MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

If you change the name from "gentrification" to "upzoning," then liberal white people don't feel so guilty promoting it.

+1

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

Same goes for the bicyclists. Why else do we have all these bike lanes that no one asked for and that no one uses?

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

Same goes for the bicyclists. Why else do we have all these bike lanes that no one asked for and that no one uses?

People actually did ask for them, and people actually do use them. If you don't consider these people to be people, that's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graduate schools of urban planning and urban policy are very urban focused: increasing density and promoting denser and innovative housing options like micro-units, bungalow apartment courts, multi-plex housing, eliminating parking minimums, promoting transit and ped/biking infrastructure, street narrowing projects, etc., all popular for the most part but antithetical to single family home densities.

The anti-housing advocates would need to make changes at the academic level if they want their voices heard.

this is all housing for childless adults. the loser in all this is people who have kids, especially bigger families. there will be very little housing for them.

exactly. by the YIMBY's own logic, the smaller the living space, the better, with no guardrails on the minimum. those sleeping pods popular in Japan and SF? Brilliant! Those dorm-style "apodments" with shared kitchen and bathrooms in Seattle (that even that city rejected)? Genius! It's honestly the logic of a toddler. "A little sugar is good, so why not a lot of sugar?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

It blows my mind that the argument is now that the wealthy homeowners are the ones without power and influence.....because they are just too busy. SFH zoning exists BECAUSE of the historic and prolonged imbalance of power in our favor. Now that some of us are lending our voices in support of more housing, it is assumed that we aren't "average people" or that we are somehow bought and paid for. It is the people struggling with housing insecurity that do not have the time to organize. SFH owners have HOAs and disposable time and historic preservation organizations to advocate for the status quo, in addition to more free time to organize.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

This is a really weird but very accurate comparison.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

It blows my mind that the argument is now that the wealthy homeowners are the ones without power and influence.....because they are just too busy. SFH zoning exists BECAUSE of the historic and prolonged imbalance of power in our favor. Now that some of us are lending our voices in support of more housing, it is assumed that we aren't "average people" or that we are somehow bought and paid for. It is the people struggling with housing insecurity that do not have the time to organize. SFH owners have HOAs and disposable time and historic preservation organizations to advocate for the status quo, in addition to more free time to organize.

Montgomery Planning was founded by a segregationist and developer whose descendants still owns a lot of Silver Spring. It was founded to protect developers’ interests and continues to play that role today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graduate schools of urban planning and urban policy are very urban focused: increasing density and promoting denser and innovative housing options like micro-units, bungalow apartment courts, multi-plex housing, eliminating parking minimums, promoting transit and ped/biking infrastructure, street narrowing projects, etc., all popular for the most part but antithetical to single family home densities.

The anti-housing advocates would need to make changes at the academic level if they want their voices heard.

this is all housing for childless adults. the loser in all this is people who have kids, especially bigger families. there will be very little housing for them.

exactly. by the YIMBY's own logic, the smaller the living space, the better, with no guardrails on the minimum. those sleeping pods popular in Japan and SF? Brilliant! Those dorm-style "apodments" with shared kitchen and bathrooms in Seattle (that even that city rejected)? Genius! It's honestly the logic of a toddler. "A little sugar is good, so why not a lot of sugar?"

I guess it's fun to argue against things nobody has argued for.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

It blows my mind that the argument is now that the wealthy homeowners are the ones without power and influence.....because they are just too busy. SFH zoning exists BECAUSE of the historic and prolonged imbalance of power in our favor. Now that some of us are lending our voices in support of more housing, it is assumed that we aren't "average people" or that we are somehow bought and paid for. It is the people struggling with housing insecurity that do not have the time to organize. SFH owners have HOAs and disposable time and historic preservation organizations to advocate for the status quo, in addition to more free time to organize.

It's very weird how, in the past couple years, young lefties have turned....(checks notes)...zoning laws into the bogeyman of the housing market. They're going to be very disappointed when they learn zoning laws make zero difference to housing prices.

[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:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Of course it's special interest politics. Average people do not want any of this. Special interest groups, whether they're the NRA or the upzoning people, always have an advantage because the people opposed to their agenda generally speaking are not organized.

Absolutely. The special interest group of people who believe that people need housing.

oh brother. And the NRA is just a bunch of people who believe in America, right?

No. Did you just compare housing advocates to the NRA?

They're not that different. They're all just small groups of people with extreme views who work very hard to convince the awful people who run our government to make their nutty opinions official government policy.

This is a really weird but very accurate comparison.

Special interest groups are all the same (and they ALL think they are speaking for the common man).