Let Dallas be

Dallas Forward is a laudable program that envisions a future for this city and its inhabitants. But what and how sustainable is the motivation behind the vision? The current discussion around how to create more housing seems to be related to the fact that Dallas has lost population as measured by the latest census count, and the notion that density must define its future success.

So what? That doesn’t mean we must prostitute Dallas’ older, quiet neighborhoods to the god of competitive growth. Let the suburbs flourish. Let the unique architecture of Dallas’ past be an attraction, even for the young whose eyes are trained for beauty.

Let Dallas be a city for people, and not vice versa. Let our winding roads invite. Let our hills and dales delight. Let our unending diversity be our gift. All this is already ours, if we are strong enough to keep it.

Betsy Whitfill, Dallas/Lakewood

Sad hodgepodge

Re: “Zoning changes on table — City Council may consider contentious housing reform,” Wednesday Metro & Business story.

Nathaniel Barrett, real estate developer, touts that reducing the minimum lot size requirement is the least likely to disrupt the aesthetic consistency of an area. Developers long ago coaxed the city of Dallas to abandon the importance of that!

In the last 10 years, East Dallas has been decimated with bungalow teardowns and McMansion replacements. The out-of-scale side-by-side hodgepodge is laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Does not seem a concern to anyone except for those of us who live in it. And this new effort to hodgepodge our single-family neighborhoods further? Again, laughable if not so sad. Come on, city!

Mike Sundin, East Dallas

Draconian density rise

The challenge of increasing housing density in Dallas doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. There are plenty of opportunities to achieve increased density by rezoning failed strip centers, office buildings, warehouse areas and vacant parcels of land that exist all over Dallas. Attacking existing single-family neighborhoods with Draconian rule changes should be Plan Z.

Ben Orr, Dallas

Listen to us, City Hall

Re: “Stop buying the scare tactics,” by Sharon Grigsby, Jan. 21 Metro column.

As a lifetime resident of Dallas, I am appalled by the name-calling rhetoric recently published by proponents of Forward Dallas 2.0. I am proud to be one of those gray-haired, cretin Not-in-my-Backyard people who show up at City Hall.

I am fortunate; I am retired and am able to attend meetings that younger people in my neighborhood, whom I represent, cannot attend because they have full-time jobs. So, label me what you will, I will continue to show up and speak for those who are still working hard to achieve the American Dream — homeownership.

They want the chance to raise their children in a safe, single-family neighborhood, and one where their single-story home or cottage is not dwarfed by a multistory triplex or quadruplex.

Yes, we do need affordable housing, but all the grandiose ideas of achieving that goal have fallen short over and over again. Why is it that city employees and appointed and elected officials seem unable to hear what the residents of Dallas are saying they want and need? Why is it that we have to march on City Hall and show up en masse to get this city to listen to us?

Dallas, listen to us, we are speaking to you.

Cookie Peadon, North Dallas

What about parking?

Nowhere in his column did Cothrum mention anything about vehicle parking issues that can come along with high-density multifamily housing. A single unit of a four-unit building could have as many as four driving age family members. If each unit has four drivers, that’s 16 drivers in one building. Where will they all park?

Even if these four units have a two-car garage, that means that most of the vehicles will still have to be parked on the street. And if any unit resident decides to use the garage for storage instead of vehicles, the street parking problem becomes even more acute. Just some food for thought.

Curtis Green, Garland

Threat is real, not ‘perceived’

Re: “Greater density is Dallas’ way forward — Enact policies to encourage the true American dream in our neighborhoods,” by Patrick Kennedy, Jan. 24 Opinion.

Kennedy talks about “eliminating mandatory off-street parking minimums, liberalizing single-use zoning to allow mixing of uses by right, reducing minimum lot size, and allowing more than one unit by right on all residential-zoned properties.” I don’t consider these proposals a “perceived threat” to single-family residential neighborhoods. I consider them a real threat! By right, development allows developers to build without any community input such as neighborhood review or existing homeowner approval.

What I see is an attempt to do away with public comment and citizens’ rights to have a say about their property and their neighborhood and instead give that control to city staff, developers and investors.

He says, “Our elected leaders must ignore the noisy minority.” Strong neighborhoods are the backbone of the city. We pay taxes, we vote, we raise our families here. We purchased homes with the understanding that certain zoning protections came with that purchase. For the city to remove those protections seems like a bait and switch.

Laurie Johnson, Dallas

A losing density push

Research at the University of California Merced found that across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Comparatively, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic and decreasing desirability.

California’s focus on increasing density in urban areas is also at odds with the national shift toward remote work and retail/office growth in more suburban areas.

Kennedy talks about higher density increasing tax revenues, but he has forgotten the cost of increased need for city services, schools and policing. He references the progress achieved by Minneapolis “reforms” but there is disagreement on whether the reforms, which abolished single-family zoning, resulted in the improvements he touts. Other potential causes include the city’s history of multi-unit construction, civil unrest and economics. Two- and three-unit housing permits were only a very small percentage of total permits issued.

Planners like Kennedy promote an ideology of density even at the expense of the needs and desires of the average person. The suburb, characterized by single-family units, is the future.

The more you convert the city to rental units, the more you lose on every level. Kennedy talks about increasing homeownership as a means of increasing net worth among minorities, but most accessory dwelling units and multifamily units will be rentals.

Sara R. Mahoney, Athens

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com