricity demand during peak usage.
Healthcare-wise, removing extra healthcare charges for tobacco users is new to me. As long as the small premium increase is lower than the tobacco charge in the long term, I don't see an issue. The rest of the proposals seem to expand healthcare coverage in a time when it is desperately needed.
All in all, I think the healthcare proposals are good, the energy proposals are alright, and the housing proposals fall pretty flat other than the lease termination response.
Thanks for the nuanced thoughts!!
From the landlord perspective, that increases their financial risk, and would need to price that in on new leases.
Its just hypothetical. I’m currently in college and my main job is part-time where my hours can get wonky if the company feels like it. Fortunately, I’m not renting an apartment but if I was renting an apartment while not in college, it would be a little tougher as many decent places are starting out at 1500/mo.
Hopefully curtail these data centers too
We need data centers due to the evolution of technology and how much the internet is used in day to day life. What we don't need is "AI" focused data centers for LLMs that force out slop into everything, especially when these places are getting tax breaks at the cost of local populations.
Building them in Maryland won't affect your ability to use chatgpt.
I have two things I would like to see:
Prevent pharmacies from charging someone with insurance more than the cash price or lowest discount card (e.g. GoodRX) price.
While enhancing protections for actual tenants with a lease, remove protections for squatters. Squatters are not tenants and should be able to be removed immediately with no notice.
Sorry, those housing measures are hugely disappointing nothingburgers. Housing costs are crushing people, mostly because localities banned new supply for decades causing shortages. Local officials are petrified of NIMBY retirees who want nothing built ever again (unless its sprawl in rural/forested Virginia). Half of her proposals are "give localities more power." Not only do localities have very limited funds, most of them have demonstrated that they don't even want the housing crisis to end. They want prices and rents to skyrocket to service the handful of NIMBYs yelling at them about the ROI on their real property. The other half of the proposals are trinket agencies and programs that don't meet the crisis.
Prices will continue to skyrocket until the State government shows a little courage and forces localities to legalize housing supply. Especially walkable and transit oriented supply. Spanberger ran on this, now its time to deliver instead of caving to anti-housing county supervisors crowing about "local control." Local control to do what? Oh, right, artificially raise housing costs and exclude poor people and minorities.
The first proposal is the best, I think its the only one that will change much.
I honestly don’t think anyone saw and actually thought that the localities will in good faith, stop the increase of Housing prices when it brings them more revenue from taxes. But here is to hope that fo the right thing.
I think a handful will. That handful will also have limited funds.
They're not necessarily bad ideas. What makes me upset is they're not addressing the cause of the housing crisis and are treating this minute, inoffensive ideas as if it's a grand plan.
To add to this a lot of localities have seen a windfall of revenue from property taxes the last five years as tax appraised values have increased 50+%. Despite this, many localities have also raised the property tax *rate*. I suspect that many foolishly think a rise in supply sufficient to cause prices to drop will also decrease their revenues.
You're right, I've seen that exact concern laid out in Richmond.
One big reason to support more supply and density is because it would raise revenues. If you replace a parking lot with an apartment building that is a huge win for the city.
Even in Arlington's missing middle case when instead of building a 2 million dollar single family home, you build two 1.2 million dollar duplexes, that's a win for tax revenues and creates more supply.
You expected big change? These PAC politicians are the problem. We forgot that politicians use language to sound smart and helpful while doing nothing. Dump just said dumb stuff and sounds reasonable bc most people don’t use Mike Johnson level lawyeresque, backpedaling word salads.
“Facilitate the adoption of portable small solar systems, Commission on Electric Utility Regulation recommendation: Easily installable systems make it easier for Virginia families - particularly in denser neighborhoods - to adopt solar, the cheapest form of energy. Define a new class of small solar systems (i.e. solar on apartment balconies) and exempt these systems from typical utility approval requirements.”
If this is similar to the systems that are currently legal in only Utah then I am a huge fan.
Plug-in solar, here we come! She's not even in office and already cooking! 😍🥰
None of the housing stuff makes housing, on net, more affordable. And the first point, tenant protections, sounds great and is of good intentions, but this will probably worsen rent costs as landlords adjust their rent to account for increased risks of being stuck with bad or unpaying tenants.
