MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

So basically you have no clue how upzoning is supposed to drive down housing prices. Just as we figured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

[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.

There is literally miles of underutilized commercial space along Rockvile Pike, Georgia Avenue, etc. There is no lack of space to build all sorts of condos, apartment buildings, townhouses, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People also forget that many of the older homes will be demolished for new builds with multiple flats, in order to maximize profit and lot coverage

I do hope that some of the beautiful older single family homes will be restored however during their conversions.

They are already being demolished for new builds to maximize profit and lot coverage, it's just that they're single-unit new builds. Also they're not necessarily beautiful, unless you're extremely fond of generic ranch or split-level houses.

While no one can legislate good design, I do hope the new, multi-unit builds will complement the older historic homes in massing, scale, and design. (Although most will maximize lot coverage like the current new humongous single family homes). I also hope that least some older homes will undergo thoughtful conversions. Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and Kensington have some very charming neighborhoods that I hope retain their character.

They will not retain their character with upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Agree. I wouldn’t say it’s gentrified either but at the same time the prices of existing housing have kept going up and the new apartments are very expensive. Just another example of YIKBYism not delivering what it promises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces 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: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.

Average people want a place to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

And you know this how?

The majority of people don't want change, period. The majority of people who were there before the neighborhoods were built didn't want the neighborhoods to be built.