
dude. I searched GGW for "filtering" and all I found was an article indicating it wasn't happening in Silver Spring. The notion that "filtering" is going to provide affordable housing, without more, is ludicrous. |
If you want the composition of the ZC changed than go for it. Fact is that judicial review of zoning is regularly abused in DC. And yes, it impedes AH, diversity and inclusion. If supply and demand economics is trickle down, than lets just get rid of markets for everything - lets have the govt determine how many cars you can have, how far you can drive them, whether you can have a nanny, etc, etc. The NIMBYS are only interested in limiting housing supply. |
Its been discussed regularly in the comments. GGW DOES support the CSG position that filtering is not enough esp for low income HHs, and committed AH is also required. I am not sure I entirely agree with that, but its a reasonable position and quite different from" new class A units only effect the prices of new Class A units". New class A units clearly effect the prices of units a tier or two down, and over time as they age they will become more affordable. Many of the market affordable rental units in the region were middle class or upper middle class housing when they were built, 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. That may not give us sufficient diversity integration, and it may not happen soon enough, but its a real effect, as are the linkages across market tiers. |
You missed this https://ggwash.org/view/31177/will-filtering-keep-housing-affordable And you missed the point of Dans article on SS Filtering isn’t the only tool we have to protect affordable housing, but it’s one we should take advantage of. Especially given opposition that crops up to most new apartment buildings, we will see whether Silver Spring can build enough housing to gain the benefits of filtering, or if it will soon move out of reach for many people and families. Not that filtering was not happening, but not ENOUGH was happening, because not enough new housing was being built, in part because of the many obstacles to new building. |
Good grief. |
Wow, what a great, perusasive, fact- and research-driven argument. |
1. DA was talking about low income AH units. Again, the standard CSG position is that you need more market rate supply AND committed AH. I personally believe more strongly than DA that in the longer run filtering will create AH at almost all levels (and that the solution at the lowest levels is to improve incomes) but really the positions are not that far apart. 2. If you look at MY's position, its BOTH. You get more subsidized units AND you get more market rate units. 3.Its mainly MY's position. DA may be interested in tossing it around, but its not something central on GGW. I mean are you attacking GGW or DA's twitter feed? |
If you want those, you should read GGW. I am not going to create an alt GGW here, where you can troll anonymously, unlike on GGW, where everyone can see your constant handle changes. |
The statement that "filtering" is "trickle down economics" is not an empirical assertion, its a semantic equation. The proper response is not data, its to deconstruct the rhetoric. The assertion that problems with the make up of the ZC can be addressed by altering the ZC, rather than by judicial review, seems obvious, and is certainly not a matter of data. That the judicial appeal process is being abused IS an empirical question, one extensively addressed on GGW. |
"This isn't the free-market 'build more housing and supply and demand will take care of housing affordability' idea (which I for the record don't think would actually fix the problem). "
Even David Alpert doesn't believe the smart growth kool-aid that more and more private development in DC will fix housing affordability. |
One more time. DA has consistently said he thinks BOTH more private development AND more committed AH are needed to fix housing affordablity. As has the Coalition for Smarter Growth. In fact CSG's housing lead posted two articles to GGW a while back -"why the right is wrong on AH" (because they don't see the need for committed AH" and "why the left is wrong on AH" (becaues they don't see the need for market rate supply). You should probably read them. |
RPPs are issued based on address. It has been done plenty of times to curtail the ability for people from certain addresses from obtaining an RPP. |
Although writers and commentators on GGW pretend to value concepts like inclusion, equity and diversity, there is a pernicious, persistent prejudice that appears quite often on the GGW website: blatant ageism. It's revolting. |
Sorry, I have grey hair, and I do not see the ageism. |
Can you point me to any posts on GGW that advocate for direct creation of affordable housing (or protection of it)? Thanks. |