Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Let’s start with high rise mixed use to replace every strip mall on a major road within a mile of a metro station. That’s a lot of intersections just in my neighborhood. A lot of these places are already zoned for such a use and just need site plans and permits.

Would you want to live on a major road? How many major roads do you cross on your mile walk to the Metro station? Do you feel safe and comfortable crossing those roads on foot?

I have lived on a major road in a high rise and felt comfortable crossing the street. Honestly it’s ridiculous we spend any time at all catering to people who are scared to cross the street.

I don't think it's ridiculous.
https://mcplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3bec8ba90fca4cc182cc042ed38af0e7

Then I guess just get everything delivered but living in an urban or even suburban area means crossing the street sometimes. Not crossing the road is pretty limiting. Just ask the chicken.

Or, maybe we could make the county's big, fast, dangerous roads safer and more walkable - as long as we're planning to put high-rise mixed development on them on the assumption that people who live there will walk to the Metro.

I don't think we need to wait to redesign all of the roads to add housing. We'll probably need to build tunnels anyway because a lot of people will need to drive to Virginia for work and they'll need the roads.

I've never been scared of crossing the street and it seems a lot of people are able to do it, not just here but in cities around the world. You might want to look into help for that so it doesn't hold you back.

You want to put housing near Metro so people will walk to Metro, but you also want the housing to be on big, dangerous roads that must stay on big, dangerous roads so people can drive to Virginia.

How nice for you that you've never been scared crossing big, dangerous roads. It's irrational confidence, given the dangers of crossing big roads, but if it works for you, I won't argue.

No, people have to drive to Virginia because we don't have enough jobs for them here.

Fear of crossing roads is an irrational fear. You're more likely to get robbed or shot than you are to be fatally hit by a driver. The odds of those first two things happening are already exceedingly low.

I don't want to be hit by a driver, at all. Even if it doesn't kill me. I don't know about you.

I’m still not persuaded that your irrational fear is a good reason for not adding housing near metro stations. A lot of people (some of whom live on big roads that aren’t near metro stations) would like to stop driving to work and take the metro to work, and others would like to be closer to Virginia so they don’t have to drive across the whole county to get to work.

I am all in favor of adding housing near Metro stations, and also making the roads in the area safe and comfortable for walking.

Prioritizing people's drives to Virginia, or prioritizing walkable housing around Metro stations, pick one, you can't have both.

We don’t have to redo every street to have more housing near metro. That’s silly.

Have more housing near metro now or wait decades to build it while we redo all the roads. Pick one. You can’t have both.

It doesn't take decades to redo all the roads. That's silly. We can redo them just as fast as we can build new housing near Metro. But it will make driving to Virginia less convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Home ownership is not the pathway to affordability. Renting is not inherently more costly than owning.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Let’s start with high rise mixed use to replace every strip mall on a major road within a mile of a metro station. That’s a lot of intersections just in my neighborhood. A lot of these places are already zoned for such a use and just need site plans and permits.

Would you want to live on a major road? How many major roads do you cross on your mile walk to the Metro station? Do you feel safe and comfortable crossing those roads on foot?

I have lived on a major road in a high rise and felt comfortable crossing the street. Honestly it’s ridiculous we spend any time at all catering to people who are scared to cross the street.

I don't think it's ridiculous.
https://mcplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3bec8ba90fca4cc182cc042ed38af0e7

Then I guess just get everything delivered but living in an urban or even suburban area means crossing the street sometimes. Not crossing the road is pretty limiting. Just ask the chicken.

Or, maybe we could make the county's big, fast, dangerous roads safer and more walkable - as long as we're planning to put high-rise mixed development on them on the assumption that people who live there will walk to the Metro.

I don't think we need to wait to redesign all of the roads to add housing. We'll probably need to build tunnels anyway because a lot of people will need to drive to Virginia for work and they'll need the roads.

I've never been scared of crossing the street and it seems a lot of people are able to do it, not just here but in cities around the world. You might want to look into help for that so it doesn't hold you back.

You want to put housing near Metro so people will walk to Metro, but you also want the housing to be on big, dangerous roads that must stay on big, dangerous roads so people can drive to Virginia.

