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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because now I can rent that ADU instead of having to live way far out. Unless you think ADU rent will be the same as a similar unit not in someone's back yard.

So you want to trade a minor reduction rental costs for a huge increase in the cost of buying a home? No thanks. All that is doing is increasing inequality. The way most people build wealth is by owning a home and this will make home ownership even harder.

Ummm the rent from the ADU increases the ability of the homeowner to cover the mortgage and by doing so makes the house more affordable - do you really not understand that?

But most importantly it increases the housing supply which is good for people who need housing. Which happens to be everyone.

Yes, it does both of these things. What a weird complaint OP!

Income generating capacity increases the value of the property. You don’t seem to have thought this through.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

You're like Trayon White opposing safer streets in Ward 8 because they raise rents and housing prices. Instead he'll let drivers continue to mow down Ward 8 residents because, oh well, people have to live somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.

[Anonymous]

ADU's drive land values up, but housing costs down. You put more housing on the same land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

Cool, you've got the right to feel that way but I don't want to hear a peep out of you when you can't get your $8 latte because there's nobody willing to commute from Woodbridge to work for Starbucks wages.

Oh who am I kidding, you'll be the first one making idiotic statements like "nobody wants to work anymore!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because now I can rent that ADU instead of having to live way far out. Unless you think ADU rent will be the same as a similar unit not in someone's back yard.

So you want to trade a minor reduction rental costs for a huge increase in the cost of buying a home? No thanks. All that is doing is increasing inequality. The way most people build wealth is by owning a home and this will make home ownership even harder.

Ummm the rent from the ADU increases the ability of the homeowner to cover the mortgage and by doing so makes the house more affordable - do you really not understand that?

But most importantly it increases the housing supply which is good for people who need housing. Which happens to be everyone.

Yes, it does both of these things. What a weird complaint OP!

Income generating capacity increases the value of the property. You don’t seem to have thought this through.

Sure, and it also increases housing stock. The total cost for housing on that parcel - owner's equivalent rent + rent from ADU, divided by two - is lower than under the regime in which no ADUs can be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

Cool, you've got the right to feel that way but I don't want to hear a peep out of you when you can't get your $8 latte because there's nobody willing to commute from Woodbridge to work for Starbucks wages.

Oh who am I kidding, you'll be the first one making idiotic statements like "nobody wants to work anymore!!"

I thought Starbucks paid fairly well with good benefits. And an ADU would be a good starter pad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

That’s assuming you have enough money to afford the higher down payment for a property that already has an ADU. ADUs should be allowed. They provide a small number of more affordable housing units. They also make ownership of an existing home more expensive, and to offset those costs you need to be a part-time landlord in a hostile regulatory environment. I don’t see why people make such a big deal over them on either side of the ADU debate.

[Anonymous]

Lol no. Just build more housing. This isn't complicated to anyone but NIMBY trash.

[Anonymous]

The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is an ADU? Where do you live that this is legal?

While it's technically legal in DC it's not very easy to make it happen due to regulations making it difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because now I can rent that ADU instead of having to live way far out. Unless you think ADU rent will be the same as a similar unit not in someone's back yard.

So you want to trade a minor reduction rental costs for a huge increase in the cost of buying a home? No thanks. All that is doing is increasing inequality. The way most people build wealth is by owning a home and this will make home ownership even harder.

Ummm the rent from the ADU increases the ability of the homeowner to cover the mortgage and by doing so makes the house more affordable - do you really not understand that?

But most importantly it increases the housing supply which is good for people who need housing. Which happens to be everyone.

Yes, it does both of these things. What a weird complaint OP!

Yeah, the OP must be really bored to be defensive about imagined criticisms that they should really be putting an ADU in.

I mean, honestly, it would be great if there were more density for a variety of reasons. Less need to drive for small errands. Shorter commuting distances. Less farm land and unoccupied green space destroyed to make new housing in the burbs. Plus more supply of affordable housing helps to keep it affordable. But, there you go. Let's invent a reason why ADUs are bad. Okay. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

I am in no way against getting rid of single family zoning. I'm all for getting rid of the zoning making suburbs more suburban and cities too.

[Anonymous]

I don't think an ADU is going to increase property value in MoCo. Property value here seems to be tied to schools and proximity to desirable places. Our sfh isn't worth that much, it's the land that it sits on that is worth substantially more than the house.

This is the opposite of other places I have lived in the south and midwest, where the land is worth very little and the house and house improvements are worth a lot.

The value of an ADU is either the rent you get from it, or as a place for family members. Not everyone wants to have a rental in their backyard, and not everyone wants their in-laws living out back either.