The Fan District Association (FDA) Outlines Procedural Objections to Code Refresh Draft 3

The Honorable Danny Avula, Mayor

The Honorable Katherine Jordan, Richmond City Council
900 E. Broad Street, Suite 305
Richmond, VA 23219
BY HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL

October 9, 2026

RE: Code Refresh Version 3 (“CR .v3”) - FDA Procedural Objections

Dear Mayor Avula and Councilwoman Jordan:

As you are aware, the Fan District Association (“FDA”) has been carefully reviewing Code Refresh (“CR”) since its inception. We have spent hundreds of hours trying to understand the policy implications of CR and trying to educate our community on CR. As examples of these efforts:

• We have hosted several meetings and zoning “office hours” in order to provide our community with multiple opportunities to ask questions and share their opinions on Code Refresh;
• We updated our website to include information about Code Refresh;
• We provided written comments to the City, in the form of resolutions and position papers, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C;
• We included CR as a topic in most FDA newsletters;
• We participated in many joint neighborhood association meetings about CR;
• I served as a late citizen appointee to the Zoning Advisory Council (“ZAC”) and have kept the FDA Board informed of all conversations around CR; and
• Members of the Board participated in dozens of City meetings on CR and related topics.

The FDA has been thoughtful and measured throughout the CR process. This review has taken immense amounts of time, energy and effort.

We are writing today with grave concerns about the process for review of the “final” version of CR. Before CR .v3 was released on August 17, 2026, an interim “version” was released to the public in June 2026. At that point the City represented that there were only three (3) open issues to be resolved: (1) the definition of “family;” (2) the treatment of churches and places of worship; and (3) the “2+1” rubric of one (1) duplex plus an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) on every residential lot in the City. The FDA at that time released a Position Paper (Exhibit B) and a Resolution (Exhibit C). The very first point in that resolution is that the FDA disagrees that those three (3) issues are the only three (3) issues in dispute.

We do not intend to raise the substantive issues of CR .v3 today. The purpose of this letter is to point out the significant flaws in the proposed process for review and adoption of CR .v3. In the interest of brevity, we will list these as bullet points, in no particular order of importance.

• While we appreciate that the City has opened the CR .v3 map for three (3) weeks of public comment, this is inadequate.
• There is no methodology for public comment on the formal CR .v3 ordinance, other than “come to your Councilperson’s CR meeting” or “send an email.” The CR .v3 ordinance is a legal document that exceeds 350 pages and covers all 77,000+ parcels of land in the City. Having no formal channel for review is inadequate and unacceptable.
• There is no central repository for the public comments being received by the Administration, Council, and PDR, as was provided for CR .v1 and CR .v2. The Administration should document all comments in a public place in the interest of transparency.
• CR .v3 introduces brand new zoning categories such as “Campus” and “Multifamily - Suburban” and major changes to controversial issues such as the size of ADUs and zoning for houses of worship.
• ZAC was prematurely dissolved as of September 9, with no formal discussion of CR .v3, and with no notice to ZAC members.
• There have been no independent studies provided to the public of the demolition potential under the CR .v3 regime, particularly in corridors with existing affordable housing or the many neighborhoods in the City on the National Register of Historic Places, but without “Old and Historic District” designations. The RKG Analysis provided to the City to address legitimate concerns about the feasibility of demolition (Exhibit D) is wholly inadequate, especially when compared to the RKG analysis provided to the City of Charlottesville during their rezoning process (Exhibit E).
• There have been no independent studies of the impact of additional development under the CR .v3 regime on the infrastructure capacity of the City.

These are not insignificant issues. Any one of these is a fatal flaw in process and procedure.

As you know, the Fan District is one of the, if not the, MOST densely populated neighborhoods in the City. The Fan District is an example of the kind of mixed-use development the Richmond Master Plan (“RVA300”) encourages. We want to be crystal clear: We do not oppose reasonable and thoughtful density. We do not oppose reasonable mixed-use and multifamily development. In fact, in the seven (7)+ years that I have been on the FDA Zoning Committee, I cannot recall a mixed-use or infill development which was formally opposed by the FDA. As examples, the following infill projects have not been opposed¹ by the FDA during my tenure on the FDA Zoning Committee:

• 1516 Rear Plum (conversion of historic commercial building into residence);
• 2516 Rear Stuart (conversion of historic building into apartments);
• 2618 Rear Main (infill for-sale townhome project, number of units negotiated down from initial proposal);
• Robinson Parking Lot infill project (multiple apartments over retail on Starbucks parking lot);
• 2602-2606 Grove (conversion of 21 existing units to larger luxury units, although we will oppose if no steps are taken to protect Rick’s Garden) and
• Multiple ADUs².

