GGWash?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.


Totally. All of this. Nothing ever fully captures anything from the side of those who take a financial risk. It’s always this perceived attack on monies interests and how they rape the poor and yada yada. Most landlords are small time. I wish there was more of a vocal voice for these folks.
Anonymous
GGW founder David Alpert deleted his Twitter today after firing off some apparently questionable things about the DCPS Juneteenth announcement. People saying he has been canceled.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.


"Character" us often code for 'keeping it white and rich" - that may not apply to you, but it does for many in DC and the region. You may have more altruistic reasons, but for many, the idea that the rich people have their nice neighborhoods and want to preclude new development (where it is legal) to keep others out is a red flag.


How "many?" How do you know?

They are not going to answer this because this is their favorite tactic, implying that people that don’t agree with them are racist. Interestingly though, they don’t work with groups advocate on behalf of housing for people of color. And, if you take them at their word, how incredible must it be to walk around thinking everyone is racist?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:GGW founder David Alpert deleted his Twitter today after firing off some apparently questionable things about the DCPS Juneteenth announcement. People saying he has been canceled.

It’s not unexpected. To be cynical enough to be a white person demagoguing on race in a majority black city indicates that there’s a lot going on.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.


Totally. All of this. Nothing ever fully captures anything from the side of those who take a financial risk. It’s always this perceived attack on monies interests and how they rape the poor and yada yada. Most landlords are small time. I wish there was more of a vocal voice for these folks.

It’s hard for me to understand. The folks on the inside clearly see the whole picture. They are fundraising, etc. But their readership and foot soldiers that they have cultivated, I cannot fathom how they have been convinced to support policies against their own interests. There is no mechanism by which hundreds of “luxury” apartments in a desirable area will make that area cheaper for them. They may cite obscure “studies”, but here in this area there is a positive feedback loop. More “luxury” apartments in an area breed more luxury apartments.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:GGW founder David Alpert deleted his Twitter today after firing off some apparently questionable things about the DCPS Juneteenth announcement. People saying he has been canceled.

It’s not unexpected. To be cynical enough to be a white person demagoguing on race in a majority black city indicates that there’s a lot going on.


And to be tin-eared enough to complain about schools closing when you're a absurdly wealthy White man of privilege who hasn't needed to work in more than a decade is astounding.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:16:35 makes the basic mistake a lot of the ggw crowd makes.

The idea that demand is static, so simply building more supply of housing will make areas cheaper.

If that were true, dc would be a lot cheaper than 2000, when clearly it isn’t

I like development! But don’t kid yourself if you think that more housing on 14th st will make housing on 14th st cheaper, or housing in SE cheaper by making older or more peripheral properties less desirable. Things are a lot more complicated than that. By bringing density and street life more development makes these areas more desirable than ever and creates demand.

The massive housing boom in nova over recent decades hasn’t made housing cheaper there, or even cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

Obviously these high prices create social problems and there is an important role for subsidized housing, better transit and other steps. But simply building isn’t it.


No, I think they perfectly understand. It’s just talking points for them.

In the context of transportation they will cite induced demand, but when it’s housing they use a different model.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Personal opinion here...

I think just the narrow perspective they offer regarding the dynamics of the places we live, where we've invested a great deal of personal and financial effort in many cases, and the arrogance with which they deliver it.

Plus, and this is my personal opinion, they've fallen in with the recent social trends that tend to taint reasonable discussion about what the right decision is today. I really dislike that some of their commentary sounds like developer press releases.

Completely agree with all of this.
Anonymous
Some GGW write absurd columns about Arlington that also appear in ArlNow. One recent series by a privileged white non binary who attended an Ivy and lives off his rich real estate agent mom argues that the curved streets in Lyon Village were designed to keep blacks out. He wants duplexes triplexes and small apartment built in Lyon Village so that it is affordable to everyone.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that anyone who disagrees with them (high density everywhere), they label as a racist, bigot, NIMBY.

