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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

I also disagree with the bolded PP above. Some people prefer less dense living and others prefer more dense living and they do have a right to seek out those living arrangements. Prospective homeowners should research local zoning when buying a home if density is a consideration for them.

The idea in the OP that there is a housing crisis in this area seems farfetched. A cursory real estate search showed SFHs for sale inside of the beltway for 350K and condos for under 200K. I'm not sure how the OP can look at this real estate data and claim that average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it have to be “white entitlement?” We are pretty multicultural when it comes
To entitlement in the DMV.

Because middle class Black people, like me, have spent our entire lives doing what we can to be successful because that is what has been demanded of us. Michelle Obama once called Barak a "hustler" and all Black people need to hustle somewhat to get ahead because, and the data is clear, Black people born into wealthy families are less likely to maintain their economic status into adulthood than equivalent whites.

Black people in this city have spent decades begging this city to help them more, only to be told that nothing can be done. In the meantime, a whole generation of entitled white brats comes along and decides that they don't need to work for anything. They can just have whatever they want and it is disturbing to me that in some ways they are getting it. Who do you think is benefitting from these "inclusive" development units?

Meanwhile Black people keep getting left behind but these entitled white people sure love to us as props for their games. "Upzoning" Cleveland Park is not going to do anything for any person of color in this city. In fact, it probably hurts Black people on net because it promotes private development and investment $ in already rich neighborhoods. What I have learned is that the city won't invest in your neighborhood until some white people move in. It looks like white people made it to the Anacostia River and decided that they had enough.

So beyond not upzoning Cleveland Park, what should be done? Not saying I disagree, because it’s really just going to provide more options to those on the cusp of affording that area vs. those that actually need more options, but I dont know that the status quo is the answer either.

Upzoning in Ward 3 will do nothing more than drive those people out of the city. The better approach is to make the less desirable areas more desirable. DC Govt certainly can fund infrastructure, public parks, rec centers, bridges, libraries, schools in other parts of DC that would those parts more attractive. DC has done some of this, particularly with some libraries, schools, and Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge. But much more can be done of course. Find commercial property that can be converted to residential, whether condos or townhouses. This entire discussion seems to focus on what happens in Ward 3. The parts of the City that have natural beauty care not in Ward 3. Look at the River. Plenty of opportunity to turn DC into a River city.

It's very telling that whenever people say they're just so concerned that upzoning rich SFH areas won't help anything, the solution is always to allow upzoning somewhere else far away instead, not in addition to. It's never "upzone everywhere across the board and let property owners, developers, and buyers decide," it's always "keep that upzoning and development with the filthy poors where it belongs."

It's even more telling when those people straight up lie to further that NIMBY agenda:

The parts of the City that have natural beauty care not in Ward 3. Look at the River. Plenty of opportunity to turn DC into a River city.

You don't think the Ward that borders Rock Creek Park has natural beauty? Glover Archbold Park? Battery Kemble? Take a look at this heat map and tell me which Ward you think has the most tree cover: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/detailed-maps-urban-heat-island-effects-washington-dc-and-baltimore

Look at the river? You mean the Potomac River which borders Ward 3? What about the C&O Canal which is a full on National Park inside Ward 3's borders?

Nice attempt at misdirection, but nobody is buying your "aww shucks, you don't want this gross old candy bar, wouldn't you much rather have some nice crisp green broccoli" routine.

Except for the Wharf, DC fails to take advantage of its rivers. Pretty basic statement. Most cities did for centuries, because warehouses and commercial activities took place along rivers. Your comment about C&O Canal proves the point. There are really only a few condos along the canal. The canal is underutilized as well. As for the Potomac River, there are limited residences along the river, due to Whitehurst and Canal Road. Your missed the point. DC has plenty of areas where additional housing can be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

My home purchase was also by far the largest investment I've ever made. And while you and I may both have the legal right to oppose changes to existing zoning regulations, I don't think we'd have any moral ground to stand on in doing so just to avoid having more people live nearby.

I couldn’t disagree more. Most people who worked hard to buy their home (meaning, no family money) wouldn’t want the things they like about their neighborhood to change. Change is neutral. It’s not necessarily good or bad. Even animals will try to protect their homes that they worked hard to build.

You don’t think you’d have any moral ground to stand on if the city changes zoning to allow a high rise immediately next door to you? What about a hundred-person homeless shelter? If that’s really how you feel, you kinda just sound like a pushover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

My home purchase was also by far the largest investment I've ever made. And while you and I may both have the legal right to oppose changes to existing zoning regulations, I don't think we'd have any moral ground to stand on in doing so just to avoid having more people live nearby.