I'm certainly no expert on housing policy, but helping localities finance housing projects and giving localities right of refusal when rents and expenses get too high seem to be big deals. You address costs from the supply side and at the demand side. In theory, more units are built and builders are incentivized to keep prices low.
Sure, but notice, this policy doesn't really do either. It doesn't change demand (lets just say its always growing), and at best it keeps net supply constrained. Since we all see the same prices across the entire market, this doesn't actually help..... the rents will just grow a bit faster (or...put another way, it takes even higher costs to add the same quantity of supply) since lots are subject to rejection by the city.
And cities will probably respond to easier financing by just building more expensive units, not more units. We've already observed cities building units at pretty absurd costs as they "everything bagel" their plans.
I appreciate this back and forth. Can you explain *why* giving localities the right of first refusal wouldn't keep prices lower? I know that's your assertion but I don't understand why.
I think of it like this -- home prices are set on the margin. Its entirely about the cost of building that additional unit that determines the price of the current units. So any policy that seeks to keep the current units at the cost of more net units will always have an inflationary result.
And, since home price markets extend beyond municipal boundaries, a constrained supply in, say, Nova, will fuck up the prices in, say, Richmond. So even if, say, Nova keeps 100 units of "affordable" housing available, but at the cost of, say, 1000 additional units...... the demand doesn't just disappear. Existing Nova costs go up to match the demand, and the 'residual or excess demand' just comes to Rva.
So on paper an urban planner can celebrate and say 'yay we saved 100 affordable units' but they never ever actually consider the secondary effects of that -- the lost 1,000 additional units. And since demand doesn't just disappear, the remaining units in both Nova and Rva go up.
So Nova urban planner saved 100 units of "affordable housing," but made housing affordability worse in both Nova and Rva. The last 30+ years have been a grand national experiment in this kind of insular, parochial urban planning..... with the result being a hilariously bad housing shortage across the board.
--- also, remember, supply elasticity should be seen as "how sensitive is supply given a change in price" -- so if we're observing high home prices, it means that it requires large changes in price to add just a modicum of supply. A policy that prevents additional supply only makes the problem worse.
I see, but aren't you ignoring the part about localities getting enhanced financing for more supply? Wouldn't that obviate your concern? Or am I misunderstanding? It seems to me the multiple bills are addressing costs on both ends.
Has financing been a constraint over the last 30 years? Not really.
And more likely, cheaper financing will result in more expensive units, not more elasticity of supply.
Gotcha. Thanks again for the respectful back and forth. Good discussion.
Another thing to remember about public housing...... is that initial cheaper financing doesn't mean that investment for future maintenance is there.
And if history is any guide -- when cities historically got large 'affordability projects' subsidized, they allowed maintenance cost to get deferred for years and years, and the quality of that housing deteriorated to what we have today.
So we could just be repeating prior failures here.
I didn't get the sense that the projects being financed were public. Did I miss that in the bill description? But point taken.
What’s the progressive rationale for not allowing an additional surcharge on tobacco users?
Finally, a smart and critical response that's not just "THIS GOOD" or "FUCK THE LIBS".
To answer: I'm not sure! I'm not an expert on that policy. I'd speculate that it's political - not wanting to piss off too many voters or upsetting Virginia's economy too much. But practically, without knowing as much about the policy consequences, I'd support a surcharge. Better for public health and decreases spending on cancer or smoking-related illnesses in the commonwealth.
What do you think?
My first thoughts were along the same lines, bad optics in a tobacco state, and for some maybe because it by default is regressive. I wonder though since rates across the board are going way up if this is an attempt to keep as many people covered as possible?
They die younger so might not cost as much in total as someone who lives to be 95. And by the time the health effects of smoking kick in they are probably already on Medicare.
Bye bye Yukin. Worst Gov in VA history.
I would say that Thomas Stanley, who engaged in "massive resistance" to racial integration by shutting down public schools and giving white students tuition vouchers was the worst governor. But you do you.
An actual PLAN?!! She's not just going to drive around the state glad handing and spewing platitudes before taking actions diametrically opposed to her statements? This is new.
Not one mention of the car tax.
Are you talking about the yearly property tax?
Yeah
That will never go away - or practically never. Counties have been weaponized and are so addicted to this income that they would never let it go. The state would have to make them whole, you know, as it’s done in others state that do not have it. It could be reduced but of course not.
