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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

[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.

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?

Any financial savings you may have gained from lack of personal car ownership were likely captured in higher costs of housing and services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

[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.

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?

Any financial savings you may have gained from lack of personal car ownership were likely captured in higher costs of housing and services.

Forgot to add I'm also very cheap on rent ... and I don't think my increased cost of services really amounts to much. What do I pay more for? Maybe I could get the cleaners for cheaper out in the burbs, but pretty sure that that would not be more than the cost of car insurance for me.

[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.

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?

Any financial savings you may have gained from lack of personal car ownership were likely captured in higher costs of housing and services.

Forgot to add I'm also very cheap on rent ... and I don't think my increased cost of services really amounts to much. What do I pay more for? Maybe I could get the cleaners for cheaper out in the burbs, but pretty sure that that would not be more than the cost of car insurance for me.

Oh and of course, my house appreciates much more quickly here, so ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

[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: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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

[Anonymous]

The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with. No one is hurting for revenue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC government has more money than it knows what to do with. No one is hurting for revenue here.

Thanks to ARPA. Check the CFO projections. Recently revised up in February, but still should concern anyone and the macro debt picture should concern anyone.

[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: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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

Again, too stupid to know what a subsidy is and that what a subsidy is not. Before you post more garbage, you should learn how commercial property is bailed and appraised.

DCs ability to tax commuters is superseded by the $420m Federal payment moron. Sure tax commuters, but how about paying for your own courts, water and college tuition.

A commuter tax is also idiotically self defeating because it would primarily fall on Federal workers who receive a massive Federal transit subsidy. So yes, take away the $300 per month, per person Federal transit subsidy that do not exist for the majority of the workers in other cities and that offsets DCs contribution to WMATA.

You absolutely and fundamentally a stupid person. Want to talk about the “budget documents” again? You seem to have gone quiet on that.

[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: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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

Again, too stupid to know what a subsidy is and that what a subsidy is not. Before you post more garbage, you should learn how commercial property is bailed and appraised.

DCs ability to tax commuters is superseded by the $420m Federal payment moron. Sure tax commuters, but how about paying for your own courts, water and college tuition.

A commuter tax is also idiotically self defeating because it would primarily fall on Federal workers who receive a massive Federal transit subsidy. So yes, take away the $300 per month, per person Federal transit subsidy that do not exist for the majority of the workers in other cities and that offsets DCs contribution to WMATA.

You absolutely and fundamentally a stupid person. Want to talk about the “budget documents” again? You seem to have gone quiet on that.

wow you sure are convincing me that NIMBYs are sane and thoughtful!

[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: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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

Again, too stupid to know what a subsidy is and that what a subsidy is not. Before you post more garbage, you should learn how commercial property is bailed and appraised.

DCs ability to tax commuters is superseded by the $420m Federal payment moron. Sure tax commuters, but how about paying for your own courts, water and college tuition.

A commuter tax is also idiotically self defeating because it would primarily fall on Federal workers who receive a massive Federal transit subsidy. So yes, take away the $300 per month, per person Federal transit subsidy that do not exist for the majority of the workers in other cities and that offsets DCs contribution to WMATA.

You absolutely and fundamentally a stupid person. Want to talk about the “budget documents” again? You seem to have gone quiet on that.

I've never posted about "budget documents." You do realize that more than one person might want to push back against your inane ramblings, right?

[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: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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

Again, too stupid to know what a subsidy is and that what a subsidy is not. Before you post more garbage, you should learn how commercial property is bailed and appraised.

DCs ability to tax commuters is superseded by the $420m Federal payment moron. Sure tax commuters, but how about paying for your own courts, water and college tuition.

A commuter tax is also idiotically self defeating because it would primarily fall on Federal workers who receive a massive Federal transit subsidy. So yes, take away the $300 per month, per person Federal transit subsidy that do not exist for the majority of the workers in other cities and that offsets DCs contribution to WMATA.

You absolutely and fundamentally a stupid person. Want to talk about the “budget documents” again? You seem to have gone quiet on that.

I've never posted about "budget documents." You do realize that more than one person might want to push back against your inane ramblings, right?

Thanks for clarifying that there are multiple people who share the same limited knowledge of basic terms like “subsidy”, believe that DC “subsidizes” the surrounding suburbs, think jobs and commuters who work in some of them are a drag on the city’s finances, lack an understanding of DCs budget, don’t understand how commercial real estate is appraised, don’t understand DCs current fiscal situation, nor understand the historic basis of the Federal payment.

Did I miss something?

[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:

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.

This is: 1. Not a subsidy. 2. an economic advantage for DC. 3. Commuter tax such as it is doesn’t make much sense unless the goal is to decrease the number of jobs in the city and in any case, the Federal government provides huge direct and indirect subsidies to DC beyond what they provide anywhere else.

Of course it's a subsidy. But for Congress, commuters from MD and VA would have to pay a fair share.

Jesus Christ. That is literally not what a subsidy is. You’re an idiot. And pay the fair share of what exactly? The commuters are contributing to the economy as a net economic benefit. Just consider the fact that one of the top priorities of the mayor is to get the, back.

Are you the same delusional poster who claimed that the increased commercial property valuations on account of suburban commuters was one of the ways in which suburbs subsidize DC? It's the exact same reasoning, only that the value lost by the inability to tax commuters is far larger than the revenue from commercial property.

Again, too stupid to know what a subsidy is and that what a subsidy is not. Before you post more garbage, you should learn how commercial property is bailed and appraised.

DCs ability to tax commuters is superseded by the $420m Federal payment moron. Sure tax commuters, but how about paying for your own courts, water and college tuition.

A commuter tax is also idiotically self defeating because it would primarily fall on Federal workers who receive a massive Federal transit subsidy. So yes, take away the $300 per month, per person Federal transit subsidy that do not exist for the majority of the workers in other cities and that offsets DCs contribution to WMATA.

You absolutely and fundamentally a stupid person. Want to talk about the “budget documents” again? You seem to have gone quiet on that.

I've never posted about "budget documents." You do realize that more than one person might want to push back against your inane ramblings, right?

Thanks for clarifying that there are multiple people who share the same limited knowledge of basic terms like “subsidy”, believe that DC “subsidizes” the surrounding suburbs, think jobs and commuters who work in some of them are a drag on the city’s finances, lack an understanding of DCs budget, don’t understand how commercial real estate is appraised, don’t understand DCs current fiscal situation, nor understand the historic basis of the Federal payment.

Did I miss something?

I'm sure that's the case, but none of them have been posting on this thread. You certainly tick most of those boxes, but I'm assuming you weren't referring to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone see this article?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html

How Houston moved 25,000 people from the streets into their own homes.