I couldn’t disagree more. Most people who worked hard to buy their home (meaning, no family money) wouldn’t want the things they like about their neighborhood to change. Change is neutral. It’s not necessarily good or bad. Even animals will try to protect their homes that they worked hard to build.

You don’t think you’d have any moral ground to stand on if the city changes zoning to allow a high rise immediately next door to you? What about a hundred-person homeless shelter? If that’s really how you feel, you kinda just sound like a pushover.

I live in a city, and part of living in a city is having other people nearby. Your hypotheticals are a little extreme, since I’m suggesting there should be, like, eight-unit apartment buildings next to me, not high-rises or enormous shelters, but ultimately, no, I don’t think I have a moral right to say there shouldn’t be one of those things next door. If circumstances about my neighborhood change and I don’t like it, I can always decide to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

DP. I’m a nimby who lives in SFH in Woodley Park, and I will weigh in to prevent further density where I live. When I purchased my house (which is by far the largest investment I’ve ever made), I did my due diligence first. Part of that was learning about the applicable zoning and historical regulations. As a current stake holder in the neighborhood in which I live, I have every right to oppose potential changes to those regulations. And I will.

My home purchase was also by far the largest investment I've ever made. And while you and I may both have the legal right to oppose changes to existing zoning regulations, I don't think we'd have any moral ground to stand on in doing so just to avoid having more people live nearby.

I couldn’t disagree more. Most people who worked hard to buy their home (meaning, no family money) wouldn’t want the things they like about their neighborhood to change. Change is neutral. It’s not necessarily good or bad. Even animals will try to protect their homes that they worked hard to build.

You don’t think you’d have any moral ground to stand on if the city changes zoning to allow a high rise immediately next door to you? What about a hundred-person homeless shelter? If that’s really how you feel, you kinda just sound like a pushover.

I live in a city, and part of living in a city is having other people nearby. Your hypotheticals are a little extreme, since I’m suggesting there should be, like, eight-unit apartment buildings next to me, not high-rises or enormous shelters, but ultimately, no, I don’t think I have a moral right to say there shouldn’t be one of those things next door. If circumstances about my neighborhood change and I don’t like it, I can always decide to move.

I’m not interested in semantics about what it means to live in a “city.”

Feel free to move if your neighborhood starts sucking because you didn’t fight to keep it. And then you can move from your next home too. And the next. I’ll stay here and fight to keep the things I like the same. And I feel completely morally comfortable with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

I am the original PP in this sub thread, and if you actually read my post, you’d see that I am specifically annoyed that this thread is just a bunch of people who live in Ward 3 saying “You’re just mad you can’t afford to live in Ward 3. Move to the suburbs.”

I. Don’t. Want. To. Live. In. Ward. 3.

I want affordable housing within a reasonable commute of my job in DC. That means we either need more low and middle income housing in DC proper, or we need to aggressively invest in better transportation from the suburbs. That’s it. But as I pointed out in my original post, the same people who tell me to “just move to PG County” also get mad if we suggest the construction of light rail or additional metro lines, dedicated express bus lanes, etc.

What happens to your vaunted Wilson pyramid when you can’t hire any teachers because they moved to Richmond or Philly or Frederick or whatever because they could find a place to raise a family that was less than a 90 minute commute both ways from your kid’s school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

I am the original PP in this sub thread, and if you actually read my post, you’d see that I am specifically annoyed that this thread is just a bunch of people who live in Ward 3 saying “You’re just mad you can’t afford to live in Ward 3. Move to the suburbs.”

I. Don’t. Want. To. Live. In. Ward. 3.

I want affordable housing within a reasonable commute of my job in DC. That means we either need more low and middle income housing in DC proper, or we need to aggressively invest in better transportation from the suburbs. That’s it. But as I pointed out in my original post, the same people who tell me to “just move to PG County” also get mad if we suggest the construction of light rail or additional metro lines, dedicated express bus lanes, etc.

What happens to your vaunted Wilson pyramid when you can’t hire any teachers because they moved to Richmond or Philly or Frederick or whatever because they could find a place to raise a family that was less than a 90 minute commute both ways from your kid’s school?

You keep using the words “affordable housing” but you keep conflating that with house prices and not rental costs as a percentage of your income, which is generally considered the metric for housing affordability.

THERE. IS. NO. RIGHT. TO. BUY. A. HOME.

The rate of homeownership in DC is 40% and in Manhattan it is 24%. They seem to have no problem finding teachers in Manhattan. But beyond that, its weird to me that you cannot see the failure in your own logic. The policies you promote will actually have the converse effect of decreasing the rate of homeownership, not increasing it.