Which is why new taxes should the last resort when ever new legislative sessions open up. Governments very rarely give things up.
My rural bumpkin Southside county has such a small tax base I honestly don't mind paying property tax on my vehicles.
I get that many people are struggling, though. I don't mean to make light of that.
What are you proposing to replace it with?
Exactly. People need to realize that if we lose the PP tax, we'll have a higher income tax instead.
Personally I pay way less in PP tax than I would with any increase to my income tax. My car is old and wasn't fancy to begin with. And I'm happy with that.
Considering that this state has a 2 billion dollar budget surplus, replace it with nothing.
That’s more likely to increase than decrease.
How about the elimination of certificates of need and allow the free market to expand Healthcare options w/o having to bribe 42 government entities?
I’m not seeing anything that goes after the data centers causing the shortage of housing areas and higher e-bills.
Can’t increase the supply of affordable housing if land is constantly being handed over to college sized data centers that employ <20 people.
Can’t offset the increasing electricity bills while more and more data centers are still being approved and constructed.
yeah, fair. That's been a big talking point for her though, so I'd be surprised if she doesn't address that sooner than later.
Preventing the sunset of the law preventing insurance companies from charging more to tobacco users? That raises rates for EVERYONE except the minority of people who CHOOSE to use tobacco products. I really don't understand that one, can someone explain?
A plan!? Nice. That's a start
Is that rent control?
Great start. Now do something about the stupid hikes to auto insurance that happened last year. My monthly premiums doubled over the past year and it's beyond insane. I have been paying more for auto insurance each month over the past 10+ months than I do for electric AND water combined. My plan and provider has not changed for years. My premiums have gone up by ~2-4% each year as I fully expected. But to double almost overnight?!?!? Methinks someone in the current body has a vested interest in Geico and other auto insurance providers keeping their employees here and were willing to sell Virginia residents out.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I’m looking forward of years of prosperity that’s she will bring. It’s going to be a great three years.
Abigail Nothingburger
What happened to eliminating the car tax?
She's going to be the Governor... not a legislator. She can sign shit, she can't introduce or vote on shit.
She very nearly has a supermajority in the house and she's been coordinating directly with the Dems there. So it's highly likely most of this will pass, especially since a lot of it is stuff Youngkin vetoed.
I'm viewing this as something similar to the presidential state of the union address. Yeah, they can't introduce and vote on a bill, but they can lead their party in the direction they want. These are kind of like marching orders for those who are able to do those things. She's telling them what she expects to come across her desk and what she will and won't sign into law.
This. People here in this sub just don't get it.
A big old nothingburger to appease their fanbase.
It is ridiculous to believe that the government spending more money will cut the cost of living.
It is simply entirely possible for the government to operate a program at a lower cost to consumers than an equivalent program run by a public company(s) could offer - see Medicare.
lol there’s no government programs that are cheaper to run then if they where public/ private .
By medicare you mean the second most expensive program in the Federal government after social security, that low cost program?
Do you not understand what is being discussed? Medicare is run more cheaply than the same quality of service would be if it was run by a for-profit company. It is extremely cost effectively run. What you seem to want is a much more expensive privately run program, or simply no program at all to help older folks pay for healthcare. Sorry that you get mad at the government effectively running healthcare, but that's a you problem, and my recommendation is to fucking get over it.
You know why Medicare is "cheaper" to run? Because they vastly underpay providers for the services they perform. That's why medical providers require additional subsidies and state assistance to stay open.
Your reading comprehension is embarrassing.
Sell your car and your house; spending money to make money is absurd!
But no tax control.
Not a word of it.
Lower the cost of electricity while rejoining the RGGI, stupid idea…
Authorizing all localities to change zoning rules to mandate or incentivize "Affordable Dwelling Units" in new developments. - again stupid idea your passing on the costs to other people, who can afford the housing and affording is stretching it… what about not making developers pay for, the additional infrastructure of the housing requires since you know infrastructure is supposed to be a government service…
Subsidizing ACA Premiums - again this only affects a small portion of the population. Why not get rid of the car tax instead?
Overall, a lot of of these are terrible proposals that I don’t actually see reducing the cost of loving at any meaningful way. Why is the government trying to regulate and subsidize everything?