How nice for you that you've never been scared crossing big, dangerous roads. It's irrational confidence, given the dangers of crossing big roads, but if it works for you, I won't argue.

No, people have to drive to Virginia because we don't have enough jobs for them here.

Fear of crossing roads is an irrational fear. You're more likely to get robbed or shot than you are to be fatally hit by a driver. The odds of those first two things happening are already exceedingly low.

I don't want to be hit by a driver, at all. Even if it doesn't kill me. I don't know about you.

I’m still not persuaded that your irrational fear is a good reason for not adding housing near metro stations. A lot of people (some of whom live on big roads that aren’t near metro stations) would like to stop driving to work and take the metro to work, and others would like to be closer to Virginia so they don’t have to drive across the whole county to get to work.

I am all in favor of adding housing near Metro stations, and also making the roads in the area safe and comfortable for walking.

Prioritizing people's drives to Virginia, or prioritizing walkable housing around Metro stations, pick one, you can't have both.

We don’t have to redo every street to have more housing near metro. That’s silly.

Have more housing near metro now or wait decades to build it while we redo all the roads. Pick one. You can’t have both.

It doesn't take decades to redo all the roads. That's silly. We can redo them just as fast as we can build new housing near Metro. But it will make driving to Virginia less convenient.

In which case you won’t have a market for the new homes because there aren’t enough jobs in Maryland and DC to support housing growth in these corridors. And, yes, it does take a decade to redo roads. It shouldn’t but it does.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Let’s start with high rise mixed use to replace every strip mall on a major road within a mile of a metro station. That’s a lot of intersections just in my neighborhood. A lot of these places are already zoned for such a use and just need site plans and permits.

Would you want to live on a major road? How many major roads do you cross on your mile walk to the Metro station? Do you feel safe and comfortable crossing those roads on foot?

I have lived on a major road in a high rise and felt comfortable crossing the street. Honestly it’s ridiculous we spend any time at all catering to people who are scared to cross the street.

I don't think it's ridiculous.
https://mcplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3bec8ba90fca4cc182cc042ed38af0e7

Then I guess just get everything delivered but living in an urban or even suburban area means crossing the street sometimes. Not crossing the road is pretty limiting. Just ask the chicken.

Or, maybe we could make the county's big, fast, dangerous roads safer and more walkable - as long as we're planning to put high-rise mixed development on them on the assumption that people who live there will walk to the Metro.

I don't think we need to wait to redesign all of the roads to add housing. We'll probably need to build tunnels anyway because a lot of people will need to drive to Virginia for work and they'll need the roads.

I've never been scared of crossing the street and it seems a lot of people are able to do it, not just here but in cities around the world. You might want to look into help for that so it doesn't hold you back.

You want to put housing near Metro so people will walk to Metro, but you also want the housing to be on big, dangerous roads that must stay on big, dangerous roads so people can drive to Virginia.

How nice for you that you've never been scared crossing big, dangerous roads. It's irrational confidence, given the dangers of crossing big roads, but if it works for you, I won't argue.

No, people have to drive to Virginia because we don't have enough jobs for them here.

Fear of crossing roads is an irrational fear. You're more likely to get robbed or shot than you are to be fatally hit by a driver. The odds of those first two things happening are already exceedingly low.

I don't want to be hit by a driver, at all. Even if it doesn't kill me. I don't know about you.

I’m still not persuaded that your irrational fear is a good reason for not adding housing near metro stations. A lot of people (some of whom live on big roads that aren’t near metro stations) would like to stop driving to work and take the metro to work, and others would like to be closer to Virginia so they don’t have to drive across the whole county to get to work.

I am all in favor of adding housing near Metro stations, and also making the roads in the area safe and comfortable for walking.

Prioritizing people's drives to Virginia, or prioritizing walkable housing around Metro stations, pick one, you can't have both.

We don’t have to redo every street to have more housing near metro. That’s silly.

Have more housing near metro now or wait decades to build it while we redo all the roads. Pick one. You can’t have both.

It doesn't take decades to redo all the roads. That's silly. We can redo them just as fast as we can build new housing near Metro. But it will make driving to Virginia less convenient.