If you want to be able to buy a home and live in close proximity to your work and you are not already a millionaire, then I suggest that you either win the lottery or move to a lower cost area. It’s that it.

Lastly, no one is mad about adding metro lines or whatever. However you seem pretty intent to ignore the fact that you can buy a house right now in Hyattsville within walking distance to 2 metro stations for under $400k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

I am the original PP in this sub thread, and if you actually read my post, you’d see that I am specifically annoyed that this thread is just a bunch of people who live in Ward 3 saying “You’re just mad you can’t afford to live in Ward 3. Move to the suburbs.”

I. Don’t. Want. To. Live. In. Ward. 3.

I want affordable housing within a reasonable commute of my job in DC. That means we either need more low and middle income housing in DC proper, or we need to aggressively invest in better transportation from the suburbs. That’s it. But as I pointed out in my original post, the same people who tell me to “just move to PG County” also get mad if we suggest the construction of light rail or additional metro lines, dedicated express bus lanes, etc.

What happens to your vaunted Wilson pyramid when you can’t hire any teachers because they moved to Richmond or Philly or Frederick or whatever because they could find a place to raise a family that was less than a 90 minute commute both ways from your kid’s school?

A large contingent of teachers at my kids WOTP DCPS school live in one of the many, many *massive* apartment buildings that line Connecticut Avenue between Calvert Street and the DC/Maryland border. I'd say more than half. They all walk to school. Yet those buildings are invisible in the eyes of the urbanist crowd. It's like they don't exist, or they don't count because they aren't new shiny buildings or something (built by the developers that GGW is astroturfing for, maybe).

So your unhinged rant is really off the mark. No one is asking you to live in Ward 3. I'm pretty sure none of the people in other wards would want you as a neighbor, either.

[Anonymous]

Upzoning is not the answer. Ward 3 is not the answer. Better schools and facilities in all wards and as the previous poster notes, we need better regional transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

I am the original PP in this sub thread, and if you actually read my post, you’d see that I am specifically annoyed that this thread is just a bunch of people who live in Ward 3 saying “You’re just mad you can’t afford to live in Ward 3. Move to the suburbs.”

I. Don’t. Want. To. Live. In. Ward. 3.

I want affordable housing within a reasonable commute of my job in DC. That means we either need more low and middle income housing in DC proper, or we need to aggressively invest in better transportation from the suburbs. That’s it. But as I pointed out in my original post, the same people who tell me to “just move to PG County” also get mad if we suggest the construction of light rail or additional metro lines, dedicated express bus lanes, etc.

What happens to your vaunted Wilson pyramid when you can’t hire any teachers because they moved to Richmond or Philly or Frederick or whatever because they could find a place to raise a family that was less than a 90 minute commute both ways from your kid’s school?

+1. Also let’s be real, living in PG county is not practical for people who say, work in VA or even certain parts of DC. It’s not the answer to everything. Like many couples we have a split commute where we work in opposite parts of the DMV. We were fortunate to find a house within our price range that gave one of us a reasonable commute, which for us was a high priority with kids. A high quality cheap house in PG county is not worth it if I couldn’t get home in time to tuck my kids into bed.

Anyway, I relate to this PP because we were never looking to live in one of the most desirable neighborhoods with top flight schools. We simply wanted something affordable, safe, and without a soul sucking commute. We mostly found that (although DH would probably disagree about his commute during job-pandemic times).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So tired of these threads getting derailed by NIMBYs in upper NW who are convinced that the whole conversation is about middle class people who are bitter that they can't afford a SFH in Cleveland Park. We don't even want to live there! I don't care about your house. I mean, from a policy perspective, I think we should up zone large swaths of NW DC, especially along major thoroughfares, but not because I personally want to live there -- just because a lot of that part of town is underutilized for no good reason.

But when I say "we need more housing in DC, both affordable low income housing and affordable middle income housing), I'm mostly thinking about, like Michigan Park, Brookland, Kingman Park, SE waterfront east of Navy Yard, and Wards 7 and 8. Like I'm not heavily invested in making sure people can get into "the Wilson triangle" or whatever. We just genuinely need more housing (both rental and owned) that is affordable to people who make less than 100k a year, or even 150k a year increasingly, because we need somewhere for teachers, firefighters, restaurant workers, small business owners, etc. to live. We're not talking about colonize your little enclave in CCDC. We're just saying there is simply insufficient inventory in DC to provide housing to people at all income levels, and that's bad for the city.