And, that these know-it-all GGWs are funded by developers, who have a vested interest in building, building, building, and tax payer exemptions/incentives only help line the developers wallets, not County citizens/DC residents. The developers have created their own lobbying group dressed up as concerned citizens.


The people already wanted this, the developers are hopping on. Just because the baby boomers wanted single family homes like the ones their parents bought in the post war era, doesn't mean that was the best set of decisions to make for a sustainable future. I, for one, am on older person, who appreciates that the Millennials and Gen Z are on this.


Millennials prefer single family homes just like their baby boomer parents. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. But it is true that the margin of difference in preferences is very small.

I read some market research from Redfin that something crazy like 90% of Millennials prefer single family homes over shared walls, even if it meant a substantially longer commute. I’ll try to find it.

The American consumer has spoken, as we can see with the housing market today. There’s really no broad constituency for the policies GGW promote. Which to me indicates that there are strong interest groups with large financial incentives backing it.
Anonymous
We don't use the term around here, but for small apartment buildings, or maybe you could call them fourplexes, on SFH sized lots, we used to call them dingbats.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Building more housing makes housing cheaper. This is just the price of entry to any discussion of housing. If you don’t accept that please quiet down and take an economics class. Denying that is like denying gravity exists. (No I don’t need you to cite the paper saying that it’s not true: it refers only to limited time horizons and a particular area.)

Higher supply, lower prices. Period. We have a housing market.


Yes, you are correct to a point.

There is a lot of demand to live in Arlington. Building and building in Arlington is just going to bring in more people from further out who can now afford an expensive place in Arlington. Arlington prices will not get cheaper.

The demand and prices will soften for further out communities when those people move to Arlington, but it won't bring down Arlington prices.

But the PP isn’t really correct to a point. The smugness of the “you must accept my terms” and “take an economics class” while misunderstanding the market dynamics as you point out really is a lot of what people don’t like about GGW.

The PP is like the model for what’s wrong with GGW.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:GGW founder David Alpert deleted his Twitter today after firing off some apparently questionable things about the DCPS Juneteenth announcement. People saying he has been canceled.

It’s not unexpected. To be cynical enough to be a white person demagoguing on race in a majority black city indicates that there’s a lot going on.


And to be tin-eared enough to complain about schools closing when you're a absurdly wealthy White man of privilege who hasn't needed to work in more than a decade is astounding.


If you go to the Public school section of DCUM, you'll find plenty of parents frustrated with the sudden announcement of school closing without any warning.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:16:35 makes the basic mistake a lot of the ggw crowd makes.

The idea that demand is static, so simply building more supply of housing will make areas cheaper.

If that were true, dc would be a lot cheaper than 2000, when clearly it isn’t

I like development! But don’t kid yourself if you think that more housing on 14th st will make housing on 14th st cheaper, or housing in SE cheaper by making older or more peripheral properties less desirable. Things are a lot more complicated than that. By bringing density and street life more development makes these areas more desirable than ever and creates demand.

The massive housing boom in nova over recent decades hasn’t made housing cheaper there, or even cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

Obviously these high prices create social problems and there is an important role for subsidized housing, better transit and other steps. But simply building isn’t it.



You are mis-stating the premise. It isn't cheaper, it is just cheaper than it would have been if nothing new had been built.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I resent the attitude that neighbors should have no say in preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Plus there's a constant theme of "I can't afford to live in the hippest areas of DC, so you all need to build enough to make the area more affordable". Sorry - doesn't work like that.


"Character" us often code for 'keeping it white and rich" - that may not apply to you, but it does for many in DC and the region. You may have more altruistic reasons, but for many, the idea that the rich people have their nice neighborhoods and want to preclude new development (where it is legal) to keep others out is a red flag.


How "many?" How do you know?

They are not going to answer this because this is their favorite tactic, implying that people that don’t agree with them are racist. Interestingly though, they don’t work with groups advocate on behalf of housing for people of color. And, if you take them at their word, how incredible must it be to walk around thinking everyone is racist?



LOL, you have no idea what you are talking about.
post reply Forum Index » Real Estate
Message Quick Reply
Go to: