anyone else dislike Greater Greater Washington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers

This.

Again based on what is posted on the blog what is your evidence that this is true? Or even implied?

Do think developers are big fans of their push on affordable housing?

As I posted yesterday you have to go back more than a month to find a post about an individual development proposal.

The push on "affordable housing" is a total canard. GGW isn't concerned about affordable housing (except that its bloggers aspire to live in an affordable glass box on U Street). This is the latest argument developed by Big Development and its echo chamber to force fundamental changes in the comprehensive plan and how it's interpreted, as well as substantial upzoning of single family residential areas of DC. The BigDev/GGW argument goes like this. If DC constrains judicial review of PUD determinations and upzones, denser and taller buildings will mean more 'inclusionary zoning' units. Never mind that inclusionary zoning requirements are minimal in DC, but 'inclusionary zoning' is not at all the same as 'affordable housing.' Indeed, a Big Dev/GGW proposal to upzone the avenues in Upper NW to the same height and density as downtown likely would lead to the tear-down of numerous older apartment buildings which in Ward 3 today provide the second-highest number of rent-controlled units in the District. The other Big Dev/GGW argument is that if DC upzones Palisaides, AU Park, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, that this will somehow eliminate gentrification pressures in other parts of the District. This ignores the fact that housing demand and markets are highly segmented, and few buyers looking for the next Brooklyn in D.C. are likely to want a high-rise condo in the Palisades or a quad-plex in AU Park. It is telling that a number of the affordable housing advocacy groups in DC saw through this charade and testified against the comprehensive plan framework proposals being pushed by the mayor at the behest of BigDev.

1. They are certainly not that segmented. Lots of people move EOTR (including to very unhip areas) because WOTR is so expensive.

2. IZ units are significant, and definitely a source of housing for people who cannot afford market rate

3. Making market rate housing more affordable is a social good. except I suppose to people who are landlords and want rents to increase

4. If you don't want the rent controlled units lost, you could upzone with a requirement that all of them be replaced, and only the added density would be market rate. There are projects like that which have penciled out. Or you could just upzonie on currently non-residential parcels.

5. Substantial upzoning of SFHs - all thats in the cards now, AFAICT, is making ADU's easier, and making popups a little easier. There is no prospect of dense multifamily where existing SFHs, or even THs where existing detached SFHs are. thats a theoretical discussion in the urbanist world. Though it makes a lot of sense, and your horror at it shows that your concern is not really with AH units, since the SFHs are certainly not AH.

6. Reforming the PUD process is different from upzoning. Right now the PUD appeal process is a joke.

7. Housing advocacy groups who don't understand economics, and are ideologically opposed to market rate housing suppy, if not to private property in general oppose the reforms. Their housing advocacy comes down to stopping new housing. Can we get them to engage in gasoline advocacy? because they would oppose the selling of any gasoline that costs more than a dollar a gallon, iin order to make driving affordable, and the net result would be everyone would have to walk bike and use transit

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

If you have actually read GGW, you know about filtering. I don't feel like rehashing it here. Nor am I going to research the studies for you. I know that netiquette generally requires someone making a claim to provide support for their view, but in this case we have an actual website, GGW, that has done a yeoman's job of providing info on that, including research. No reason to make this forum do the job of GGW.

That is aside from A. The IZ units B. The incremental revenue to the District that makes it possible to fund other committed AH C, The fact that the zoning NIMBYs do not ONLY oppose high end market rate units, but also ADU's and, typically, mostly committed AH projects as well. (all your ward 3 friends are freaking about a homeless shelter, for ex).

[Anonymous]

Also I suggest you take a look on here at people who report moving EOTR, to Brookland, Woodbridge, Michigan Park, etc, etc. You will find most of them are NOT in search of the "new Brooklyn" but are looking for more space than they can afford in Ward 3 (or Ward 1 for that matter). Heck, one refrain from NIMBYs on GGW is that limiting development in desirable areas is a GOOD thing, because it will force more people to move EOTR and gentrify those areas. I don't agree with them on the desirability of that, but at least they understand how linked the markets are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers

This.