Everyone saying, "then go where the housing is cheaper" is being disingenuous. It's one thing for a middle income couple with a couple kids to say "Yeah, let's move to Odenton - more space, decent schools, less expensive." That's fine and that will always happen. But that can't be your entire housing plan, lol. Especially not in DC where traffic gets worse everyday and people are super short sighted about public transit. I mean, it's barely working in NYC, but at least public transit there can handle bringing most of the low and middle income workers in from outer boroughs and suburbs every day. DC's infrastructure can't do that, full stop.

If you think the answer to lack of housing in DC is "move outside the city" then I hope you are also in favor of vastly expanding the metro system and investing in other rail and transit options. But usually the same people who don't want to increase density also think that answer to traffic and congestion is just more Easy Pass lanes.

It's like talking to very small children, honestly.

Adding housing units isn't going to reduce housing prices at all. If anything, it will drive them up. It's like you're just picking and choosing which parts of economics you like, and ignoring the rest.

DP. Ok so where exactly do you want people to live end how would you like them to commute into the city? I thought PP’s post was spot on.

It’s because they took Intro to Micro Freshman year and learned nothing else, but unfortunately have developed an entire worldview and policy framework around an elementary misunderstanding of how economics works.

So please enlighten us and tell us the solution, other than living in a flooded basement with a baby to save up for a SFH in PG county like one poster suggested.

The solution depends on what the problem is. From my understanding, you believe the problem is that you cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood you want to live in. I don’t see that as a problem at all. You believe that you have a right to purchase property anywhere you want. I don’t.

If instead what you are telling me is that there are no reasonably affordable housing units to rent, then there are plenty of well established levers can be pulled to address that issue.

I’ve gotta agree with this. How have we gone from ensuring people have an affordable place to live to ensuring that people have a right to buy what they want where they want it.

I’ve seen the word entitled thrown around quite a bit and I think it fits here.

There is definitely a societal interest in supporting policy to provide affordable housing but why do people think they have a right to buy a house?

Remember the GGW screed from the guy who was mad he couldn't afford 16th Street Heights and was forced to move to Rockville? Remember when his story was punctured by the fact that his new house cost somewhere in the vicinity of $500K. It was pointed out to the author that no amount of "missing middle" or "gentle density" or whatever the day's buzzword is would have made 16th Street Heights affordable to him, and that houses in that neighborhood last sold for $500k about 25 years ago. The GGW response was the usual stammering that comes when their arguments are shot down (this happens all the time in that comments section; they usually delete comments that prove them wrong).

That crowd loves to set up false choices for themselves -- yes, there are other options between 16th Street Heights and moving to bum-f&* Rockville (an area that is far less walkable than 16th Street Heights) -- and others in an attempt at urbanist martydom.

I am the original PP in this sub thread, and if you actually read my post, you’d see that I am specifically annoyed that this thread is just a bunch of people who live in Ward 3 saying “You’re just mad you can’t afford to live in Ward 3. Move to the suburbs.”

I. Don’t. Want. To. Live. In. Ward. 3.

I want affordable housing within a reasonable commute of my job in DC. That means we either need more low and middle income housing in DC proper, or we need to aggressively invest in better transportation from the suburbs. That’s it. But as I pointed out in my original post, the same people who tell me to “just move to PG County” also get mad if we suggest the construction of light rail or additional metro lines, dedicated express bus lanes, etc.

What happens to your vaunted Wilson pyramid when you can’t hire any teachers because they moved to Richmond or Philly or Frederick or whatever because they could find a place to raise a family that was less than a 90 minute commute both ways from your kid’s school?

+1. Also let’s be real, living in PG county is not practical for people who say, work in VA or even certain parts of DC. It’s not the answer to everything. Like many couples we have a split commute where we work in opposite parts of the DMV. We were fortunate to find a house within our price range that gave one of us a reasonable commute, which for us was a high priority with kids. A high quality cheap house in PG county is not worth it if I couldn’t get home in time to tuck my kids into bed.

Anyway, I relate to this PP because we were never looking to live in one of the most desirable neighborhoods with top flight schools. We simply wanted something affordable, safe, and without a soul sucking commute. We mostly found that (although DH would probably disagree about his commute during job-pandemic times).

It lacks credibility that you now claim access to Metro is good enough. I used to live in New Haven, CT and I knew many people who commuted every day to work in NYC on Metro North. But somehow it is not practical for your to take the Green Line from the West Hyattsville Metro station to get to a job in Arlington?

If you do not want a long commute, you always have the option to rent and there are a lot of choices in Arlington at various price points that can meet your needs.

However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.