In the past week, Greater Greater Washington has posted two articles urging that the draft zoning code be adopted ASAP. The theme of the first piece is that the code we're operating under now has been outdated since 1970. And the theme of the second is "enough is enough" -- time to cut off public comment on the draft.
Strikingly absent from both posts is any substantive defense of the 980 page draft code now before the Zoning Commission. In fact, at a recent oversight hearing, one of the authors of the first article testified that the proposed new code was inadequate and already, itself, out-of-date -- therefore, it is imperative that it be adopted immediately!
In general, proponents (following OP's lead) have vacillated between two very different claims. One is that there's nothing much to see here -- OP's proposals started out modest and have been substantially weakened in response to public pressure. The other is that it is urgent that this "new, modern, and more understandable zoning code" be adopted quickly because housing costs "are rapidly spiraling out of control" and we shouldn't delay in "creating a more walkable and inclusive city." How such "tiny" changes in the code will have such a significant impact goes unexplained.
Maybe the real problem here is that the GGW/Smart Growth crowd has read the press releases, while most of the critics of the ZRR have actually read (at least parts of) the draft text itself. Throughout the ZRR process, OP has stressed three changes -- ADUs, corner stores, and parking requirements. Those are the issues that proponents have focused on. And while the changes in parking requirements could be transformative in some areas (e.g. downtown and in mixed-use neighborhoods near Metro where on-street parking is already scarce), the ADU and corner store changes are relatively minor -- enough to create major headaches for a few unfortunate homeowners who suddenly find themselves next to nuisance properties, but not significant enough to have any impact on affordability or walkability. ADUs and corner stores are essentially symbolic gestures -- not solutions.
They are probably also issues where consensus could be quickly and easily achieved. Allow internal ADUs as matter-of-right (while requiring a certificate of occupancy as an enforcement mechanism for enforcing tax and safety compliance) and either abandon the external ADU idea or do a pilot program.And since some communities love their corner stores and others find them problematic, give interested neighborhoods the option of adopting more permissive regs, allowing each to designate its own locations and conditions. Interestingly, in both cases (external ADUs and corner stores), Georgetown was able to customize the ZRR provisions and it wanted more restrictive rules than what OP has proposed citywide. Why shouldn't other neighborhoods be given the same opportunity? No delay required -- just keep the existing rules as the default, but adopt a new regulation that outlines the customization process and parameters.
Parking's a more difficult issue (and one where zoning is only part of the problem/solution), so I don't see a quick and easy fix there. But the absence of even the most basic data collection and of integrated planning across agencies has made this a more divisive issue than it needs to be. Certainly opponents of OP's proposals favor "right-sizing" parking. The question is how we determine what the right size is. And when OP begins by telling its consultants that "developers would generally be happy to build less parking" and then instructs them to "identify zoning changes that would result in reduced accommodation of parking at new development in the District," there's justifiable skepticism as to whether "how much parking do we really need?" is the question being answered.
In any event, unlike supporters, critics of the ZRR are concerned about a much broader range of issues than ADUs, corner stores, and parking. They're looking at unpublicized aspects of the ZRR, at unintended consequences, and at what the ZRR has failed to do. And the issues that have emerged include public input, housing affordability, neighborhood character, the fate of downtown (and how to create attractive and liveable high-density neighborhoods), development pressure that threatens single-family housing stock, and the "where and how do we grow?" issue that manifests itself in a variety of different forms -- including overdevelopment, uneven development, and gentrification, as well as infrastructural and public facilities issues.
I think it's fair to say that, increasingly, people see the soul of the city as at stake. Are we going to be a city where people can put down roots, where you don't have to be affluent (and able-bodied) to stay, where you can raise kids and have parks and schools nearby, and where nature, history, and human scale are prized? Or are we going to be a city of transients where developers extract maximum value from the land and where local government's primary objective is to increase its tax base?
This debate isn't a referendum on cars or change or millenials or urbanism. Basically, it's a controversy over where the balance between community and commerce should be struck and it's being raised in the context of the ZRR for a host of different reasons. People across the city are sensing that the social contract zoning represents is being abandoned. If there's money to be made, then all bets are off. The continued failure
of DC's Office of Planning to do any actual planning, its refusal to provide a complete and honest account of the changes it is proposing, and its belligerence in dealing with citizens who are raising legitimate concerns about what is happening in their neighborhoods have only aggravated the situation. And it certainly doesn't help that the ultimate decisionmakers here are five unelected Zoning Commissioners who haven't been given the staff or the research they'll need to make well-informed decisions on these issues.