There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

There is very little chance that most of the condos being built will be appreciate much in value. Investing in a condo in DMV to grow one's wealth makes no sense here.

Condos are housing. For people to live in. The main benefit of housing is that people have a place to live.

Unfortunately the people who need housing most can’t these. Why isn’t MoCo building more subsidized housing?

Who doesn't need housing? Everyone needs housing.

The county is building affordable housing. For example here: https://moco360.media/2023/01/19/195-unit-affordable-housing-project-unveiled-in-veirs-mill-corridor/ Could they build more? Sure. I doubt this will be the one and only such project ever built.

There are people that NEED housing and don’t currently have it, and there are those that WANT different housing that what they already have. People with more means have more choices and are not out on the street homeless. People who are wringing their hands about acute housing needs in MoCo seem to have a disconnect about this. The luxury condos going up are not helping the unhoused population no matter how much you want to convince yourself that is the case.

The range of people who need housing is a bit broader than (1) people who are currently unhoused and on the street and (2) people who can afford to live in new apartments.

But if people already have somewhere to live, they don’t *need* housing, they just want something else. Which I get. If we were to ever attempt to upgrade from our house I think we’d find that what we *want* (more space) is simply not available in our neighborhood within our budget.

Unless we are trying to provide more options for other area residents who are trying to move out of DC or PG county or something.

[Anonymous]

Alexandria just rejected an ADU. If there were a crisis level housing shortage then why do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alexandria just rejected an ADU. If there were a crisis level housing shortage then why do that?

You could read the explanations they provided for the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

When you bet against the younger generation, you always lose.

Baby Boomers have done quite well betting against younger generations. They had the relative population/social-voting power to do so.

Their Social Security isn't in danger. The government has massively enabled and bailed out their market investments. Tax cuts have hit their life-stage sweet spots, from the vast increase in the allowable untaxed estate from their parents to the even-more-tax-advantaged-than-1031 capital appreciation exemption for housing. The immense debt that resulted is primed to fall on the generations immediately after them.

So far. With every passing year, they will have less power.

Unless we shift to a wealth tax, they'll be lasting long enough to keep it with them. Again, it will fall, pretty much, on those born after 1965, the last few years benefitting from a bit of coattails effect.

The reason the idiocy of MAGA had (and has) any chance is because it was the only way that generation could keep their good times rolling: shifts to the social left during their teens and 20s, Reaganomics turbocharging their move towards peak earning years and, especially, tax policy of the past 30 years, beginning with the Gingrich Congress, that overwhelmingly benefitted their wealth accumulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

When you bet against the younger generation, you always lose.

Baby Boomers have done quite well betting against younger generations. They had the relative population/social-voting power to do so.

Their Social Security isn't in danger. The government has massively enabled and bailed out their market investments. Tax cuts have hit their life-stage sweet spots, from the vast increase in the allowable untaxed estate from their parents to the even-more-tax-advantaged-than-1031 capital appreciation exemption for housing. The immense debt that resulted is primed to fall on the generations immediately after them.

So far. With every passing year, they will have less power.

It won’t matter. By the time it catches up to them, they’ll all be dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

When you bet against the younger generation, you always lose.

Baby Boomers have done quite well betting against younger generations. They had the relative population/social-voting power to do so.

Their Social Security isn't in danger. The government has massively enabled and bailed out their market investments. Tax cuts have hit their life-stage sweet spots, from the vast increase in the allowable untaxed estate from their parents to the even-more-tax-advantaged-than-1031 capital appreciation exemption for housing. The immense debt that resulted is primed to fall on the generations immediately after them.

So far. With every passing year, they will have less power.

It won’t matter. By the time it catches up to them, they’ll all be dead.

The youngest Baby Boomers turned 60 last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

When you bet against the younger generation, you always lose.

Baby Boomers have done quite well betting against younger generations. They had the relative population/social-voting power to do so.

Their Social Security isn't in danger. The government has massively enabled and bailed out their market investments. Tax cuts have hit their life-stage sweet spots, from the vast increase in the allowable untaxed estate from their parents to the even-more-tax-advantaged-than-1031 capital appreciation exemption for housing. The immense debt that resulted is primed to fall on the generations immediately after them.

So far. With every passing year, they will have less power.

It won’t matter. By the time it catches up to them, they’ll all be dead.

The youngest Baby Boomers turned 60 last year.

And, by the time this comes to a head in 8 or so years, will be far past the reach of employment-based taxes that will be the likely area of increase they push.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

There is very little chance that most of the condos being built will be appreciate much in value. Investing in a condo in DMV to grow one's wealth makes no sense here.

Condos are housing. For people to live in. The main benefit of housing is that people have a place to live.

Unfortunately the people who need housing most can’t these. Why isn’t MoCo building more subsidized housing?

Who doesn't need housing? Everyone needs housing.

The county is building affordable housing. For example here: https://moco360.media/2023/01/19/195-unit-affordable-housing-project-unveiled-in-veirs-mill-corridor/ Could they build more? Sure. I doubt this will be the one and only such project ever built.

There are people that NEED housing and don’t currently have it, and there are those that WANT different housing that what they already have. People with more means have more choices and are not out on the street homeless. People who are wringing their hands about acute housing needs in MoCo seem to have a disconnect about this. The luxury condos going up are not helping the unhoused population no matter how much you want to convince yourself that is the case.

