Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And like clockwork, the weirdo YIMBY “reply guys” come in. Its funny that you imagine yourself doing important work through anonymously posting on DCUM.

it’s dcum, we’re all reply guys, lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a bunch of small multi-family building mixed in which the SFHs in Mount Rainier and I have noticed that it works fine/well.

Same in NW DC. There are a bunch of smaller apartment buildings in my neighborhood. They look pretty good and fit in. Unclear why they get so much hate? I get banning skyscrapers. But a 3 story apartment building is fine.

same in capitol hill. small-med MF tucked in on many blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

this is about housing costs not homeownership. I think it’s pretty well established that rents have gone up while incomes have gone down. likely the same for mortgages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

this is about housing costs not homeownership. I think it’s pretty well established that rents have gone up while incomes have gone down. likely the same for mortgages.

Incomes went down? We have 8.5% annualized inflation and you are saying incomes went down? LOL.

Also, housing as a component of the CPI has lagged the CPI as a whole since 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSSL

And I am going to ask you again, how does DC subsidize Fairfax?

Whatever you think you know is absolutely wrong at every turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Your reasoning here is sloppy at best, and outright disingenuous at worst. Are housing prices in suburbs not increasing? Are suburban property taxes not increasing? Does nobody in the suburbs use DoorDash or Uber or Blue Apron?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Your reasoning here is sloppy at best, and outright disingenuous at worst. Are housing prices in suburbs not increasing? Are suburban property taxes not increasing? Does nobody in the suburbs use DoorDash or Uber or Blue Apron?

No clearly the suburbs are pure salt of the earth people still using AOL dial up and web 1.0 services. Once you cross that DC line it's all NFTs and prime same day delivery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Your reasoning here is sloppy at best, and outright disingenuous at worst. Are housing prices in suburbs not increasing? Are suburban property taxes not increasing? Does nobody in the suburbs use DoorDash or Uber or Blue Apron?

Have you figured out yet why population in DC is shrinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Your reasoning here is sloppy at best, and outright disingenuous at worst. Are housing prices in suburbs not increasing? Are suburban property taxes not increasing? Does nobody in the suburbs use DoorDash or Uber or Blue Apron?

Have you figured out yet why population in DC is shrinking?

Not enough Lime scooters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Your reasoning here is sloppy at best, and outright disingenuous at worst. Are housing prices in suburbs not increasing? Are suburban property taxes not increasing? Does nobody in the suburbs use DoorDash or Uber or Blue Apron?

Have you figured out yet why population in DC is shrinking?

Not enough Lime scooters.

Bowser’s tent cities make me think it is increasing. Look - she wanted the city to be a dump so she could herald her equity agenda and make prime time news - all of her moves are based on headlines. And few people call her out. And there is only one reason for that failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

this is about housing costs not homeownership. I think it’s pretty well established that rents have gone up while incomes have gone down. likely the same for mortgages.

Incomes went down? We have 8.5% annualized inflation and you are saying incomes went down? LOL.

Also, housing as a component of the CPI has lagged the CPI as a whole since 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSSL

And I am going to ask you again, how does DC subsidize Fairfax?

Whatever you think you know is absolutely wrong at every turn.

Ok, now do housing prices as a percentage of income, and rent-burdened families.

Fairfax is subsidied by all the Fairfax residents who get to drive into DC and park and go to work (whilst menacing DC bikers and pedestrians) and pay no taxes here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

this is such an absolutely stupid new goalpost. no, nobody is moving to the suburbs because we can’t get door dash anymore.

the real issue is decay in public transport in part due to uber reducing incentives to use it … but you’re no doubt hysterically opposed to buses too.

You have misperception of what is going on here because you prefer to live in fantasies and a world of online pile ons than the real world where the rest of us live. The reality that have to confront is that the price of living in the city is going up to maintain the same living standards/quality of services/amenities on every metric. Housing is going up. Taxes are going up. Services are getting more expensive. This obviously affects the value proposition of living in the city which will affect the future choices of a lot of people.

Oh yes. The reality is that we're all going to flee to the suburbs because Door Dash got more expensive ...

BTW how much money do you think I've saved over my life by living in cities and never having to own a car? Since time is money, how much time have I saved by living a 20 minute commute from my office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

this is about housing costs not homeownership. I think it’s pretty well established that rents have gone up while incomes have gone down. likely the same for mortgages.

Incomes went down? We have 8.5% annualized inflation and you are saying incomes went down? LOL.

Also, housing as a component of the CPI has lagged the CPI as a whole since 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSSL

And I am going to ask you again, how does DC subsidize Fairfax?

Whatever you think you know is absolutely wrong at every turn.

Ok, now do housing prices as a percentage of income, and rent-burdened families.

Fairfax is subsidied by all the Fairfax residents who get to drive into DC and park and go to work (whilst menacing DC bikers and pedestrians) and pay no taxes here.

How does DC subsidize Fairfax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

this is about housing costs not homeownership. I think it’s pretty well established that rents have gone up while incomes have gone down. likely the same for mortgages.

Incomes went down? We have 8.5% annualized inflation and you are saying incomes went down? LOL.

Also, housing as a component of the CPI has lagged the CPI as a whole since 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSSL

And I am going to ask you again, how does DC subsidize Fairfax?

Whatever you think you know is absolutely wrong at every turn.

Ok, now do housing prices as a percentage of income, and rent-burdened families.

Fairfax is subsidied by all the Fairfax residents who get to drive into DC and park and go to work (whilst menacing DC bikers and pedestrians) and pay no taxes here.

How does DC subsidize Fairfax?

Fairfax commuters come into DC and work here, but pay no taxes to DC, because Congress forbids it. Other commuter cities (like NYC and Philly) can levy income taxes on commuters.