Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The top of middle income is still middle income.

You think the middle class should only be able to rent. Just start being honest about that when you push policy. The YIMBYs fail to make clear that doing what they recommend will limit housing options for the middle class and shift wealth creation opportunities from the middle class to the super wealthy. And, again, it’s not actually zero sum. Finally, none of your market solutions help actual poor people.

DP. It's not true that NONE of the market solutions help "actual poor" people (however you define "actual poor"). It's also true that most people you would characterize as YIMBYs, or who characterize themselves as YIMBYs, will tell you that housing for "actual poor" people also requires non-market policies.

Also, if the goal of housing policy is housing, then why would it matter if people are renting vs owning their housing? Renting vs owning only matters if the goal of housing policy is wealth accumulation for people who own their housing.

Well said. These left-NIMBYs just want more wealth for homeowners, that's it. And the paint it with a facade of "caring for the poor". It's shameful.

It was the YIMBY who claimed their market urbanism would help poor people. Thanks for correcting them.

Trickle down economics, which is what you’re pushing, has an even worse record than housing regulation. Almost all of the houses people live in today were built under a regulatory environment similar to the one we have today. We didn’t have a housing crisis until governments started listening to YIMBYs. You make things worse, not better.

Dude, literally nobody is calling for trickle down anything. Also that is a made up term, lol.

Are you seriously blaming this on pro-housing laws? Last time I checked the areas with the most expensive housing also have the most rules. Care to name an example otherwise? Oh, you can't. Get out of here dude, we are running circles around you. Are you a troll account lol?


You seriously think the regs today are similar to what they were 50 years ago? Like, are you joking?

Most housing in MoCo wasn’t built today. Most of it was built more than 30 years ago, when regs were tighter than they are now.

How much have your proposals caused rents to fall in MoCo? How much have they lowered the percentage of households that are cost burdened in MoCo? They haven’t done either of those things because your policies don’t work. LOL, except not because you’re harming the middle class. The best thing you could do for affordable housing is to stop working on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The top of middle income is still middle income.

You think the middle class should only be able to rent. Just start being honest about that when you push policy. The YIMBYs fail to make clear that doing what they recommend will limit housing options for the middle class and shift wealth creation opportunities from the middle class to the super wealthy. And, again, it’s not actually zero sum. Finally, none of your market solutions help actual poor people.

DP. It's not true that NONE of the market solutions help "actual poor" people (however you define "actual poor"). It's also true that most people you would characterize as YIMBYs, or who characterize themselves as YIMBYs, will tell you that housing for "actual poor" people also requires non-market policies.

Also, if the goal of housing policy is housing, then why would it matter if people are renting vs owning their housing? Renting vs owning only matters if the goal of housing policy is wealth accumulation for people who own their housing.

Well said. These left-NIMBYs just want more wealth for homeowners, that's it. And the paint it with a facade of "caring for the poor". It's shameful.

It was the YIMBY who claimed their market urbanism would help poor people. Thanks for correcting them.

Trickle down economics, which is what you’re pushing, has an even worse record than housing regulation. Almost all of the houses people live in today were built under a regulatory environment similar to the one we have today. We didn’t have a housing crisis until governments started listening to YIMBYs. You make things worse, not better.

Dude, literally nobody is calling for trickle down anything. Also that is a made up term, lol.

Are you seriously blaming this on pro-housing laws? Last time I checked the areas with the most expensive housing also have the most rules. Care to name an example otherwise? Oh, you can't. Get out of here dude, we are running circles around you. Are you a troll account lol?


You seriously think the regs today are similar to what they were 50 years ago? Like, are you joking?

Most housing in MoCo wasn’t built today. Most of it was built more than 30 years ago, when regs were tighter than they are now.

How much have your proposals caused rents to fall in MoCo? How much have they lowered the percentage of households that are cost burdened in MoCo? They haven’t done either of those things because your policies don’t work. LOL, except not because you’re harming the middle class. The best thing you could do for affordable housing is to stop working on it.

What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The top of middle income is still middle income.

