MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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....

[/quote]
Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake![/quote]

[b]I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning."[/b] 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."

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [b]Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with.[/b] 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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Of course it's special interest politics. [b]Average people do not want any of this.[/b] 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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

How very noblesse oblige.

[Anonymous]

How very noblesse oblige of people struggling with housing insecurity to advocate for pro-housing policies?

Words don't mean anything anymore, it seems.

[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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

[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.

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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

But a majority of people do support it. Maybe not a majority of people you know personally, but there are a lot of people you don't know personally.

[Anonymous]

Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

[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.

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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

But a majority of people do support it. Maybe not a majority of people you know personally, but there are a lot of people you don't know personally.

How do you come to this conclusion? It would be much more simple to just vote on the measures, then we’d know.

I think that you’d find that most people aren’t against building housing, but they are against outlawing exclusive
SFH zoning. The YIMBYs love to make it seem like if you don’t want to change SFH zoning you are just some out of touch rich daddy war bucks racist that tortures the poor while polishing a monocle, when in reality most of the people concerned about this are middle class folks (of all colors!) that have a significant portion of their wealth tied up in a home. They aren’t going to go quietly to appease some selfish little narcissists that don’t like zoning.

[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.

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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

But a majority of people do support it. Maybe not a majority of people you know personally, but there are a lot of people you don't know personally.

How do you come to this conclusion? It would be much more simple to just vote on the measures, then we’d know.

I think that you’d find that most people aren’t against building housing, but they are against outlawing exclusive
SFH zoning. The YIMBYs love to make it seem like if you don’t want to change SFH zoning you are just some out of touch rich daddy war bucks racist that tortures the poor while polishing a monocle, when in reality most of the people concerned about this are middle class folks (of all colors!) that have a significant portion of their wealth tied up in a home. They aren’t going to go quietly to appease some selfish little narcissists that don’t like zoning.

This is how it works:

1. The voters vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on the county laws.

If you find it personally satisfying to call pro-housing advocates nasty names, then you should go ahead and do that, I guess?

[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.

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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

But a majority of people do support it. Maybe not a majority of people you know personally, but there are a lot of people you don't know personally.

You are saying that a majority of people support this without any evidence. There have been multiple studies on zoning reform and it is heavily dependent on how you phrase the questions. If you ask people whether they support "affordable housing" in general when framing the questions about zoning reform they are more likely to say yes to survey questions. But when polls ask people more specifically about individual zoning reform policies (without framing) they are more likely to say no. None of them I have seen (are particularly well conducted) or suggest strong support among voters for YIMBY policies. Unfortunately, a lot of people conducting these polls have an ulterior motives (for or against something) so they tend to construct the polls in a biased way to make the results more favorable for their cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

[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.

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.

You are misunderstanding what someone means by average people. It simply means that a majority of people do not support it. So you can say the "average" person does not support this if support is less than 50%.

But a majority of people do support it. Maybe not a majority of people you know personally, but there are a lot of people you don't know personally.

You are saying that a majority of people support this without any evidence. There have been multiple studies on zoning reform and it is heavily dependent on how you phrase the questions. If you ask people whether they support "affordable housing" in general when framing the questions about zoning reform they are more likely to say yes to survey questions. But when polls ask people more specifically about individual zoning reform policies (without framing) they are more likely to say no. None of them I have seen (are particularly well conducted) or suggest strong support among voters for YIMBY policies. Unfortunately, a lot of people conducting these polls have an ulterior motives (for or against something) so they tend to construct the polls in a biased way to make the results more favorable for their cause.

The County Council is about to vote yes on another zoning change. Maybe this will cause the voters of Montgomery County to rise up in 2026 and throw all the bums out!!!!!!! But I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

If the MOCO leaders truly believe there is general support for these reforms they should put it on a ballot measure and let the voters decide for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

[Anonymous]

Our elected officials were not upfront about their viewpoints on this subject before they were elected. Theres a good chance they would not have been elected if they were honest with voters about this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the MOCO leaders truly believe there is general support for these reforms they should put it on a ballot measure and let the voters decide for themselves.

This is not a serious argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our elected officials were not upfront about their viewpoints on this subject before they were elected. Theres a good chance they would not have been elected if they were honest with voters about this subject.

Oh yes they were. The non-incumbents, as well as the incumbents running for re-election. Maybe you weren't aware of their viewpoints, but it's your responsibility to educate yourself (or not) before you vote.