---

¹ Note, the FDA’s formal position is we do not “support” any Special Use Permit (“SUP”) project, we either “oppose” or “do not oppose” any SUP project.

² In fact, in at least one instance we favored more flexibility for the homeowner building an ADU than Councilwoman Jordan ultimately supported.

---

The Fan District has accommodated, and will continue to accommodate, reasonable infill development. However, we remain concerned about how unfettered development could impact the significant and immensely valuable historic character of our neighborhood. A zoning code that encourages the tear down of viable historic structures, be they in the Fan, Carver, Jackson Ward, Oregon Hill, or any one of a multitude of other historic communities in the City, in favor of just “more” is not good policy. In fact, a zoning code that encourages the tear down of viable historic structures is contrary to the goals of RVA300, the Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan, and multiple climate goals formally adopted by the City.

We trust the City will reconsider their approach to CR .v3. The public deserves the right to weigh in on this critical piece of legislation in a thoughtful and measured way, after an appropriate amount of time and education. The current proposed approach is rushed and inadequate for a proposal of this significance.

We stand ready to work with the City’s elected officials to achieve the laudable goals of RVA300. A transparent, documented, and legally defensible CR .v3 outreach process is required. With appropriate care and citizen input, we know we can achieve the objectives of RVA300 while preserving what makes Richmond, Richmond.

Sincerely,

Melissa L. Savenko 10/09/26

Melissa L. Savenko
Chair, FDA Zoning Committee

Cc: The Honorable Andrew Breton
The Honorable Kenya Gibson
The Honorable Sarah Abubaker
The Honorable Stephanie A. Lynch
The Honorable Ellen Robertson
The Honorable Cynthia Newbile
The Honorable Reva Trammel
The Honorable Nicole Jones

Attachments:
Exhibit A: FDA Position Paper No. 1
Exhibit B: FDA Position Paper No. 2
Exhibit C: FDA Resolution
Exhibit D: RKG Analysis for the City of Richmond
Exhibit E: RKG Analysis for the City of Charlottesville

Richmond Code Refresh: A critique of population, housing demand, and zoning capacity assumptions used by the City to justify a need for greater residential density

Open Letter On Code Refresh

Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 8:27 AM
Subject: Code Refresh Population and Housing Assumption Findings
To: <RVAMayor@rva.gov>
Cc: <Laura.Drewry@rva.gov>, Kenya <kenya.gibson@rva.gov>, <andrew.breton@rva.gov>, <katherine.jordan@rva.gov>, <sarah.abubaker@rva.gov>, <stephanie.lynch@rva.gov>, <ellen.robertson@rva.gov>, <cynthia.newbille@rva.gov>, Reva Trammell <reva.trammell@rva.gov>, <richmond300@rva.gov>

Dear Mayor Avula, Members of the City Council, and City Attorney Drewry,

RVA Design Coalition has invited several locally-based national experts to review the current draft of Code Refresh. This is part of a citizen-based due diligence effort by RVA Design Coalition.

The first citizen-led due diligence effort is by Ben Porter, a Richmond resident with over 50 years professional experience in urban transportation and planning. The last two decades focused on due diligence with major transit construction projects including the Hudson River Tunnel; the Second Avenue subway and Canarsie Line Rehabilitation projects in New York City; the Portal North Bridge on the Northeast Corridor in New Jersey; the Metrorail Extension to Dulles International Airport; two subway and two light rail projects in Los  Angeles; the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport; BART extensions into Santa Clara County and a doubling of capacity for the Transbay Tube. For the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), his client in each project, he prepared about 150 of these due diligence reports for a total project value exceeding $100 billion.

