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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

OP will have that regardless of zoning changes (unless they decide to sell). What OP wants is their neighborhood to stay frozen in amber. Which is pretty entitled, given that OP doesn't own their neighborhood.

What developers want are greater profit margins than currently available, so they push for changes to zoning for them to buy & build in neighborhoods that are not theirs at all. Which is why they seek a YIMBY to shill for them.

On an anonymous forum, though, they don't even need to do that. They can just claim they are the YIMBY in the first place, as nobody could prove them false.

Wait, what? Developers are building on property they don't own? That seems like a problem. You definitely should have to own the property in order to be the owner of that property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

Entitled is believing you have a say over private property you don't own.

Both of you are entitled by that definition. The only difference is what you want to do with that private property...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

Except many people do it everyday. Keep whining.

The fact that people do it today does not mean it’s an optimal outcome!!! The welfare of those that have to commute from Baltimore to DC would greatly increase from reduced travel time and lower rent burden and your welfare would not decrease. You can still keep your detached SFH in your lot with an upzoning. And you do not own the neighborhood. You can always buy all of AU Park if you so choose and not develop it further.

God forbid someone have a non optimal housing situation. Life is trade-offs and no, not everyone is entitled to “optimal” housing.

People who want SFH do not want live around density.

People who want density buy condos in urban areas.

All this nonsense is doing is driving people into more exclusive enclaves such as gated communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

Except many people do it everyday. Keep whining.

The fact that people do it today does not mean it’s an optimal outcome!!! The welfare of those that have to commute from Baltimore to DC would greatly increase from reduced travel time and lower rent burden and your welfare would not decrease. You can still keep your detached SFH in your lot with an upzoning. And you do not own the neighborhood. You can always buy all of AU Park if you so choose and not develop it further.

God forbid someone have a non optimal housing situation. Life is trade-offs and no, not everyone is entitled to “optimal” housing.

People who want SFH do not want live around density.

People who want density buy condos in urban areas.

All this nonsense is doing is driving people into more exclusive enclaves such as gated communities.

Oh, the irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As pp stated, its not just about “burger flippers”. To function, a healthy and effective society needs teachers, firefighters, EMTs, healthcare workers, sanitation workers, etc. These are not high paying jobs. These employees need somewhere to live.

I am a nurse ($128k fwiw). The VAST majority of my fellow nurses live in places like Howard County, Olney, Urbana, Clarksburg, Rockville …. if they’re married with kids and have a 4-bedroom home. The single, no-kids nurses live in DC and Arlington.

I have never once, in 7 years, met another RN in the DMV who just couldn’t afford to live here within 40 minutes of work at a DC/Montgomery County hospital. In fact, we tend to do pretty well, take vacations, have our kids in travel sports (if married), eat out all the time (the single ones).

Maybe the couples living in a 3000 sq ft newer build house in Olney would prefer to live in NWDC. It doesn’t follow that their dreams have been crushed and they’re living in hardship.

I’ve never understood why RNs and similar are always lumped in with minimum wage workers. But honestly, even they can get a couple of roommates and rent in an older building in a first-ring suburb. How I know? My son does exactly this with an intern’s $17/hr wage.

Yes, families can definitely get a couple of other families and illegally rent in a small older "single-family" house outside the Beltway, or illegally double up with another family in a two-bedroom apartment in a rental complex in Gaithersburg. What is this evidence of? It's evidence of a housing shortage. Plus, at least on line, the same posters who oppose pro-housing policies, such as zoning changes, also demand stricter code enforcement against these types of illegal housing arrangements.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/maryland/montgomery-county/12-people-displaced-after-house-fire-in-wheaton-glenmont/

You didn’t reject my actual datapoints offered about “healthcare workers” making $100k +/- somehow finding a safe place to live. Within 40 minutes of their hospital.

Re: the doubling up “families” …. It’s fine if 4 unrelated men rent a 1+ bed w den in gaithersburg. Also fine if person, spouse, unrelated adult does the same.