You think the middle class should only be able to rent. Just start being honest about that when you push policy. The YIMBYs fail to make clear that doing what they recommend will limit housing options for the middle class and shift wealth creation opportunities from the middle class to the super wealthy. And, again, it’s not actually zero sum. Finally, none of your market solutions help actual poor people.

DP. It's not true that NONE of the market solutions help "actual poor" people (however you define "actual poor"). It's also true that most people you would characterize as YIMBYs, or who characterize themselves as YIMBYs, will tell you that housing for "actual poor" people also requires non-market policies.

Also, if the goal of housing policy is housing, then why would it matter if people are renting vs owning their housing? Renting vs owning only matters if the goal of housing policy is wealth accumulation for people who own their housing.

Well said. These left-NIMBYs just want more wealth for homeowners, that's it. And the paint it with a facade of "caring for the poor". It's shameful.

It was the YIMBY who claimed their market urbanism would help poor people. Thanks for correcting them.

Trickle down economics, which is what you’re pushing, has an even worse record than housing regulation. Almost all of the houses people live in today were built under a regulatory environment similar to the one we have today. We didn’t have a housing crisis until governments started listening to YIMBYs. You make things worse, not better.

Dude, literally nobody is calling for trickle down anything. Also that is a made up term, lol.

Are you seriously blaming this on pro-housing laws? Last time I checked the areas with the most expensive housing also have the most rules. Care to name an example otherwise? Oh, you can't. Get out of here dude, we are running circles around you. Are you a troll account lol?


You seriously think the regs today are similar to what they were 50 years ago? Like, are you joking?

Most housing in MoCo wasn’t built today. Most of it was built more than 30 years ago, when regs were tighter than they are now.

How much have your proposals caused rents to fall in MoCo? How much have they lowered the percentage of households that are cost burdened in MoCo? They haven’t done either of those things because your policies don’t work. LOL, except not because you’re harming the middle class. The best thing you could do for affordable housing is to stop working on it.

The virtue signaling is strong with this one. Our proposals haven't been implemented, dude. Are you living in a fantasy? We have strict rules on lot size, units, duplexes, etc. Are you a joke or troll account or do you just have no idea what the rules are right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The top of middle income is still middle income.

You think the middle class should only be able to rent. Just start being honest about that when you push policy. The YIMBYs fail to make clear that doing what they recommend will limit housing options for the middle class and shift wealth creation opportunities from the middle class to the super wealthy. And, again, it’s not actually zero sum. Finally, none of your market solutions help actual poor people.

DP. It's not true that NONE of the market solutions help "actual poor" people (however you define "actual poor"). It's also true that most people you would characterize as YIMBYs, or who characterize themselves as YIMBYs, will tell you that housing for "actual poor" people also requires non-market policies.

Also, if the goal of housing policy is housing, then why would it matter if people are renting vs owning their housing? Renting vs owning only matters if the goal of housing policy is wealth accumulation for people who own their housing.

Well said. These left-NIMBYs just want more wealth for homeowners, that's it. And the paint it with a facade of "caring for the poor". It's shameful.

It was the YIMBY who claimed their market urbanism would help poor people. Thanks for correcting them.

Trickle down economics, which is what you’re pushing, has an even worse record than housing regulation. Almost all of the houses people live in today were built under a regulatory environment similar to the one we have today. We didn’t have a housing crisis until governments started listening to YIMBYs. You make things worse, not better.

Dude, literally nobody is calling for trickle down anything. Also that is a made up term, lol.

Are you seriously blaming this on pro-housing laws? Last time I checked the areas with the most expensive housing also have the most rules. Care to name an example otherwise? Oh, you can't. Get out of here dude, we are running circles around you. Are you a troll account lol?


You seriously think the regs today are similar to what they were 50 years ago? Like, are you joking?

Most housing in MoCo wasn’t built today. Most of it was built more than 30 years ago, when regs were tighter than they are now.

How much have your proposals caused rents to fall in MoCo? How much have they lowered the percentage of households that are cost burdened in MoCo? They haven’t done either of those things because your policies don’t work. LOL, except not because you’re harming the middle class. The best thing you could do for affordable housing is to stop working on it.

