Two distinct factions have emerged in the heated discussion around Charlottesville’s zoning laws. Some city residents say the latest proposed land use map goes too far, and that the construction of apartment buildings and shops would have deleterious effects on what are currently single-family neighborhoods. Others say the map doesn’t do enough to open up exclusive neighborhoods for new development.
New data compiled by Planning Commissioner Rory Stolzenberg offers a clear illustration of who’s advocating for what at this point in the process.
Letters asking the Planning Commission not to allow more dense housing in single-family neighborhoods almost all came from the owners of Charlottesville’s most expensive homes. Meanwhile, a campaign asking the map to allow for “a range of housing types accessible across income levels” came from homeowners who own homes of more representative value, including a large proportion of renters.
The latest draft of the land use map was released on August 30, ahead of a Planning Commission meeting on August 31. Between September 5 and September 14, Stolzenberg’s data shows that the Planning Commission received 150 emails from people who wanted the land use planning process to slow down, because they oppose what they see as “blanket up-zoning.”
More than 100 of those people submitted a form letter. “I support the stated objective of providing affordable housing,” the form letter reads, “but do not believe that the extensive changes these documents would make to our neighborhoods would have a significant impact on affordability.”
The emailers say that allowing for increased housing density in certain areas “would destroy much in our city that makes it a unique and special place to live,” and are concerned that the adoption of the plan would lead to “wholesale changes to the content and character of neighborhoods throughout the city.”
Using Charlottesville’s public Geographic Information System, which catalogs the names of property owners in the city and lists the assessed value of every property, Stolzenberg was able to match each emailer with the value of the home they own.
The median value of a home in Charlottesville is $330,000. The median value of the homes owned by anti-upzoning email writers is $730,000.
The vast majority of these anti-upzoning emails—80 percent—came from people who own homes in the top 20 percent of value in the city—homes valued above half a million dollars.
And 20 percent of the anti-upzoning emails came from people who own homes valued at $1.1 million or more.
Fifty-seven percent of Charlottesville residents are renters, but the 150 anti-upzoning emailers included 144 homeowners. Sixty-nine of those 150 emailers live in the tony Barracks/Rugby neighborhood, and another 20 live in North Downtown.
On the other side, Stolzenberg also received 151 emails between September 5 and September 10 advocating for even greater density than the most recent version of the land use map would allow.
More than 100 of those emailers submitted a form letter written by a group called Livable Cville. The Livable Cville writers ask that the planning commission allow 3.5-story buildings, four-unit dwellings, townhouses, and rowhouses through almost all of the city. “This will help ensure it is spatially and financially feasible for affordable multi-family homes to be built,” the letter reads.
The city should also “allow small commercial uses, such as corner stores, throughout the city,” the letter argues. “If we want walkable, bikeable, vibrant, human-scale neighborhoods, that will require retail services in every neighborhood.”
Stolzenberg used the same method to create a general profile for the Livable Cville emailers. Just 88 were confirmed homeowners; Stolzenberg says that “most of the others are likely renters—many explicitly said so, while the others don’t appear in city property records.”
The large proportion of renters who wrote to support the Livable Cville email already means the campaign is more economically representative of the city than the group who sent anti-upzoning emails.
Among the homeowners who participated in the Livable Cville campaign, the median home value is $370,000—not too far from the median home value in the city. Half of the homeowners who wrote to support increased density own homes in the bottom 40 percent of value in the city.
The stark differences between the economic status of the two cohorts is “startling,” Stolzenberg wrote to his fellow planning commissioners on September 12. “It is our job as policymakers to make policy on behalf of all citizens, and therefore it is important to know who we are hearing from, and how they represent or do not represent the citizenry at large…That is what I’ve endeavored to provide with this analysis.”
Correction 9/29: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of renters in Charlottesville, and misspelled Rory Stolzenberg’s name.
