Bowser proposes to add over 1,500 new affordable housing units to "Rock Creek West"

[Anonymous]

And rent control units can reset to market rate once a tenant vacates and then the rent increase are controlled after the new tenant moves in.its why so much illegal au leasing goes on so the unit never legally turns over which allows the landlord to price at market rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.

That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.

The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.

The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.

Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.

No system is perfect but rent control work much better than “inclusionary zoning.” First of all, IZ is usually only 10 percent of a project’s units and developers hire crafty zoning lawyers to whittle the number down or double count it for another benefit. And IZ eligibility is at a higher income point, which means that a lot of single young professionals working at think tanks and NGOs are qualifying for inclusionary zoning housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.

That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.

The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.

The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.

Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.

No system is perfect but rent control work much better than “inclusionary zoning.” First of all, IZ is usually only 10 percent of a project’s units and developers hire crafty zoning lawyers to whittle the number down or double count it for another benefit. And IZ eligibility is at a higher income point, which means that a lot of single young professionals working at think tanks and NGOs are qualifying for inclusionary zoning housing.

Higher income point than what? Than deeply affordable, sure, which is why AH plans like Bowser's usually include deeply affordable as well as IZ. But compared to rent controlled units which have no income cap? And which crafty landlords have many ways to get around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting mixed use high rises around and between Van Ness and Tenleytown could work from a SimCity perspective but we'd have to, at a minimum, expand Hearst.

Otherwise just build a few apartment buildings near AU and UDC. College kids and grad students easily fit the income demographics targeted.

There have been quite a few apartment buildings put in on the way to friendship heights in the past decade, down Wisconsin to Georgetown as well, the new homeless shelter and hideous garage that blew threw all the variances with the Council's blessing, and the Fannie Mae redevelopment. Housing is coming in steadily. As to affordable housing, I'm not sure where the Mayor's proposal is coming from, when she is the one incentivizing the demise of rent-control. I'm sure some landlords are delighted though. Eventually, they will just flip these units to a higher rent.

For Bowser it’s all about providing new lucrative opportunities to her developer cronies and contributors through her proposed upzoning of areas of Chevy Chase DC and Cleveland Park. Providing affordable housing is a pretext, pure and simple, to weaken existing neighborhood overlays and historic district protections. The trickle down impact of providing minimal “inclusionary zoning” units among an influx of luxury condos - and at a higher qualifying income point, no less — will be relatively negligible and won’t offset the rent controlled housing lost through upzoning.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting mixed use high rises around and between Van Ness and Tenleytown could work from a SimCity perspective but we'd have to, at a minimum, expand Hearst.

Otherwise just build a few apartment buildings near AU and UDC. College kids and grad students easily fit the income demographics targeted.

There have been quite a few apartment buildings put in on the way to friendship heights in the past decade, down Wisconsin to Georgetown as well, the new homeless shelter and hideous garage that blew threw all the variances with the Council's blessing, and the Fannie Mae redevelopment. Housing is coming in steadily. As to affordable housing, I'm not sure where the Mayor's proposal is coming from, when she is the one incentivizing the demise of rent-control. I'm sure some landlords are delighted though. Eventually, they will just flip these units to a higher rent.

For Bowser it’s all about providing new lucrative opportunities to her developer cronies and contributors through her proposed upzoning of areas of Chevy Chase DC and Cleveland Park. Providing affordable housing is a pretext, pure and simple, to weaken existing neighborhood overlays and historic district protections. The trickle down impact of providing minimal “inclusionary zoning” units among an influx of luxury condos - and at a higher qualifying income point, no less — will be relatively negligible and won’t offset the rent controlled housing lost through upzoning.

This.

+2

DC Dems = the party of corruption.

Enabled by voters, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.

That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.

The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.

The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.

Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.

No system is perfect but rent control work much better than “inclusionary zoning.” First of all, IZ is usually only 10 percent of a project’s units and developers hire crafty zoning lawyers to whittle the number down or double count it for another benefit. And IZ eligibility is at a higher income point, which means that a lot of single young professionals working at think tanks and NGOs are qualifying for inclusionary zoning housing.

Higher income point than what? Than deeply affordable, sure, which is why AH plans like Bowser's usually include deeply affordable as well as IZ. But compared to rent controlled units which have no income cap? And which crafty landlords have many ways to get around.

DC law only provides for IZ units in developments over a certain size and/or that qualify for bonus density. There is no legal provision to require "affordable housing" in matter of right or bonus density projects. Developers usually hire "Phil Payola"-type fixers to water down the existing IZ requirements anyway.

And we won't build our way to affordable housing by opening the flood gates to even more upscale condos. The only time that "trickle down" really works in the real world is when my dog finds a favorite hydrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.

That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.

The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.

The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.

Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.

How about people who need it somewhat? Then person I know is a teacher who could not otherwise afford to live in the city. Is that an undesireable? Or someone unworthy of support? That's my anecdote.

[Anonymous]

There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

[Anonymous]

Teacher should have affordable housing but rent control won’t deliver them to anyone looking now. I had a rent control apt for 10 years. My income was 90k. The apt was a dump cause the landlord claimed he couldn’t afford to do any improvements. Yes a teacher in DC needed that unit more than me but no one gives up a rent controlled apt u less they have too. Most of the units in my building were all illegals sublets going back five different tenants over 10 years. As soon as i Moved out the rent reset to market rate. IZ
Actually provides more units for people making less than 30%. And let’s be real, Ward 3 does NOT want more of those units. Plus IZ units are kept affordable at that rate for perpetuity. Even if people move in and out. So they are stable over the long term unlike rent control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

Yes, they are home buying programs that put a small dent in that massive undertaking. Not rental programs.

[Anonymous]

So how does Bowser propose exactly to reach this target of affordable units in Rock Creek West? If she plans to build public housing, there is not a lot of DC owned land not used by schools, etc., and market purchases of property likely would. e cost-prohibitive in this quadrant. Can she mandate that most, or say 50%, of multifamily units built before her deadline be affordable? Presumably that would require legislative changes. If Bowser is planning to rely on inclusionary zoning provisions, which typically mean that 10% of new units are designated IZ in projects above a certain size, that would mean construction of almost 20,000 new units mostly in Ward 3, to reach her IZ goal. And as others have pointed out, under DC law, IZ is not really 'affordable.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

I like the concept of housing assistance for police officers, other first responders and teachers with incomes below certain thresholds. But the notion that taxpayers should be subsidiziing housing for, say, bureaucrats who work at DCRA or at DMV is anathema.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

City employees are also paid quite well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

I like the concept of housing assistance for police officers, other first responders and teachers with incomes below certain thresholds. But the notion that taxpayers should be subsidiziing housing for, say, bureaucrats who work at DCRA or at DMV is anathema.

Why some city employees but not other city employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.

I like the concept of housing assistance for police officers, other first responders and teachers with incomes below certain thresholds. But the notion that taxpayers should be subsidiziing housing for, say, bureaucrats who work at DCRA or at DMV is anathema.

Why some city employees but not other city employees?

You really want to help the lazy ones? If half of the workers (many of whom live in MD anyway) in some of the departments like DCRA were to quit, it would likely be a service improvement and reduce costs. The last thing that DC should be doing is offering incentives and perks for non-essential government employees.