Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

Washington DC residents want to have thoughtful, balanced growth, not rapacious development.

[Anonymous]

Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

It’s all part of an organized campaign by greedy development interests to sell up zoning in high profit opportunities as a way to get affordable housing. Most people can see through the bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

This is entirely true. In the case of an essential good like housing, the demand will always be there but it will shift in the type of demand.
For example, with housing prices being sky-high, a lot of young professionals live together in group houses with roommates. You build more housing, prices go down or stabilize for a time, young professionals start to move out and find their own apartments. Demand increases, prices go up again. People's behavior reacts to the prices, not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

See the problem really is that people either never took, or never understood, Econ 101.

The above commenter does not know the difference between "demand" and "quantity" demanded. Or what elasticity of demand means.

When supply of X goes up, and prices go down, and then people buy more of X, that is NOT demand going up. The demand curve (which tells you how much people will demand at any given price) has not moved. The quantity demand has moved - we speak of that as "moving along the demand curve"

Now its possible that the demand curve is perfectly elastic, which means that any increase in supply will be "soaked up" and no change in prices will occur. But that is in fact very rare, and almost certainly not the case for housing across a metro area (it may be the case for housing in one neighborhood, where a drop in prices will lead people to move from other neighborhoods).

IRL terms a perfectly elastic demand curve for housing means that say, the rent for a 1BR apt is $2500. You build 10,000 more 1BR apts. The rent will NOT go down even to 2499, because as soon as it does, there are 10,000 people interested in renting 1BR at $2499, who were not interested in paying $2500.

The same thing at 20,000 units. Or 30,000 units.

Some reflections shows this is absurd.

Now, it is also true that demand shifts for other reasons. In particular in a region like ours demand for housing increases because there are more jobs in the region. But IF there are more jobs in the region, that demand shift happens whatever you do to supply of housing. And results in higher prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

This is entirely true. In the case of an essential good like housing, the demand will always be there but it will shift in the type of demand.
For example, with housing prices being sky-high, a lot of young professionals live together in group houses with roommates. You build more housing, prices go down or stabilize for a time, young professionals start to move out and find their own apartments. Demand increases, prices go up again. People's behavior reacts to the prices, not the other way around.

Actually the prices and the behavior are "simultaneously determined"

This is trivially easy to show with a simply supply demand graph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change the law to require any development over 30 units to include 33 percent IZ housing. If DC is serious then it need to up the standards. Otherwise, the push for “affordable” housing seems like an excuse and smoke screen to let development companies build just more high end market rate housing.

which will mean fewer new developments and less IZ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loosening zoning laws is going to make zero difference to housing prices. It's odd how people have convinced themselves this is some kind of silver bullet to high housing prices.

Supply and demand doesn't apply to the housing market?

Yes, it does, and that's the problem for those selling zoning as the easy answer to everything.

They always want to focus on the supply side of the equation, and assume that if they just bring more housing units onto the market, prices will decline. But what about demand? If prices were to actually go down, demand would go up because that's what happens when prices fall.

Housing prices will never actually fall no matter how many units they build because it will always been exceeded by demand. There's millions of people who would happily move into the District (do you think people want two hour commutes?) and there isn't space to build millions of new housing units.

See the problem really is that people either never took, or never understood, Econ 101.

The above commenter does not know the difference between "demand" and "quantity" demanded. Or what elasticity of demand means.

When supply of X goes up, and prices go down, and then people buy more of X, that is NOT demand going up. The demand curve (which tells you how much people will demand at any given price) has not moved. The quantity demand has moved - we speak of that as "moving along the demand curve"

Now its possible that the demand curve is perfectly elastic, which means that any increase in supply will be "soaked up" and no change in prices will occur. But that is in fact very rare, and almost certainly not the case for housing across a metro area (it may be the case for housing in one neighborhood, where a drop in prices will lead people to move from other neighborhoods).

IRL terms a perfectly elastic demand curve for housing means that say, the rent for a 1BR apt is $2500. You build 10,000 more 1BR apts. The rent will NOT go down even to 2499, because as soon as it does, there are 10,000 people interested in renting 1BR at $2499, who were not interested in paying $2500.

The same thing at 20,000 units. Or 30,000 units.

Some reflections shows this is absurd.

Now, it is also true that demand shifts for other reasons. In particular in a region like ours demand for housing increases because there are more jobs in the region. But IF there are more jobs in the region, that demand shift happens whatever you do to supply of housing. And results in higher prices.

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If anything, increasing density will make housing more expensive. Look at Navy Yard. Way more people live there now. It's also way more expensive than it used to be. Happens over and over and over in neighborhoods across DC.

So, increasing the density of a neighborhood makes the neighborhood more desirable and in-demand? How about that.

I doubt that building 110' buildings in the Palisades and Chevy Chase DC will make those neighborhoods more desirable. What makes them desirable is their leafy, village in the city character. DC doesn't need a one-size-fits-all approach to planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change the law to require any development over 30 units to include 33 percent IZ housing. If DC is serious then it need to up the standards. Otherwise, the push for “affordable” housing seems like an excuse and smoke screen to let development companies build just more high end market rate housing.

which will mean fewer new developments and less IZ

But the mayor says we need lots more affordable housing. We will never grow our way to affordable housing with current requirements of 8-10 percent IZ in qualifying projects. We have to up the percentages by statue.

Unless, it's really not about affordable housing after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change the law to require any development over 30 units to include 33 percent IZ housing. If DC is serious then it need to up the standards. Otherwise, the push for “affordable” housing seems like an excuse and smoke screen to let development companies build just more high end market rate housing.

which will mean fewer new developments and less IZ

But the mayor says we need lots more affordable housing. We will never grow our way to affordable housing with current requirements of 8-10 percent IZ in qualifying projects. We have to up the percentages by statue.

Unless, it's really not about affordable housing after all.

Affordable housing is just a fig leaf. Changing zoning laws and letting developers do whatever they want has nothing to do with affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning. They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units. They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.

That meeting was so transparently stage-managed, it was ridiculous. Andrew ("Pajama Boy") Trueblood, the planning director only took a handful of questions and then twice tried to dodge a question about protecting existing rent controlled housing in Northwest.