In which case you won’t have a market for the new homes because there aren’t enough jobs in Maryland and DC to support housing growth in these corridors. And, yes, it does take a decade to redo roads. It shouldn’t but it does.

Conveniently, it also takes a decade to build new housing.

However, if your priority is making driving to Virginia more convenient, then there's really no point in building new housing in Montgomery County at all, near Metro or not near Metro.

[Anonymous]

The middle class is the biggest barrier to communism. Never forget that when you look at these policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Their number one priority isn’t affordable housing or anything that makes sense, really. It’s ending SFH zoning because they don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the purpose of ADUs is to add housing units, not to ensure that the PP at the top can afford to buy a "starter" home with a yard big enough to put an ADU in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the purpose of ADUs is to add housing units, not to ensure that the PP at the top can afford to buy a "starter" home with a yard big enough to put an ADU in.

It may not be what you’re saying but it’s the effect of what you’re recommending. It’s tricky to balance affordability in the purchase and rental segments and I don’t know what the answer is but some controls to prevent non-resident investors from squeezing out first-time buyers probably are necessary. The investor funding would produce more housing if it were bundled and put into MF high-rise anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

You are completely confused. Your error is in thinking that when the price of the property increases, the property remains the same. But it doesn’t. It now has more bedrooms and square footage. More baths. This makes it cost more.

The benefits in affordability are achieved by having more available bedrooms/sq ft available for occupancy in any given market. Supply and demand. The additional bedrooms available for occupancy will create downward pressure on overall prices. You could still buy the original unimproved property for the same price or less if it existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the purpose of ADUs is to add housing units, not to ensure that the PP at the top can afford to buy a "starter" home with a yard big enough to put an ADU in.

It may not be what you’re saying but it’s the effect of what you’re recommending. It’s tricky to balance affordability in the purchase and rental segments and I don’t know what the answer is but some controls to prevent non-resident investors from squeezing out first-time buyers probably are necessary. The investor funding would produce more housing if it were bundled and put into MF high-rise anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that first time buyers will be able to buy a SFH on a large lot near metro under this policy. But they can’t do that now anyways. However they will be able to now live in that same neighborhood in a condo or apartment rather than a SFH w/ yard. That’s the point. Letting people with more modest means access the benefits of transportation and infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Their number one priority isn’t affordable housing or anything that makes sense, really. It’s ending SFH zoning because they don’t like it.

Agree 100% And net result will be a broke MC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

But it DOESN'T make the original property more affordable to the next buyer. It creates cheaper housing in people's backyards for rent. The property itself won't be cheaper after adding an ADU, but more expensive.

Do I have that right?

Yes, the property will be more expensive because there are two units of housing on it instead of one. Just like, generally, a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it will be more expensive than the same parcel with 1 unit of housing on it. It should go without saying that a one-acre parcel with 20 units of housing on it has 20 times as many housing units as a parcel with 1 unit of housing on it.

So what you’re saying is ADUs are zero sum and we have to choose between rental affordability and purchase affordability. If that’s the case, it’s worth a conversation about balancing rental and purchase affordability, because those two things are actually linked. Monthly mortgage payments put a soft cap on rents, so if mortgage payments go up on average, rents have more headroom to grow.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the purpose of ADUs is to add housing units, not to ensure that the PP at the top can afford to buy a "starter" home with a yard big enough to put an ADU in.

It may not be what you’re saying but it’s the effect of what you’re recommending. It’s tricky to balance affordability in the purchase and rental segments and I don’t know what the answer is but some controls to prevent non-resident investors from squeezing out first-time buyers probably are necessary. The investor funding would produce more housing if it were bundled and put into MF high-rise anyway.

Nobody is suggesting that first time buyers will be able to buy a SFH on a large lot near metro under this policy. But they can’t do that now anyways. However they will be able to now live in that same neighborhood in a condo or apartment rather than a SFH w/ yard. That’s the point. Letting people with more modest means access the benefits of transportation and infrastructure.

Since the property with an ADU is only affordable to speculators, who is going to buy them? What's the likelihood that both units would then be rented?