Is there no room for these ^^^ people’s children in the same apartment? I have a solution!! 1. Don’t have more kids until your financial circumstances change. 2. Move to a different US city with unskilled jobs in an agriculture heavy state where housing is cheaper. 3. Move back to the place you just moved *from*. Ahem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

OP will have that regardless of zoning changes (unless they decide to sell). What OP wants is their neighborhood to stay frozen in amber. Which is pretty entitled, given that OP doesn't own their neighborhood.

What developers want are greater profit margins than currently available, so they push for changes to zoning for them to buy & build in neighborhoods that are not theirs at all. Which is why they seek a YIMBY to shill for them.

On an anonymous forum, though, they don't even need to do that. They can just claim they are the YIMBY in the first place, as nobody could prove them false.

Wait, what? Developers are building on property they don't own? That seems like a problem. You definitely should have to own the property in order to be the owner of that property.

Not sure if you are being intentionally daft to distract, or if you are just confused.

No matter. Developers would look for this zoning change first, then buy & build, as stated. They typically don't deploy the capital for a purchase until they are relatively certain of their return on investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As pp stated, its not just about “burger flippers”. To function, a healthy and effective society needs teachers, firefighters, EMTs, healthcare workers, sanitation workers, etc. These are not high paying jobs. These employees need somewhere to live.

I am a nurse ($128k fwiw). The VAST majority of my fellow nurses live in places like Howard County, Olney, Urbana, Clarksburg, Rockville …. if they’re married with kids and have a 4-bedroom home. The single, no-kids nurses live in DC and Arlington.

I have never once, in 7 years, met another RN in the DMV who just couldn’t afford to live here within 40 minutes of work at a DC/Montgomery County hospital. In fact, we tend to do pretty well, take vacations, have our kids in travel sports (if married), eat out all the time (the single ones).

Maybe the couples living in a 3000 sq ft newer build house in Olney would prefer to live in NWDC. It doesn’t follow that their dreams have been crushed and they’re living in hardship.

I’ve never understood why RNs and similar are always lumped in with minimum wage workers. But honestly, even they can get a couple of roommates and rent in an older building in a first-ring suburb. How I know? My son does exactly this with an intern’s $17/hr wage.

Yes, families can definitely get a couple of other families and illegally rent in a small older "single-family" house outside the Beltway, or illegally double up with another family in a two-bedroom apartment in a rental complex in Gaithersburg. What is this evidence of? It's evidence of a housing shortage. Plus, at least on line, the same posters who oppose pro-housing policies, such as zoning changes, also demand stricter code enforcement against these types of illegal housing arrangements.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/maryland/montgomery-county/12-people-displaced-after-house-fire-in-wheaton-glenmont/

You didn’t reject my actual datapoints offered about “healthcare workers” making $100k +/- somehow finding a safe place to live. Within 40 minutes of their hospital.

Re: the doubling up “families” …. It’s fine if 4 unrelated men rent a 1+ bed w den in gaithersburg. Also fine if person, spouse, unrelated adult does the same.

Is there no room for these ^^^ people’s children in the same apartment? I have a solution!! 1. Don’t have more kids until your financial circumstances change. 2. Move to a different US city with unskilled jobs in an agriculture heavy state where housing is cheaper. 3. Move back to the place you just moved *from*. Ahem

"Don't have had children" is not actually a solution, housing or otherwise.

You didn't offer data points, you offered anecdata, but I don't really care, plus I think it would be good if people could live closer to their work than a 40-minute drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

OP will have that regardless of zoning changes (unless they decide to sell). What OP wants is their neighborhood to stay frozen in amber. Which is pretty entitled, given that OP doesn't own their neighborhood.

What developers want are greater profit margins than currently available, so they push for changes to zoning for them to buy & build in neighborhoods that are not theirs at all. Which is why they seek a YIMBY to shill for them.

On an anonymous forum, though, they don't even need to do that. They can just claim they are the YIMBY in the first place, as nobody could prove them false.

Wait, what? Developers are building on property they don't own? That seems like a problem. You definitely should have to own the property in order to be the owner of that property.

Not sure if you are being intentionally daft to distract, or if you are just confused.

No matter. Developers would look for this zoning change first, then buy & build, as stated. They typically don't deploy the capital for a purchase until they are relatively certain of their return on investment.