Not to mention some of these policies are downright stupid… for example
The Proposal: Using state funds to subsidize Affordable Care Act (ACA) premiums and removing surcharges for tobacco users.
I personally think there needs to be a different direction taken, for example, require all new housing especially townhomes, to be constructed, with only south facing roofs at 35 degrees.
Looking at henrico building codes, the smallest legally allowed townhome that can be made, would be able to produce about 15,700 KWh of power year, and only increase construction costs by about 19,200 ( probably more with the economies of scale). And assuming those were constructed with a zero interest loan, it would pay itself off in eight years..
You're being downvoted, but feel confident you're the only one who actually understands this list of policies. Very little in here has anything to do with affordability, and Spanberger gets a complete pass for wanting to rejoin RGGI, which will be $8 every month on your bill if not more.
Two of you can’t do math, and should leave adult opinions to adults.
Half a million people bud
She’s so fake
This is the type of milquetoast garbage that make democrats not get reelected. This all will have barely any effect on having more money in our wallets.
Streamlining new housing construction doesn’t have a tangible effect on cost of living?
By the summaries on the linked article, it appears none of the bills actually streamline the production of housing. Six bills boosting demand, zero bills boosting supply. This is the classic formula for rising prices.
i didn’t see anything material on streamlining development. besides, virginia is too blue make any meaningful progress on streamlining anything. dems are all about bloat and capture.
There's literally nothing in this plan about building new homes except accessory dwelling units. Better than nothing I guess. You'll be able to put your mother in law up on your property if you have a SFH.
Of course not we should do like republicans send a random 400$ check and act like that’s not gonna result in issues down the line lol
[deleted]
Lower taxes? How will that work again?
[deleted]
Your take was nonsensical. They asked the question that should be asked of any goofball who proposes we lower taxes.
Don’t post silly takes and you won’t get downvoted. It’s not complicated.
It’s not silly. Taxes need to and should be lowered.
Right, because our schools have plenty of money and our infrastructure is in immaculate shape. /s
Thats not the issue. Plus any new taxes wouldn’t even go to schools according to the list. And I’m not saying schools don’t need more.
The state has had over a billion dollar surplus for a few years.
I thought we fixed the infrastructure by throwing money at it under Biden?
When Mr Infrastructure Week is ten years late and only manages to rip up what Biden got started, yeah sure, that’s a serious take.
FYI unlike your LEGOs, real things take years to go from start to finish.
Oh, you think there’s infrastructure building that’s started. That’s adorable. I won’t ruin things further for you by telling you about Santa…
You saw all those construction projects that have been underway for 2-3 years that, in January, got someone’s name slapped on them?
Bless your heart; I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
[deleted]
Just make a point instead of stupid inferences
If they were intelligent enough to have one they'd probably have typed it by now
I'll propose a change I'd like to see, too: Give me $10 million. Who wouldn't want $10 million? It's just common sense.
They have no point, so you will never get that.
When's the last time anyone built actually affordable housing?
your mom? or maybe one of the billionaire decides they need an ego boost and do some charity stunt for headlines?
https://budget.lis.virginia.gov/sessionreport/2025/1/2467/
lookup who vetoed 50 mil in that spending
Lower taxes just burdens public service funding which takes away resources from people who are in need. Just to make it so higher income people have to pay less effective tax rates to continue to hoard money.
Frankly we would be better served with undoing a lot of privatization of public services (they have the net result of worse services provided for a higher cost) and making more aspects of our society not handled by profit motive businesses but returning to the public sector.
I’ve always had this fond notion of an idea where you can dictate where your taxes go. Don’t like Planned Parenthood? Fine, others will pick up the slack. Local roads shit? Well guess where you need to allocate your shit…
Yeah, if there’s one thing everyone is very well educated on, it’s the brass tacks of a municipal bond.
Just another bs politician. She has never come out (that I have seen) and condemned the actions of the pos AG she now has to work with. I believe she might have actually defended him. I know the FOP has revoked her honorary membership over it.
Which one, the outgoing AG who litigated everything they could to harm Virginians, or the incoming, who made a TV show reference to a the girlfriend?
I know you’re a Republican but do try to be a serious adult when discussing grown up matters.
big nothing berger. figures.