We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't upzone your way out of the housing crisis. It might increase housing stock by 5 percent at the most. Even if they did upzone, the result would be mildly more opportunity to buy a house for 700k. Still looking at a monthly mortgage in excess of $5,000. An upzone policy will only attract developers whose job is to flip houses for maximum profit. There are lots of great neighborhoods in dc. Young families should have access to high quality schools with high quality facilities in every part of the city. After all, Ward 3 is the city's most boring set of neighborhoods.

Except those who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Driving them out of DC does not help DC.

No one is being driven out of DC. Buying property is a luxury not a right. If you want to buy luxury you should go where you can afford it.

People will always be able to continue to rent in this city and there are a lot of units at different price points.

built a few up zoned apartment building full of affordable house on Kalorama Park and see how long it takes the neighbors to leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you think all of the townhomes, pseudo townhomes, and condos are? That’s middle housing and DMV is an outlier that it is actually building it.

What you socialists forget though is the market. Many don’t want to live with shared walls and overcrowded streets, far from jobs. At least not at the minimum price point that these things can be built for. That’s why there is a lack of housing at an entry level.

That and starter homes are a terrible investment and for condos basically entrapment.

In other areas, when home prices exceed what the majority of the market can pay, developers are building smaller to meet the price point.

Again it’s the market. Not just zoning, which is relatively permissive when it comes to density around here.

Never mind you or anyone else can buy in Anacostia right now. Super affordable. The problem is everything else, like safety and schools. Not zoning.

+1,000, People have the right for choice. Forcing people into duplexes and other "space effective" is simply remenscient of Stalin, Mao and every other kook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apartment buildings are just unsightly.[u] And in DC, they allow any fly by night "contractor" to throw up the cheapest looking buildings that are then rented to people "in transition" ... sorry to say but not many people want to live near that. Especially when you have young children who you would like to be able to play

THIS!

[Anonymous]

Sorry to ask. What exactly does "upzone" mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to ask. What exactly does "upzone" mean?

It's how young white men refer to gentrification. They figure it sounds less evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

It would be extremely hard to qualify for a mortgage now if your income was that tight. It's less that people are unwilling to make the sacrifice as it's not really in their hands. Plus anyone who watched the subprime crisis knows that if the housing market takes a hit and the economy collapses, the bailout will go to the banks while any homeowners who can't make their payments get foreclosed on and their credit ruined. It makes people less willing to risk buying at the very top of their budget (at least it did in our case).

No it’s not. If anything, underwriting requirements have gotten substantially looser, although there was some pull back after the GFC. Everyone who buys a home today is equally broke for a while.

Our family had a similar experience. We slept on a mattress on the floor for a year after buying our house in 2011.

What is clear to me is that there are just a lot of people today who don’t feel that they need to sacrifice.

+1. We, an immigrant family, lived in a horrific roach-ridden rental apartment for 4 years to save up for a modest house, purchased for $150K. We ate a lot of bread and potatoes. Our furniture was made up of things other people had thrown out and we'd picked up from the curb. I used babysitting money and cash made delivering pizza flyers to pay for things like school field trips, or I just didn't go.

I'll argue 'til I'm blue in the face for the right to things like access to healthcare. But home ownership is not a right.

Great story and I fully agree with you.

Somehow these people have gone from “the rent is too high”, which I think is fair, to “I have a right to buy the home I want, where I want for the price I can afford”, which is ridiculous. These people bristle at being called entitled but honestly that’s all that I can see is white entitlement.

Some of you are incredibly out of touch.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

Are you familiar with PG county? It's right across the border from DC and you can buy a three-bedroom house for $350,000.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

Are you familiar with PG county? It's right across the border from DC and you can buy a three-bedroom house for $350,000.

Too high for a family with that salary, unless they have savings for a good down payment.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

Are you familiar with PG county? It's right across the border from DC and you can buy a three-bedroom house for $350,000.

Too high for a family with that salary, unless they have savings for a good down payment.

DP- I agree with this although we are probably conservative (bought a $425k house when we made $150k, but we had to account for daycare costs). However, there are townhomes for $250k in Bladensburg. I think that is within reach for most.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

Are you familiar with PG county? It's right across the border from DC and you can buy a three-bedroom house for $350,000.

Too high for a family with that salary, unless they have savings for a good down payment.

Maybe too high for you but apparently not too high for all the people in PG county with average incomes who own homes.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

Are you familiar with PG county? It's right across the border from DC and you can buy a three-bedroom house for $350,000.

Too high for a family with that salary, unless they have savings for a good down payment.

Maybe too high for you but apparently not too high for all the people in PG county with average incomes who own homes.

Are you aware of the foreclosure rate in PG county during the 2008 financial crisis? Plenty of people on homes they could not afford.

[Anonymous]

Upzoning only works for small time developers. It does not create more affordable housing. It just gives real estate investors another 1,000 or 2,000 square feet to sell at out of reach prices. It is a dumb idea hatched by people like Mary Cheh to help her developer friends.

[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:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

That’s just not true. There are plenty of quality homes at good prices. They are just in locations that you don’t want.

We have a house, I'm all good. Can you provide some examples of quality houses at good prices for a family with a median HHI of $85k, which is approximately the median HHI for DC?

60% of the population of DC rents, so the median family at $85k rents and there are plenty of rental units to choose from that are affordable at that income level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

It would be extremely hard to qualify for a mortgage now if your income was that tight. It's less that people are unwilling to make the sacrifice as it's not really in their hands. Plus anyone who watched the subprime crisis knows that if the housing market takes a hit and the economy collapses, the bailout will go to the banks while any homeowners who can't make their payments get foreclosed on and their credit ruined. It makes people less willing to risk buying at the very top of their budget (at least it did in our case).

No it’s not. If anything, underwriting requirements have gotten substantially looser, although there was some pull back after the GFC. Everyone who buys a home today is equally broke for a while.

Our family had a similar experience. We slept on a mattress on the floor for a year after buying our house in 2011.

What is clear to me is that there are just a lot of people today who don’t feel that they need to sacrifice.

+1. We, an immigrant family, lived in a horrific roach-ridden rental apartment for 4 years to save up for a modest house, purchased for $150K. We ate a lot of bread and potatoes. Our furniture was made up of things other people had thrown out and we'd picked up from the curb. I used babysitting money and cash made delivering pizza flyers to pay for things like school field trips, or I just didn't go.

I'll argue 'til I'm blue in the face for the right to things like access to healthcare. But home ownership is not a right.

Great story and I fully agree with you.

Somehow these people have gone from “the rent is too high”, which I think is fair, to “I have a right to buy the home I want, where I want for the price I can afford”, which is ridiculous. These people bristle at being called entitled but honestly that’s all that I can see is white entitlement.

Some of you are incredibly out of touch.

You’re correct. I am having a really hard time sympathizing with your white entitlement.

I lived in a basement apartment that flooded regularly with a baby for 2 years to save up to buy my house.

So I may be out of touch with your entitlement, but you seem to be out of touch with the concept of sacrifice.