Ok? And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

Meh. I want BTC at $2.60. Or even $2600. This $60k+ is too XYZ for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

OP will have that regardless of zoning changes (unless they decide to sell). What OP wants is their neighborhood to stay frozen in amber. Which is pretty entitled, given that OP doesn't own their neighborhood.

What developers want are greater profit margins than currently available, so they push for changes to zoning for them to buy & build in neighborhoods that are not theirs at all. Which is why they seek a YIMBY to shill for them.

On an anonymous forum, though, they don't even need to do that. They can just claim they are the YIMBY in the first place, as nobody could prove them false.

Wait, what? Developers are building on property they don't own? That seems like a problem. You definitely should have to own the property in order to be the owner of that property.

Not sure if you are being intentionally daft to distract, or if you are just confused.

No matter. Developers would look for this zoning change first, then buy & build, as stated. They typically don't deploy the capital for a purchase until they are relatively certain of their return on investment.

Ok? And?

Now I'm sure you're being intentionally daft and didn't have a point to make while ignoring counters to the idea that folks should have no say in their own communities while developers should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking people that work in DC to go live in Baltimore is the absolute most NIMBY thing you can say

You already got yours in the DC area and now zoning has to stay frozen in amber so you can have a detached SFH close to metro. Ridiculous.

OP will have that regardless of zoning changes (unless they decide to sell). What OP wants is their neighborhood to stay frozen in amber. Which is pretty entitled, given that OP doesn't own their neighborhood.

What developers want are greater profit margins than currently available, so they push for changes to zoning for them to buy & build in neighborhoods that are not theirs at all. Which is why they seek a YIMBY to shill for them.

On an anonymous forum, though, they don't even need to do that. They can just claim they are the YIMBY in the first place, as nobody could prove them false.

Wait, what? Developers are building on property they don't own? That seems like a problem. You definitely should have to own the property in order to be the owner of that property.

Not sure if you are being intentionally daft to distract, or if you are just confused.

No matter. Developers would look for this zoning change first, then buy & build, as stated. They typically don't deploy the capital for a purchase until they are relatively certain of their return on investment.

Ok? And?

Now I'm sure you're being intentionally daft and didn't have a point to make while ignoring counters to the idea that folks should have no say in their own communities while developers should.

You have a say, by voting.

Developers who buy property in your community are property owners just like you (presumably) and your neighbors (presumably) are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

Stupid logic. Using your asinine reasoning a home owner should be able to sell their land to chemical manufacturer who emits lots of pollution in urban areas where lots of people reside. Sure, let's keep going down your dumb rabbit hole.

Leftists can't stand people are different and achieved different outcomes. They force social engineering by destroying everything that is good when select people have built better lives for themselves than others have done. Sure, we will all have affordable housing when everything is a derelict dump and we have duplexes and triplexes with 25 cars to a property parking all over the lawns and the roads dumping trash everywhere. I'm so glad we are in a road to abysmal mediocrity. Just admit, your vision will end up turning everything into craptastic soviet style blocs where we can all live in mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

Stupid logic. Using your asinine reasoning a home owner should be able to sell their land to chemical manufacturer who emits lots of pollution in urban areas where lots of people reside. Sure, let's keep going down your dumb rabbit hole.

Leftists can't stand people are different and achieved different outcomes. They force social engineering by destroying everything that is good when select people have built better lives for themselves than others have done. Sure, we will all have affordable housing when everything is a derelict dump and we have duplexes and triplexes with 25 cars to a property parking all over the lawns and the roads dumping trash everywhere. I'm so glad we are in a road to abysmal mediocrity. Just admit, your vision will end up turning everything into craptastic soviet style blocs where we can all live in mediocrity.

Agreed. They cannot accept any differences in outcomes. The rationalization for ignoring the failures of the past is simply “this time will be different”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

Interesting you skipped right over the part where you may just have to settle for ABC housing. Or you may just have to buy DEF housing in a ZIP Code that you don’t have your heart set on could you explain with specificity why neither of these options are acceptable?

I know more about zoning than you probably do having been i involved in the topic for a long time. You want your vision to prevail, and I want my vision to prevail. It doesn’t make yours, correct?