Again based on what is posted on the blog what is your evidence that this is true? Or even implied?

Do think developers are big fans of their push on affordable housing?

As I posted yesterday you have to go back more than a month to find a post about an individual development proposal.

The push on "affordable housing" is a total canard. GGW isn't concerned about affordable housing (except that its bloggers aspire to live in an affordable glass box on U Street). This is the latest argument developed by Big Development and its echo chamber to force fundamental changes in the comprehensive plan and how it's interpreted, as well as substantial upzoning of single family residential areas of DC. The BigDev/GGW argument goes like this. If DC constrains judicial review of PUD determinations and upzones, denser and taller buildings will mean more 'inclusionary zoning' units. Never mind that inclusionary zoning requirements are minimal in DC, but 'inclusionary zoning' is not at all the same as 'affordable housing.' Indeed, a Big Dev/GGW proposal to upzone the avenues in Upper NW to the same height and density as downtown likely would lead to the tear-down of numerous older apartment buildings which in Ward 3 today provide the second-highest number of rent-controlled units in the District. The other Big Dev/GGW argument is that if DC upzones Palisaides, AU Park, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, that this will somehow eliminate gentrification pressures in other parts of the District. This ignores the fact that housing demand and markets are highly segmented, and few buyers looking for the next Brooklyn in D.C. are likely to want a high-rise condo in the Palisades or a quad-plex in AU Park. It is telling that a number of the affordable housing advocacy groups in DC saw through this charade and testified against the comprehensive plan framework proposals being pushed by the mayor at the behest of BigDev.

1. They are certainly not that segmented. Lots of people move EOTR (including to very unhip areas) because WOTR is so expensive.

2. IZ units are significant, and definitely a source of housing for people who cannot afford market rate

3. Making market rate housing more affordable is a social good. except I suppose to people who are landlords and want rents to increase

4. If you don't want the rent controlled units lost, you could upzone with a requirement that all of them be replaced, and only the added density would be market rate. There are projects like that which have penciled out. Or you could just upzonie on currently non-residential parcels.

5. Substantial upzoning of SFHs - all thats in the cards now, AFAICT, is making ADU's easier, and making popups a little easier. There is no prospect of dense multifamily where existing SFHs, or even THs where existing detached SFHs are. thats a theoretical discussion in the urbanist world. Though it makes a lot of sense, and your horror at it shows that your concern is not really with AH units, since the SFHs are certainly not AH.

6. Reforming the PUD process is different from upzoning. Right now the PUD appeal process is a joke.

7. Housing advocacy groups who don't understand economics, and are ideologically opposed to market rate housing suppy, if not to private property in general oppose the reforms. Their housing advocacy comes down to stopping new housing. Can we get them to engage in gasoline advocacy? because they would oppose the selling of any gasoline that costs more than a dollar a gallon, iin order to make driving affordable, and the net result would be everyone would have to walk bike and use transit

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

If you have actually read GGW, you know about filtering. I don't feel like rehashing it here. Nor am I going to research the studies for you. I know that netiquette generally requires someone making a claim to provide support for their view, but in this case we have an actual website, GGW, that has done a yeoman's job of providing info on that, including research. No reason to make this forum do the job of GGW.

That is aside from A. The IZ units B. The incremental revenue to the District that makes it possible to fund other committed AH C, The fact that the zoning NIMBYs do not ONLY oppose high end market rate units, but also ADU's and, typically, mostly committed AH projects as well. (all your ward 3 friends are freaking about a homeless shelter, for ex).

lol, ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this will make most readers on DCUM's heads explode, but personally, I would LOVE to see this:

https://ggwash.org/view/67698/connecticut-avenue-in-dupont-could-get-new-and-improved-bicycle-infrastructure

Imagine a protected bike lane from Chevy Chase to downtown.