Mr. Porter has carefully reviewed the population and housing assumptions in both the Richmond 300 and the Code Refresh plans. Based on publicly available local, regional, state, federal, and private information, Mr. Porter makes the following findings:

• In Richmond 300, City planners assumed a city population of 300,000 by the year 2037 was a “reasonable” projection. This assumption is a foundation of Code Refresh (see image below).
• Mr. Porter’s due diligence found that the forecast for a 300,000 City population by the year 2037 is “highly unlikely” to occur
• Based on more current data, he found that the city population is not likely to reach 300,000 residents “until the mid 2060’s”
• A more realistic population forecast would reduce city-wide housing need by 39% to 73% (see image below)
• Current City zoning is more than adequate to meet these reduced housing needs

These trends are not unique to Richmond. The UVa Weldon Cooper Center is the official population forecasting agency for the Commonwealth, and it forecasts similar trends statewide. 

The number of housing units permitted in Richmond since 2020, and the resulting rise in vacancy rates, call into question the notion that we have a housing crisis. I hope the findings in the report provide a helpful framework for updating our Code Refresh policies to better serve the community.

Respectfully,

Copeland Casati

Copeland for RVA Design Coalition

Hello@RVADesignCoalition.org

Read the report here:

The former Chair of the Richmond Planning Commission speaks out on Code Refresh.

Michael Clark, former Chair of the Richmond Planning Commission, writes to the current Chair, Rodney Poole on Code Refresh:

September 27, 2026

Cc all PC CC All Council Rtd and Richmonder Dear Mr. Poole, As a former chair of the Richmond Planning Commission, Ambassador of the Metro Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Chair of Leadership Metro Richmond, and Vice-chair of White House Conference on Small Business, I encourage you and City Council to PAUSE the current Code Refresh process and engage the many disaffected communities in our city. Instead of being compared to previous drafts, your approved version needs to be compared to current zoning. That is what all residents and businesses in the city need to see and understand. As do you. From my reading of current zoning, it was surprising to learn that your proposed zoning "compromise" increased the size of an accessory dwelling unit from the 500 square feet allowed in today's zoning to the 1,200 square ft in Draft 3. I further learned that your proposed 1,200 sf ADU could be subdivided and sold as a stand-alone home, and that your approved version would allow (or even encourage) the primary home to be demolished to accommodate two larger homes. Think about how that will play out in individual neighborhood conflicts and further the already significant mistrust of City government. I take you at your word that you care about affordable housing. But your proposed "compromise" provides very powerful financial and regulatory incentives to demolish existing affordable housing, to displace hundreds or even thousands of residents, and to replace them with denser and more expensive rental housing. Instead of a sales pitch by staff, maybe you should visit the apartment complexes on Hamilton Street or Chamberlayne Avenue and tell them in simple terms what you are proposing ... then LISTEN. I could go on with scores of technical or practical issues which translate into unique concerns for each neighborhood across the City. You have seen the City's latest polling on citizen opinions. Trust in the City continues to fall. I can tell you unequivocally that if you proceed with your current rezoning proposal, what little trust remains with City government will be gone. Please don't make that mistake. I am happy to meet with you but I encourage you to ditch the sales pitches and work with the people who elected you. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. For your reference, I'm enclosing a previous letter that I sent to the Mayor and City Council with more context on my family's story and love of Richmond. Michael Clark

From: Michael Clark
Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:08 PM
Subject: CODE REFRESH
To: <rvamayor@rvaa.gov>
CC: <sarah.abubaker@rva.gov>, <andrew.breton@rva.gov>, <katherine.jordan@rva.gov>, <kenya.gibson@rva.gov>, <stephanie.lynch@rva.gov>, ellen.robertson@rva.gov <ellen.robertson@rva.gov>, <cynthia.newbille@rva.gov>, <reva.trammell@rva.gov>, <nicole.jones@rva.gov>

Dear Mayor Avula,

Richmond Virginia in my opinion is one of the most beautiful cities in America.  When I served as a Richmond Ambassador during the 80's we were confident in presenting the variety of wonderful residential communities as a reason businesses would locate here.  While growing up in Louisville Kentucky I had a dream of owning a home in a nice neighborhood where I could raise a family.  I discovered Richmond while recruiting at Virginia colleges in the 70's.  My bride and I moved our 2 young sons here 53 years ago this month.  We were blessed to buy our "Dream Home" in 1977 and because we love Richmond so much we opted to buy that home in the city and not follow many of our friends to the counties.

