Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

Why so shocked? Do you need us to send you links of available places?

Remember recently when there were eggs available to buy in the supermarket, but they were really expensive, because there was a shortage of eggs? https://www.newsweek.com/america-egg-shortage-about-get-whole-lot-worse-1777534

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

Why so shocked? Do you need us to send you links of available places?

Remember recently when there were eggs available to buy in the supermarket, but they were really expensive, because there was a shortage of eggs? https://www.newsweek.com/america-egg-shortage-about-get-whole-lot-worse-1777534

and everytime war breaks out somewhere there's another gas crisis which results in higher prices due to (imaginary) "shortages" which yield record profits for big oil

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

Yes, that's true for the new units themselves. But are you under the impression that each unit lives in a vacuum, without having any impact on the prices of other housing units in the area?

Is there actually a study showing this will happen? Because MoCo doesn’t exist in a vacuum either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

Nonsense. More driving = more traffic. Less driving = less traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

The housing dudes are either misguided or work for developers hoping to profit on the backs of taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

Sadly yes and I live a block from a metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

Nonsense. More driving = more traffic. Less driving = less traffic.

More people closer in doesn't mean less driving. It only means less driving than if they lived farther out.

More people will = more traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

Nonsense. More driving = more traffic. Less driving = less traffic.

More people closer in doesn't mean less driving. It only means less driving than if they lived farther out.

More people will = more traffic.

So actually it does mean less driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

Yes, that's true for the new units themselves. But are you under the impression that each unit lives in a vacuum, without having any impact on the prices of other housing units in the area?

Is there actually a study showing this will happen? Because MoCo doesn’t exist in a vacuum either.

No, apparent you think it exists in the upside down, where the laws of supply and demand don't operate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Is it? More "expensive" supply does what for everyone?