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

[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.

Please repeat after me:

"Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening."

Having followed this thread over the last month I think it is one, maybe two, of the Ward 3 NIMBY's repeatedly pushing this silliness about rent control units 1) providing housing for low income DC residents in Ward 3 and 2) being under threat from something (still undefined but repeatedly implied).

If you are going to keep making this argument you need to provide some evidence that rent control units currently accomplish any of the things you claim they do. And it would also be good for you to provide actual examples of the problems with IZ units - how developers have gotten around the provision that they need to provide them or that they've gone to people undeserving of them.

It would also be good if you could actually explain this wild scenario you've cooked up about the mayor somehow eliminating rent control units to benefit her crony developer friends - how exactly is this going to happen? Please provide an example somewhere that it has actually happened and how the mayor (as opposed to the lack of supply keeping up with demand) has caused the loss of rent controlled units in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Any details on the story that Office of Planning Director Trueblood has received a federal grand jury subpoena in a pay to play investigation? Disturbing if true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please repeat after me:

"Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening.
Rent control units in DC have no income screening."

Having followed this thread over the last month I think it is one, maybe two, of the Ward 3 NIMBY's repeatedly pushing this silliness about rent control units 1) providing housing for low income DC residents in Ward 3 and 2) being under threat from something (still undefined but repeatedly implied).

If you are going to keep making this argument you need to provide some evidence that rent control units currently accomplish any of the things you claim they do. And it would also be good for you to provide actual examples of the problems with IZ units - how developers have gotten around the provision that they need to provide them or that they've gone to people undeserving of them.

It would also be good if you could actually explain this wild scenario you've cooked up about the mayor somehow eliminating rent control units to benefit her crony developer friends - how exactly is this going to happen? Please provide an example somewhere that it has actually happened and how the mayor (as opposed to the lack of supply keeping up with demand) has caused the loss of rent controlled units in Ward 3?

They're generally not the fanciest of units. I very much doubt rich folks are 'gaming the system' to live in a rent control apartment. If they are serving middle. lover middle class, and poor people to make the city more affordable to them--I have zero issue with that. I am sure only Bowser and the developers have an issue with that. (and you)

[Anonymous]

Mayor Muriel Marion Barry Bowser, big developers’ best friend and fixer.

[Anonymous]

Her machine is vile. Who is running against her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's tons of affordable housing in PG country, but I guess we're supposed to pretend that doesn't exist.

+1

[Anonymous]

Yeah I dont really get this. Why doesnt bowser focus on transport? We are a tiny city in between 2 large states with infrastructure and housing galore. If she is worried about gentrification she could think of creative ways to help people stay in their homes (isnt that why we pay lesser taxes on primary residence -homestead act?). Not sure who this program is meant to help when we already have so many rent controlled units across ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know everyone is going to get fixated on the prospect of poor people moving into wealthy neighborhoods, but someone should ask how exactly this plan is going to result in affordable housing. It seems vague how that's going to work. Simply building more units is not going to change prices. (Yes, yes, yes, increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. But lower prices attract more demand, which pushes prices back up).

She's planning on giving vouchers to low income District residents, which they can then use to compensate the landlords of large buildings in Wards 2 and 3. My guess is that the city will aggressively police and fine buildings that try to avoid accepting voucher holding residents.

With the debacle of Segwick Gardens, I think landlords may be hesitant to swap out those small number of below market long term tenants for tenants who are needing wrap-around services (but come armed with a reliable voucher from the city).

The City Council needs to start providing meaningful checks and balances against this Mayor. I pray that Racine primaries Bowser in the next Mayor race; we need a rational leader, not a bomb thrower.

I don’t live in DC but I do have a home in an area that liberal democrats considered a social experiment. Robberies went up exponentially and now there are areas that used to be nice that you can’t go into anymore. Fight this with ALL your might. You and your children should not be used for some utopian dream. You DID build that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dems prey on liberals by manipulating their desire to do good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dems prey on liberals by manipulating their desire to do good.

How do Republicans prey on conservatives?
Please don't be so naive to think they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I dont really get this. Why doesnt bowser focus on transport? We are a tiny city in between 2 large states with infrastructure and housing galore. If she is worried about gentrification she could think of creative ways to help people stay in their homes (isnt that why we pay lesser taxes on primary residence -homestead act?). Not sure who this program is meant to help when we already have so many rent controlled units across ward 3.

are the rent controlled units income limited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They're generally not the fanciest of units. I very much doubt rich folks are 'gaming the system' to live in a rent control apartment. If they are serving middle. lover middle class, and poor people to make the city more affordable to them--I have zero issue with that. I am sure only Bowser and the developers have an issue with that. (and you)

Really? I heard about that a lot back in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're generally not the fanciest of units. I very much doubt rich folks are 'gaming the system' to live in a rent control apartment. If they are serving middle. lover middle class, and poor people to make the city more affordable to them--I have zero issue with that. I am sure only Bowser and the developers have an issue with that. (and you)

Really? I heard about that a lot back in NYC.

Apples and oranges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I dont really get this. Why doesnt bowser focus on transport? We are a tiny city in between 2 large states with infrastructure and housing galore. If she is worried about gentrification she could think of creative ways to help people stay in their homes (isnt that why we pay lesser taxes on primary residence -homestead act?). Not sure who this program is meant to help when we already have so many rent controlled units across ward 3.

are the rent controlled units income limited?

No!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Muriel Marion Barry Bowser, big developers’ best friend and fixer.

owse

Again with this.

I don't like Bowser at all but please explain in what manner rent controlled units are being threatened by developers or any Bowser policies?

Maybe you can offer a citation?

Or even a theory? Even a conspiracy theory at this point would be better than the arguments posited in this thread.