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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't tell people in Ward 3 that they're not cool!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

...that having protected bike lanes does not mean you have to ride a bike...

[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.

Pretty much.

[Anonymous]

“Density Bro’s.” That’s hilarious. HGTV could turn it into a regular show with Andrew “Pajama Boy” Trueblood as the host.

[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.

Which building is this?

There's a recent Post article you can google. gets into the lack of follow up that DC provided, feces smeared in stairwells etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would like to build a variance waived ugly parking structure on Bowser's block or within sightline. Is there a free property I can shoehorn that into? Where can I apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would like to build a variance waived ugly parking structure on Bowser's block or within sightline. Is there a free property I can shoehorn that into? Where can I apply?

You can’t. Even though the Office of Planning is proposing to change all sorts of language in the Comprehensive Plan that weaken neighborhood protections in Ward 3, they are strengthening such plan protections for Ward 4 neighborhoods, where the mayor is from. Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which building is this?

There's a recent Post article you can google. gets into the lack of follow up that DC provided, feces smeared in stairwells etc.

Sedgwick Gardens. The owner is taking lots of voucher tenants now, getting something like 150 percent of market rate. Such vouchers also take the unit out of rent control. Incidents like what the PP described are forcing many longtime tenants in rent controlled units to leave. After the owner has pocketed a lot of taxpayer money for vouchers and emptied out most of the rent controlled units, then it will renovate the building into very expensive units. That’s called housing Bowserization. Developers always win in the end.

[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.

Pretty much.

Housing is not a homogeneous commodity. Developer margins are higher with more expensive housing. In this area, those more expensive units will sell. There is little incentive to create "low income" housing. Even worse, the banks know this. Why didn't the real estate market crash here like it did in the rest of the country? Banks held onto the properties until the real estate market in this area began to recover and they could make a profit again selling the properties.

[Anonymous]

There is definitely a coherent argument to be made that loosening zoning laws in DC will result in a big increase in developer profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is definitely a coherent argument to be made that loosening zoning laws in DC will result in a big increase in developer profits.

+1000

[Anonymous]

I came home via conn ave yesterday. It is neck to neck apartment buildings. What is the Mayors issue/gripe with ward 3? Feel very targeted by her.

[Anonymous]

This whole housing plan fiasco of the Mayor's doesn't seem to come with services for the people. They just get a 'golden key"? Will that cure their mental illness, substance abuse etc? Where are the services they will receive and requirements placed upon them for completion detailed?
How about a special plan for bringing teachers, police officers etc back into the city so we don't become like SF, where middle income service providers live in their cars. Would they be first on the list for these apartments? How about we put them in apartments and mentally ill in hospitals?
In terms of gentrification, how about keep developing Anacostia in a thoughtful way that benefits the residents there now Put a police officer in the front and back of every supermarket willing to open up (that's far cheaper than moving everyone to new apartments around the city) and address the supermarket desert. Add more transport. Invest even more in parks and rec (Fenty did a lot). Give a subsidy to long-term homeowners to hang on to their homes.
I see the Mayors plan enriching developers, drawing in outside residents for freebies and not benefitting anyone (mentally ill, low income or middle class costed out of living in the city they provide service work to) now.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Let’s say that a developer replaces a $2 million Victorian house on a 50 foot lot in Metro-accessible Cleveland Park with 6 high-end condos that cost $600,000 each. They’re expensive, sure, but they’re quite affordable to more people than is the $2 million house. And DC gets more tax revenue to spend on truly affordable housing elsewhere in DC. Win-win.