Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ill do you one better: How about we knock down not only SFHs but also all one-, two- and three-bedroom condos. Replace them all with studios. No one in the District gets more than 450 square feet. Housing would be way cheaper then.

Few if anyone is suggesting that all SFHs be knocked down. Just that people who own them be ALLOWED to redevelop them with more density. Why do people like you keep changing "We should allow X" into "We must mandate X for everyone"? Straw man?

You obviously have never been to the GGW comments section, because there are a whole lot of people there who want to see this happen.

Except for David Alpert's single-family home, which sits two blocks from the Metro. A terrible use for that land. He gets to keep his SFH because reasons.

1. Ive been to the comments section. There are people there with extreme views. There are at least as many people there who, like you, oppose zoning reform. GGWash lets people comment who they do not agree with.

2. I am sure DA would be happy to have zoning that allowed him to build an ADU. Or even to sell his house to a develooper for an apt building. But in any case its not relevant. Its an ad hominem.

[Anonymous]

Urbanist lives in an apt

"They want everyone to live like them" or "they are just fantasizing about being able to afford a house, like I do"

Urbanist lives in a house "What hypocrites those urbanists are"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

Mayor Muriel Marion Barry Bozo Bowser knows much about economic .... platitudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean like the entirely rent controlled building on Connecticut Avenue that is being emptied out for an upscale renovation, with the expectation of fewer than 2 IZ units once the building has been redone?

The residents of the building who were forced out have all been Bowsered.

Which building is this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

This isn't macro econ, its housing econ. And the Fed study (oddly not linked to here) was only one study - there are others showing the precise opposite. It depends on how you structure the study, esp if you focus on the price in the immediate area only, and on how much time you give for supply to respond. The general consensus among housing economists is that supply does bring price down. Mayor Bowser is not wrong to follow that approach, which is also followed by the Metro Washington Council of Governments and most other local govts around here (except for MoCo - see how well THEY are doing)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is tons of affordable housing just over the border in PG county. But that doesnt count, because that's not where the density bros want to live. They want the government to shoehorn them into "cool" neighborhoods.

You want them to gentrify people out of PG? And W3 is not "Cool". And there is no shoehorning, just freedom for property owners to do what they want with their own property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean like the entirely rent controlled building on Connecticut Avenue that is being emptied out for an upscale renovation, with the expectation of fewer than 2 IZ units once the building has been redone?

The residents of the building who were forced out have all been Bowsered.

IOW not being torn down for higher density, but renovated in place, by right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

Mayor Muriel Marion Barry Bozo Bowser knows much about economic .... platitudes.

Keep Ward 3 sophmoric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

This isn't macro econ, its housing econ. And the Fed study (oddly not linked to here) was only one study - there are others showing the precise opposite. It depends on how you structure the study, esp if you focus on the price in the immediate area only, and on how much time you give for supply to respond. The general consensus among housing economists is that supply does bring price down. Mayor Bowser is not wrong to follow that approach, which is also followed by the Metro Washington Council of Governments and most other local govts around here (except for MoCo - see how well THEY are doing)

The key word is "desirable."

If you add supply in Detroit, yeah that's going to cut housing prices.

If you add supply in NYC (or DC) it does nothing for prices because the number of units added will always be exceeded by the number of people who want to live there.

This is why NYC can be one of the most densely populated cities in the Western Hemisphere, and still be extremely expensive.

[Anonymous]

I would like to rent a room in Bowser's house, She has a large. SFH. Where may I apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

This isn't macro econ, its housing econ. And the Fed study (oddly not linked to here) was only one study - there are others showing the precise opposite. It depends on how you structure the study, esp if you focus on the price in the immediate area only, and on how much time you give for supply to respond. The general consensus among housing economists is that supply does bring price down. Mayor Bowser is not wrong to follow that approach, which is also followed by the Metro Washington Council of Governments and most other local govts around here (except for MoCo - see how well THEY are doing)

The key word is "desirable."

If you add supply in Detroit, yeah that's going to cut housing prices.

If you add supply in NYC (or DC) it does nothing for prices because the number of units added will always be exceeded by the number of people who want to live there.

This is why NYC can be one of the most densely populated cities in the Western Hemisphere, and still be extremely expensive.

NYC is desirable because of the number of JOBS there. I don't generally agree with AOC on urbanist issues but bless her heart, she at least got that right in her approach to Amazon.

Also NYC is NOT building that many new units relative to its population. Very few new units in the Bronx, in Queens outside LIC, even in large areas of Brooklyn.

Just like in DC people see lots of cranes in a few places (the places reporters and more casual observers tend to hang out) and they make assumptions without consulting data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to rent a room in Bowser's house, She has a large. SFH. Where may I apply?

One more time. Nothing proposed would REQUIRE any SFH owner to rent out any part of their property.

Do you also understand that, say, wanting the Mormon church to be legal does not mean you have to become a Mormon?

That wanting gay marriage to be legal does not mean you have to become gay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NYC is desirable because of the number of JOBS there. I don't generally agree with AOC on urbanist issues but bless her heart, she at least got that right in her approach to Amazon.

Also NYC is NOT building that many new units relative to its population. Very few new units in the Bronx, in Queens outside LIC, even in large areas of Brooklyn.

Just like in DC people see lots of cranes in a few places (the places reporters and more casual observers tend to hang out) and they make assumptions without consulting data.

To add, the price of housing in NYC has NOT been constant. It was high in the 1920s. The market responded with massive building. The depression, then the post war suburbanization, reduced demand. All those 1920s units became mostly quite affordable. The City remained relatively cheap from 1930 to 1980 or so. When the growth of financial sector employment took off, and NYC steadily got more expensive (this was followed by growth in media and tech) and as jobs grew faster than housing - and zoning adopted in the mid century got in the way of new supply.

Today there is considerable debate about proper zoning policy for NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

The Federal Reserve has looked at this. It found if you have a place considered a desirable place to live and you add to the housing supply, that doesn't reduce prices because the additional housing supply encourages more people to move there because, again, it's considered a desirable place to live.

Yes, but that's not what Bowser says. Surely she knows more about economics than the Federal Reserve.

This isn't macro econ, its housing econ. And the Fed study (oddly not linked to here) was only one study - there are others showing the precise opposite. It depends on how you structure the study, esp if you focus on the price in the immediate area only, and on how much time you give for supply to respond. The general consensus among housing economists is that supply does bring price down. Mayor Bowser is not wrong to follow that approach, which is also followed by the Metro Washington Council of Governments and most other local govts around here (except for MoCo - see how well THEY are doing)

The key word is "desirable."

If you add supply in Detroit, yeah that's going to cut housing prices.

If you add supply in NYC (or DC) it does nothing for prices because the number of units added will always be exceeded by the number of people who want to live there.

This is why NYC can be one of the most densely populated cities in the Western Hemisphere, and still be extremely expensive.

NYC is desirable because of the number of JOBS there. I don't generally agree with AOC on urbanist issues but bless her heart, she at least got that right in her approach to Amazon.

Also NYC is NOT building that many new units relative to its population. Very few new units in the Bronx, in Queens outside LIC, even in large areas of Brooklyn.

Just like in DC people see lots of cranes in a few places (the places reporters and more casual observers tend to hang out) and they make assumptions without consulting data.

NYC is desirable because of the number of jobs there? Seriously? What planet do you live on? The unemployment rate is 3.5 percent. There is a job for basically anyone who wants one.