YES PLEASE!

I'm the OP of this thread. Believe it or not, I love biking and I think a protected lane from Chevy Chase would be great. I just don't think you can dismiss the concerns of everyone who legitimately has to drive to get to their jobs.

Fair enough but do the concerns of suburbanites who neither live in DC nor pay taxes there matter as much as those of DC residents?

More importantly would you trade parking spaces for a bike lane? Which is really what this debate about bike infrastructure would actually be about.

Interesting that GGW advocates reducing or eliminating the requirement that larger new developments should no longer have any requirement to provide off street parking in their projects. As a result the demand for limited street parking grows. It’s the classic case of developers foisting negative externalities (ie increased demand for parking) onto someone else, the parking, while increasing their own profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW has totally pimped themselves to developers

This.

Again based on what is posted on the blog what is your evidence that this is true? Or even implied?

Do think developers are big fans of their push on affordable housing?

As I posted yesterday you have to go back more than a month to find a post about an individual development proposal.

The push on "affordable housing" is a total canard. GGW isn't concerned about affordable housing (except that its bloggers aspire to live in an affordable glass box on U Street). This is the latest argument developed by Big Development and its echo chamber to force fundamental changes in the comprehensive plan and how it's interpreted, as well as substantial upzoning of single family residential areas of DC. The BigDev/GGW argument goes like this. If DC constrains judicial review of PUD determinations and upzones, denser and taller buildings will mean more 'inclusionary zoning' units. Never mind that inclusionary zoning requirements are minimal in DC, but 'inclusionary zoning' is not at all the same as 'affordable housing.' Indeed, a Big Dev/GGW proposal to upzone the avenues in Upper NW to the same height and density as downtown likely would lead to the tear-down of numerous older apartment buildings which in Ward 3 today provide the second-highest number of rent-controlled units in the District. The other Big Dev/GGW argument is that if DC upzones Palisaides, AU Park, Chevy Chase and Cleveland Park, that this will somehow eliminate gentrification pressures in other parts of the District. This ignores the fact that housing demand and markets are highly segmented, and few buyers looking for the next Brooklyn in D.C. are likely to want a high-rise condo in the Palisades or a quad-plex in AU Park. It is telling that a number of the affordable housing advocacy groups in DC saw through this charade and testified against the comprehensive plan framework proposals being pushed by the mayor at the behest of BigDev.

1. They are certainly not that segmented. Lots of people move EOTR (including to very unhip areas) because WOTR is so expensive.

2. IZ units are significant, and definitely a source of housing for people who cannot afford market rate

3. Making market rate housing more affordable is a social good. except I suppose to people who are landlords and want rents to increase

4. If you don't want the rent controlled units lost, you could upzone with a requirement that all of them be replaced, and only the added density would be market rate. There are projects like that which have penciled out. Or you could just upzonie on currently non-residential parcels.

5. Substantial upzoning of SFHs - all thats in the cards now, AFAICT, is making ADU's easier, and making popups a little easier. There is no prospect of dense multifamily where existing SFHs, or even THs where existing detached SFHs are. thats a theoretical discussion in the urbanist world. Though it makes a lot of sense, and your horror at it shows that your concern is not really with AH units, since the SFHs are certainly not AH.

6. Reforming the PUD process is different from upzoning. Right now the PUD appeal process is a joke.

7. Housing advocacy groups who don't understand economics, and are ideologically opposed to market rate housing suppy, if not to private property in general oppose the reforms. Their housing advocacy comes down to stopping new housing. Can we get them to engage in gasoline advocacy? because they would oppose the selling of any gasoline that costs more than a dollar a gallon, iin order to make driving affordable, and the net result would be everyone would have to walk bike and use transit

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

If you have actually read GGW, you know about filtering. I don't feel like rehashing it here. Nor am I going to research the studies for you. I know that netiquette generally requires someone making a claim to provide support for their view, but in this case we have an actual website, GGW, that has done a yeoman's job of providing info on that, including research. No reason to make this forum do the job of GGW.