Except where people who might be living in a Luxury apartment go into a luxury condo. Then someone from a mid level apartment that can afford luxury but can’t get it because the market is tight moves in there. Then the lowest end people who can afford move into a higher end one…and then people who might have had even less resources can move into the cheapest, and if they can afford that without q voucher, all the better. Especially since people waiting for vouchers are sometimes double and triple up with family (if they are lucky) and not just included in the explicitly unhoused stats.

Trickle down does actually work for apartments. And if vacancy rates in apartments go up then there is pressure to lower rents, a much more immediate result than lowering cost of real estate.

lol. It’s a nice theory but in practice when the market tilts in favor of renters, landlords warehouse units or convert them to short-term rentals until the market swings back in their favor. Landlords also stop building as soon as rents show signs of leveling off. Whenever trickle down housing has worked at all it hasn’t worked for long, and benefits in the middle and low ends of the market are a fraction of what they are in the high end.

None of this should be surprising. Every trickle down policy in history has caused the wealth gap to grow. Developers have used subsidies and tax breaks to deliver bigger profits, not to cut rents.

[Anonymous]

It actually does work, though. Unless you think it's a coincidence that the rents are decreasing in places where units are being built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just waiting for the condo market to tank so I can swoop in and buy a great one for a song that I can keep as my city retirement pad. All I see are big condo/apartment building going up and I have no idea who is buying them all. The Whole Foods at Walter Reed has been open for months. I live a mile away and can't be bothered to go check it out. It would require figuring out where the parking garage entrance is. I'm sure that place is going to be a bust.

Not everything has to be for you, and that's ok.

There is very little chance that most of the condos being built will be appreciate much in value. Investing in a condo in DMV to grow one's wealth makes no sense here.

Condos are housing. For people to live in. The main benefit of housing is that people have a place to live.

Unfortunately the people who need housing most can’t these. Why isn’t MoCo building more subsidized housing?

Who doesn't need housing? Everyone needs housing.

The county is building affordable housing. For example here: https://moco360.media/2023/01/19/195-unit-affordable-housing-project-unveiled-in-veirs-mill-corridor/ Could they build more? Sure. I doubt this will be the one and only such project ever built.

There are people that NEED housing and don’t currently have it, and there are those that WANT different housing that what they already have. People with more means have more choices and are not out on the street homeless. People who are wringing their hands about acute housing needs in MoCo seem to have a disconnect about this. The luxury condos going up are not helping the unhoused population no matter how much you want to convince yourself that is the case.

Except where people who might be living in a Luxury apartment go into a luxury condo. Then someone from a mid level apartment that can afford luxury but can’t get it because the market is tight moves in there. Then the lowest end people who can afford move into a higher end one…and then people who might have had even less resources can move into the cheapest, and if they can afford that without q voucher, all the better. Especially since people waiting for vouchers are sometimes double and triple up with family (if they are lucky) and not just included in the explicitly unhoused stats.

Trickle down does actually work for apartments. And if vacancy rates in apartments go up then there is pressure to lower rents, a much more immediate result than lowering cost of real estate.

lol. It’s a nice theory but in practice when the market tilts in favor of renters, landlords warehouse units or convert them to short-term rentals until the market swings back in their favor. Landlords also stop building as soon as rents show signs of leveling off. Whenever trickle down housing has worked at all it hasn’t worked for long, and benefits in the middle and low ends of the market are a fraction of what they are in the high end.

None of this should be surprising. Every trickle down policy in history has caused the wealth gap to grow. Developers have used subsidies and tax breaks to deliver bigger profits, not to cut rents.

Fake news. You’re just a NIMBY or a maybe a landlord?

[Anonymous]

Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

People who live in detached houses also get upset when a neighbor smokes, and have zero legal recourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

People who live in detached houses also get upset when a neighbor smokes, and have zero legal recourse.

NP. It’s not nearly the same. We used to live in an apartment in DC and the downstairs neighbors smoked. It came up through the bathrooms where there were cutaways for the pipes. It was awful. Half our family has asthma. It’s one of the big reasons we won’t live in an apartment again if we have any other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

People who live in detached houses also get upset when a neighbor smokes, and have zero legal recourse.

NP. It’s not nearly the same. We used to live in an apartment in DC and the downstairs neighbors smoked. It came up through the bathrooms where there were cutaways for the pipes. It was awful. Half our family has asthma. It’s one of the big reasons we won’t live in an apartment again if we have any other options.

Yes, there is no comparison to having it piped into your bedroom. What's sad is these are no smoking buildings, but it's not PC to enforce laws anymore. So looking out for yourself is best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

People who live in detached houses also get upset when a neighbor smokes, and have zero legal recourse.

NP. It’s not nearly the same. We used to live in an apartment in DC and the downstairs neighbors smoked. It came up through the bathrooms where there were cutaways for the pipes. It was awful. Half our family has asthma. It’s one of the big reasons we won’t live in an apartment again if we have any other options.

Yes, there is no comparison to having it piped into your bedroom. What's sad is these are no smoking buildings, but it's not PC to enforce laws anymore. So looking out for yourself is best.

Single family detached homes are an indicator species of a declining social compact. So are SUVs and shiny pickups.