Next year will mark 50 years living and enjoying our dream home.  Ten years ago we performed a major renovation of our home which was built in 1963 in Stratford Hills.  Rather than sell and move to the counties, we upgraded and stayed.  It was a "gut punch" to learn of Code Refresh just this week.  The notion that your city would kill your dream and the quality of life for you and all other residents was unimaginable.  Having served on the City Planning Commission in the 80's it is apparent to me and others that the process used to implement this code change is at variance not only with the Master Plan but defies any respect for the residents of our city.

My request is that you TABLE this plan and put this concept before the people in the form of a REFERENDUM.  

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

Michael and Rosamary Clark

Elizabeth Kostelny joins neighborhood preservationists, sustainability professionals, and planners speaking out on Code Refresh.

Throughout Virginia, and Richmond, communities are exceedingly grateful for the over 34 years of leadership in preservation and revitalization under Elizabeth Kostelny's years of service at Preservation Virginia. Now a citizen, Richmond is deeply appreciative of her words on Code Refresh. 

Sustainability professionals and preservationists must not remain silent on a plan that shows so many proven, negative impacts on Richmond neighbors: removing existing affordable housing, stripping our resiliency, and encouraging displacement and tear-downs.

From: Elizabeth Kostelny
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 6:33 PM
Subject: Code Refresh 3/Need for Code Refresh 4
To: <RVAMayor@rva.gov>, <kenya.gibson@rva.gov>
CC: <andrew.breton@rva.gov>, <katherine.jordan@rva.gov>, <sarah.abubaker@rva.gov>, <stephanie.lynch@rva.gov>, <ellen.robertson@rva.gov>, <cynthia.newbille@rva.gov>, <reva.trammell@rva.gov>, <richmond300@rva.gov>

Dear Mayor Avula and Councilwoman Gibson,

Thank you for listening to the concerns expressed about Code Refresh at the Third District meeting on 17 September. It is the first meeting that I have attended where residents' viewpoints were respectfully received and real answers provided rather than defensive jargon. No one denies the need to update the zoning, especially where it conflicts with how neighborhoods are currently developed. However, the standardized approach to all neighborhoods will set up the same conflicts for the future.

Ensuring avenues for affordability and a stronger, more sustainable City are goals we share. Many of us who attend these meetings work in the fields of planning, urban design, economics and preservation. We understand the value of thoughtful approaches to density, rezoning and climate resilience and we offer our input because we are dedicated to Richmond. We want a transparent and thoughtful approach.

I feel certain you are hearing from many residents. Drive through any neighborhood. Yard signs calling for a sensible approach to zoning far out number any that support the Code Refresh process as it has been presented. Below are just a few of the concerns.

Code Refresh 3 will:

• Encourage gentrification. Around the country, communities that embraced across the board zoning as Richmond envisions are now regretting the implementation of these plans. The beneficiaries are not those seeking affordable housing. Instead, developers have seized on the open-ended nature to profit. Neighborhoods have been destabilized and people are priced out of homeownership. Nashville was given as a successful example. However, a quick internet search produces the following. Different from Richmond, Nashville is prioritizing retaining the character of its older and historic neighborhoods. Additionally, Nashville residents are asking exactly the same questions about impacts on affordability, parking, traffic, gentrification and the readiness of infrastructure. Interest rates now are at an all time high. Thoughtful approaches to zoning should consider tools to maintain the integrity and distinct attributes of neighborhoods and provide tax relief programs, grants, and other tools to effectively provide affordable options.
  
  
• Penalize those who plan to age in place. Much attention has focused on making Richmond affordable for new homebuyers. Little mention is made about those who have paid taxes for decades and hope to retire here. Code Refresh 3 has the potential to penalize homeowners for NOT building ADUs or sub-dividing their lots by increasing property values to include tax assessments for potential development. For those on fixed incomes, tax rates will become unsustainable. Households are already burdened by the ever increasing high costs on water, sewer, gas and stormwater runoff that the City levies. Historically African American and lower income neighborhoods are most at risk with displacement, as developers seek to profit in these vulnerable communities.
  
