Walter Tejada, the new chairman of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors, is promoting a worthwhile idea — allowing homeowners to build small “accessory dwelling units” on their properties. Unfortunately, he’s diluting the proposal with a highly controversial agenda, and he appears to be basing his justification for the accessory dwelling units on a fuzzy call for social justice instead of individual liberties.
As Kirstin Downey writes for the Washington Post, Tejada wants to eliminate smoking in public places and ban trans-fats from restaurant foods. A native of El Salvador, he also is an outspoken advocate of Arlington’s Hispanic residents. Responding to the plight of immigrants who were displaced when garden-style apartments were torn down to make way for upscale condominiums, Tejada wants to require landlords to make tenant-relocation payments. The plight of displaced tenants is all too real, but the proposed remedy is a form of social engineering that undoubtedly would have unintended consequences if enacted — the topic for another blog post some day.
To replace some of the torn-down units, Tejada also proposes that the county permit homeowners to add accessory dwelling units, such as in-law apartments or English basements, in residential neighborhoods. Arlington County considered the idea some two decades ago but dropped it in the face of heated opposition — presumably from homeowners worried about the impact on their neighborhoods.
Accessory units like granny flats and garage apartments are wonderful things. They provide a wider range of housing options for lower-income individuals, they allow for a diversity of ages and income groups in a neighborhood, and they create an income-producing opportunity for homeowners. If neighbors are concerned that a basement apartment might become home to a dozen immigrant day laborers sleeping in shifts on mattresses, the appropriate solution isn’t to ban basement apartments but to limit the number of people who can live in them.
Unfortunately, if the quotes in the WaPo article are any guide, Tejada bases his case on justice for immigrants — as opposed to basing it on the principles of property rights and individual freedoms. Once an issue becomes one of group rights as opposed to individual rights, it becomes a zero-sum game, thus needlessly polarizing and divisive. Big mistake. In all likelihood, the best idea in Tejada’s nanny-state agenda will get shot down.
(Photo credit: Secondjourney.org.)