That is aside from A. The IZ units B. The incremental revenue to the District that makes it possible to fund other committed AH C, The fact that the zoning NIMBYs do not ONLY oppose high end market rate units, but also ADU's and, typically, mostly committed AH projects as well. (all your ward 3 friends are freaking about a homeless shelter, for ex).

GGW basically is recycling the tired old trickle down economics. This time it’s to support the proposition that building luxury housing will trickle down into ‘affordable’ housing. Remember that there’s basically one thing that trickles down, and it illustrates the piss-poor intellectual heft of GGW’s position.

[Anonymous]

Privileged gentrifiers, paid by WMATA to ignore the dumpster fire that is Metro and instead post about affordable housing, bike lanes, and dog parks.

What’s not to love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

Bingo. With all the diversity of a Republican intern photo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It would be nice for people to be able to bike from CC to downtown DC, but it's folly to pretend that that would be anything other than helping a handful of people with their hobby. True mass transit would be more regional rail, more buses, more metro.

How is it that other real cities all over the world, with climates more challenging than DC have made biking as an actual legitimate transportation mode? The Netherlands, Germany, England, Francy, Denmark, you name it, all have tremendous bike infrastructure, and people use it instead of cars. Please don't debase the conversation by referring to biking as a hobby. There are a lot f us who do it every day, with our kids, with our groceries etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting that GGW advocates reducing or eliminating the requirement that larger new developments should no longer have any requirement to provide off street parking in their projects. As a result the demand for limited street parking grows. It’s the classic case of developers foisting negative externalities (ie increased demand for parking) onto someone else, the parking, while increasing their own profits.

So Tenley View was adaptively resused from the old theater/Babes. In order to make that development even remotely possible, Douglas had to do it without adding parking. It seemed logical, given the proximity to the Tenleytown Metro and the target renter demographic, to ask for a waiver on parking. To my knowledge and experience, there has been no appreciable pressure on street parking in Tenleytown since the building was completed. On the other hand, the addition of 4 businesses to the corner and the new residents to support those and other businesses, pay taxes, etc has been a boon.

So sure, keep complaining about it, but the fact of the matter is that there is still plenty of free and paid parking available in Tenleytown at all hours of the day and night, thus demonstrating that new development can come in and with restrictions, not have a requirement for parking, thus making the units more affordable since the renters are not forced to pay for parking they would not have needed in the first place. If someone needs a parking spot, they can rent in a building where they can pay for it, or they can rent at Tenley View and pay for a spot at Best Buy or Whole Foods, where monthly leases are available and plentiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I get supply and demand, but please explain to me, since you are SO GOOD at economics, how exactly will reducing judicial review, and building a ton of new very expensive condos and 1-bedroom rentals in centrally located areas increases affordability for low=income people or improve their commutes from far-flung affordable areas? With actual numbers and research, not just "increasing supply will decrease prices with the magic hand!"

DP, but I will simply state that adding more units in general loosens the overall supply constrictions. Supply/demand, duh.

I will also add that when there are PUDs or new development of certain sizes, the IX requirements kick in. Don't like the IZ requirements, then work with the Council to change the laws to make them better for affordable housing. For those of us who fought those battles 10 years ago, the opponents were many of the same people who also fight new development. Finally, the whole appeals process for PUDs is ridiculous when $50 and a boilerplate legal document can hold up what is otherwise years of community engagement and hundreds of thousands of dollars in architecture and legal fees already invested in a community. It is simple extortion and it is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting that GGW advocates reducing or eliminating the requirement that larger new developments should no longer have any requirement to provide off street parking in their projects. As a result the demand for limited street parking grows. It’s the classic case of developers foisting negative externalities (ie increased demand for parking) onto someone else, the parking, while increasing their own profits.