  
• Increase risks of flooding, is less environmental sustainability, and creates more heat islands by reducing tree cover and permeable surfaces. While standards may have slightly improved, the overall push to encourage development within existing neighborhoods will cause runoff and less healthy environments. Attention on City maintained parks and greenspaces is a positive development, but only if the City is prepared to care for the spaces. By contrast, Richmonders’ yards are already an asset that support the overall environmental health of neighborhoods with no additional cost to the City. Gardens and trees support healthy populations of frogs, bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, other pollinators and many species of birds. In the shoulder season, dependence on electricity is reduced as these surfaces cool faster than properties filled with hardscapes and additional structures. Incentivizing reduced lot size with more impermeable surfaces and destroying resident cultivated greenspace is counter intuitive to the Richmond 300’s goal of climate resilience.
  
  
• Turn Richmond’s back on the integrity of its historic and older neighborhoods and the tools that have made them affordable. For more than forty years, Richmond led Virginia in utilizing historic tax credits to return abandoned and derelict structures to the tax rolls. Travel writers refer to Richmond’s charm and character because of its unique older neighborhoods. With little focus on historic preservation tools, Code Refresh 3 will incentivize tear downs, fill landfills and increase greenhouse emission. All of these actions will result in the construction of “anywhere USA” architecture, wiping out the authenticity of our neighborhoods. Other Virginia cities have implemented demolition policies. Richmond has always resisted. Code Refresh should have companion policies to protect the unique character of Richmond. Look to professionals like Donavan Rypkema and Place Economics to see how cities embrace historic preservation and thrive.
  
  
• Challenges to traffic and parking are real. The response given by the planning director that the only areas impacted by increased traffic are centered on commercial areas like gas stations etc. is a diversion. Ask anyone who lives in Sherwood Park if traffic and safety concerns have increased since the development of the Canopy at Ginter Park and the answer will be “yes”. Cars traveling Westwood, Brook, Brookland Parkway and the neighboring streets speed, fail to stop at intersections and use bike lanes to pass vehicles creating dangerous conditions. One person has already died on Brookland Parkway. Two cars have been totaled in front of our house. The statement that traffic is not the responsibility of Planning is obfuscation. Who is addressing these impacts before it is too late?

Mr. Vonck stated in the meeting that the City needed to create more housing units to deter the counties from turning agricultural land into housing developments. He touted this action as a climate resilience strategy. This is an obvious false flag. The counties’ expanded development will continue and people will choose to move there as long as the tax rates, housing and utilities are less expensive than the City. There are other questions: how does the glut of new vacant apartments and condos fit into the calculations of housing goals; why allow streets and smaller structures to be cast into shadow by multi-story buildings, why does the City want so many people living in glass boxes and consuming more electricity in a time where rate increases test affordability and consumption eats up resources?

I do not envy your task of developing an effective plan. However, I would suggest that no zoning plan will be effective until there is confidence in the City government. The approach to Code Refresh and the change it will bring has not engendered faith that current residents’ best interests are being supported. More transparency is needed to rebuild trust.

I urge you to listen to those advocating for a common sense approach to zoning. Please don’t label us as elitists or NIMBYs. We want zoning that creates affordable housing–not just for first-time buyers, but for everyone. We want a vibrant City that is sustainable–economically, environmentally and is fiscally responsible. We want everyone's viewpoint to be respectively considered and we want to see those views reflected in Code Refresh version 4.

Thank you for your consideration.

Elizabeth S. Kostelny

About the author: Elizabeth Kostelny is the retired chairman and CEO of Preservation Virginia. 

Kenya Gibson has questions.

Re: Code Refresh From Gibson, Kenya J. - City Council
Date: Thu 9/17/2026 4:30 PM
To: Drewry, Laura K. - City Attorney
Cc: Avula, Danny - Mayor ; Breton, Andrew S. - City Council ; Jones, Nicole - City Council Office ; Robertson, Ellen F. - City Council ; Lynch, Stephanie A. - City Council Office ; Donald, Odie - CAO ; Vonck, Kevin J. - PDR ; Warren, RJ A. - Council Chief of Staff ; Wijesooriya, Lawson - Mayor's Office ; Newbille, Cynthia I. - City Council ; Jordan, Katherine - City Council ; Abubaker, Sarah M. - City Council ; Trammell, Reva M. - City Council ; Elliott, Sarandon C. - City Council 

Hello,
Thank you for this update. I appreciate your interest in ensuring your team has sufficient time to conduct a robust review of the Code Refresh ordinance. This code will have a sizable impact on our city far beyond our terms in office and needs to be thoroughly vetted. 