The virtue signaling is strong with this one. Our proposals haven't been implemented, dude. Are you living in a fantasy? We have strict rules on lot size, units, duplexes, etc. Are you a joke or troll account or do you just have no idea what the rules are right now?

PP, I am not the poster who claims to have completed advanced studies in economics and is blaming everything on YIMBYs. However: what "virtue signaling", specifically, is this poster doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The top of middle income is still middle income.

You think the middle class should only be able to rent. Just start being honest about that when you push policy. The YIMBYs fail to make clear that doing what they recommend will limit housing options for the middle class and shift wealth creation opportunities from the middle class to the super wealthy. And, again, it’s not actually zero sum. Finally, none of your market solutions help actual poor people.

DP. It's not true that NONE of the market solutions help "actual poor" people (however you define "actual poor"). It's also true that most people you would characterize as YIMBYs, or who characterize themselves as YIMBYs, will tell you that housing for "actual poor" people also requires non-market policies.

Also, if the goal of housing policy is housing, then why would it matter if people are renting vs owning their housing? Renting vs owning only matters if the goal of housing policy is wealth accumulation for people who own their housing.

Well said. These left-NIMBYs just want more wealth for homeowners, that's it. And the paint it with a facade of "caring for the poor". It's shameful.

It was the YIMBY who claimed their market urbanism would help poor people. Thanks for correcting them.

Trickle down economics, which is what you’re pushing, has an even worse record than housing regulation. Almost all of the houses people live in today were built under a regulatory environment similar to the one we have today. We didn’t have a housing crisis until governments started listening to YIMBYs. You make things worse, not better.

Dude, literally nobody is calling for trickle down anything. Also that is a made up term, lol.

Are you seriously blaming this on pro-housing laws? Last time I checked the areas with the most expensive housing also have the most rules. Care to name an example otherwise? Oh, you can't. Get out of here dude, we are running circles around you. Are you a troll account lol?


You seriously think the regs today are similar to what they were 50 years ago? Like, are you joking?

Most housing in MoCo wasn’t built today. Most of it was built more than 30 years ago, when regs were tighter than they are now.

How much have your proposals caused rents to fall in MoCo? How much have they lowered the percentage of households that are cost burdened in MoCo? They haven’t done either of those things because your policies don’t work. LOL, except not because you’re harming the middle class. The best thing you could do for affordable housing is to stop working on it.

What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

You’re deranged. 30 doesn’t equal 80.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

ADUs are going to be built mostly inside of the beltway where neighborhoods were mostly designed and established 80 years ago.

[Anonymous]

ADU's are about the appearance of doing something. The stats will show grandma or the kid living as a separate household thereby making it appear as if there is income diversity in a neighborhood. Everybody knows that.

That being said, people should be allowed to convert their garage into an apartment if they want. It won't solve or fix anything but they should still be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

ADUs are going to be built mostly inside of the beltway where neighborhoods were mostly designed and established 80 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

ADUs are going to be built mostly inside of the beltway where neighborhoods were mostly designed and established 80 years ago.

See for yourself:

https://www.loc.gov/item/2011593047/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

ADUs are going to be built mostly inside of the beltway where neighborhoods were mostly designed and established 80 years ago.

See for yourself:

https://www.loc.gov/item/2011593047/

"United States population density map by minor civil divisions : 1940"? Hoo boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What? Most MoCo housing was built 80+ years ago. What “regs” are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

In 1940, the population of Montgomery County was 83,912. It is now 1.055 million.

ADUs are going to be built mostly inside of the beltway where neighborhoods were mostly designed and established 80 years ago.

That’s not where the houses for sale are affordable for middle income households, so build all the ADUs you want, but we should be aiming for much higher density inside the beltway. If all we do is double units it will be a failure.

[Anonymous]

ADUs are a scam. They are a one time windfall for existing owners of buildable lots (SFHs with large backyards).

Regardless if you build, the alternative use of essentially your backyard is worth the potential income if it was shelter.

Even when built, ADUs don’t add to the housing supply. Most owner occupied ADUs eventually fall off the market because no one wants to live with their renters, in wildly different economic classes, lifestyle, and race.

The alternative are non owner occupied (investors) who have no stake in the community and will happily build and destroy a neighborhood.