So Tenley View was adaptively resused from the old theater/Babes. In order to make that development even remotely possible, Douglas had to do it without adding parking. It seemed logical, given the proximity to the Tenleytown Metro and the target renter demographic, to ask for a waiver on parking. To my knowledge and experience, there has been no appreciable pressure on street parking in Tenleytown since the building was completed. On the other hand, the addition of 4 businesses to the corner and the new residents to support those and other businesses, pay taxes, etc has been a boon.

So sure, keep complaining about it, but the fact of the matter is that there is still plenty of free and paid parking available in Tenleytown at all hours of the day and night, thus demonstrating that new development can come in and with restrictions, not have a requirement for parking, thus making the units more affordable since the renters are not forced to pay for parking they would not have needed in the first place. If someone needs a parking spot, they can rent in a building where they can pay for it, or they can rent at Tenley View and pay for a spot at Best Buy or Whole Foods, where monthly leases are available and plentiful.

Douglas Development covenanted that residents of Tenley View would be prohibited through their leases from seeking RPP street parking. This was to mitigate the impact that having no off-street parking for this development would have on street parking. Most developers shy away from agreeing to such restrictions (while piously promising that all new residents will take public transit or ride sharing ). Moreover the chair of the zoning board has questioned whether such voluntary restrictions could be enforced if a project resident decided to violate the RPP restriction.

[Anonymous]

So basically having some new development with no parking can work.

Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

Bingo. With all the diversity of a Republican intern photo.

In fact, the arguments that GGW advances are tired old Republican elixirs -- trickle down economics and curtailing "unfair" judicial review (by "unelected judges," no less!) of captive agency regulatory decisions concerning cozy industries. Only this time, the DC development interests and the GGW Amen Corner have tried to wrap the GOP snake oil cures in progressive-sounding terms like "affordable housing," "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." And they back proposed Comp Plan framework element changes that would effectively gut judicial review of Zoning Commission actions, while ceding much authority over the Comp Plan from an popularly elected DC Council of 13 members to an unelected ZC of 7 appointees (3 of whom are not even appointed by the mayor).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically having some new development with no parking can work.

Thanks for playing.

Only with draconian restrictions on RPP -- which are rare and becoming rarer in DC. So no, they generally don't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-consciously "urbanist" weenies.

Bingo. With all the diversity of a Republican intern photo.

In fact, the arguments that GGW advances are tired old Republican elixirs -- trickle down economics and curtailing "unfair" judicial review (by "unelected judges," no less!) of captive agency regulatory decisions concerning cozy industries. Only this time, the DC development interests and the GGW Amen Corner have tried to wrap the GOP snake oil cures in progressive-sounding terms like "affordable housing," "diversity," "equity" and "inclusion." And they back proposed Comp Plan framework element changes that would effectively gut judicial review of Zoning Commission actions, while ceding much authority over the Comp Plan from an popularly elected DC Council of 13 members to an unelected ZC of 7 appointees (3 of whom are not even appointed by the mayor).

Is that you Chris?

None of this is true.

Citizens will still have the right to appeal a Zoning Commission ruling just like they do today. The proposed changes simply clarify that the ZC is allowed to take into account the entirety of what is in the Comp Plan and that they have the discretion to weigh the different components. All of the ZC rulings that are currently held up on appeal are stuck because opponents (often a single person, sometimes from outside of the community and in opposition to agreements supported by the local ANC) are easily able to find some sentence in the Comp Plan that conflicts with some part of the ZC ruling.

And the Council cannot cede authority over zoning cases to the ZC nor can they take it back - IIUC only congress can change who approves zoning cases.

But the Council does have the authority and responsibility to update the zoning code.

So Chris and Cassie - since you are on here attacking GGW what exactly is your proposal to resolve the affordable housing crises in DC? Surely you've got some ideas beyond simply fighting against additional supply and demonizing developers? Or is this simply that you are benefitting from the current system (one of you through a form of graft and the other from owning a piece of property that keeps appreciating) and you want to continue benefiting?