There are several aspects of the proposal and process that I think need to be clarified from a legal standpoint, so I’m seeking your guidance. 

First, how does the Administration consider the Code Refresh to align with the Planning Commission’s obligation under Va. Code § 15.2-2230 to review the Comprehensive Plan at least once every five years? 

Second, given that Council Resolution 2025-R039 expressly directed the Planning Commission to prepare and adopt a Richmond 300 amendment establishing the Five Points Neighborhood Node as part of that required Master Plan review, and that amendment is not reflected in Draft 3, what is the legal basis for adopting a comprehensive zoning rewrite before that Council-directed Master Plan work has been completed? 

Finally, the Planning Department has commissioned studies showing that the increased development projections driven by Code Refresh significantly overlaps with the City’s combined sewer area. Given the City’s obligations under the CSO Consent Order, Council Resolution 2022-R025, and planned development in the Diamond District, what documentation or analysis is legally required to establish that the Code Refresh will not interfere with the City’s compliance with those obligations? 

I recognize a written analysis/opinion on even these specific components may take time to put together, so let me know when you think this would be feasible. 

Kenya Gibson
Councilmember, Richmond City Council
Richmond Northside 3rd Voter District
900 E. Broad Street, Suite 305
Richmond, VA 23219
Office: (804) 646-6055 kenya.gibson@rva.gov

Code Refresh = TAXES GO UP.

 That's it. That's the whole blog post. 

Code Refresh will make your taxes go up; displacement is underway.

Have you asked your Councilperson to vote against Code Refresh?

• https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2026/09/how-displacement-harms-communities-and-health.html
• https://housingstudies.org/blog/exploring-impacts-rising-property-taxes-changing-n/
• https://taxfoundation.org/blog/do-people-really-move-because-of-taxes/
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087416666959

Richmond households have changed.

Code Refresh intends to expand the number of unrelated people living together in one unit from three to five adults and unlimited children.

Well-documented research shows the negative impacts of crowding. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets the threshold for overcrowding in homes as more than one person per habitable room (excluding functional spaces like the kitchen and any bathrooms). 

The threshold for severe overcrowding is 1.5 people per room. 

Once a home crosses this threshold, sanitation and air quality suffer, and fire, pathogen, and violence risks accelerate. 

Other Virginia and Virginia-adjacent localities handle this exact situation through conditional or special-use-permit pathways rather than a blanket rezoning.

So why is zoning so insistent we need to cram so many people into a unit? Let's look at their data.

The most common rental and housing size in Richmond is 2 bedrooms, which accounts for roughly 38% to 50% of the rental and apartment market. To avoid severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 people per room) three people, today's current zoning, prevents the many ill effects of overcrowding on neighborhoods.

Much larger units could apply for a special use permit (SUP) to allow more people, but overwhelmingly, three unrelated people are fine for the majority of Richmond homes if the most common rental is 2 bedrooms.

Code Refresh's own chart shows how Richmond households have changed. Look closely to compare the 1970s to today: 

• In the 1970s, you can see the largest percentage of households had 2 people (red). 
• The 2nd largest category was 1 (blue). 
• But over a third of the population had 3-6 people in a household (3 as yellow, 4 for green, light grey for 5, dark grey for 6 people).

Today, almost half of our households have ONE person residing in a unit. 

Shouldn't we then build more studios?

The average studio in Richmond is 507 sq. ft. If we are going to truly serve a housing need, we should thus keep accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 500 sq. ft. or 1/3 the primary home size to provide housing for our greatest household percentage! 

(Further, if zoning wants to truly serve Richmonders, ADUs should not be short-term rentals but leased to locals.)

Almost a third of today's households are 2 people.

*Over* 2/3 of Richmond's total households are made up of 1 -or- 2 people.

Don't believe me? Look at Code Refresh's own chart!

Households with 5 or 6 people are a minuscule percentage of our housing.

Why are we permitting blanket overcrowding if our own data shows it's not needed? 

Ask your Councilperson today, and share this chart!