Cities with No Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

So, they won't get rich or build wealth. Maybe they will just find a place to live, for a price they are willing to pay, that makes a profit for some developer who wants to build that.

Why is that a problem?

Why should they instead go gentrify some other area, accelerating displacement, when the market would supply them with what they want? Why should they go live somewhere distant where they will add to GHGs and congest the highways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone can live in DuPont Circle. Sorry!

Exactly, all I see is anguish that someone cannot afford the type of housing or neighborhood for the same price as where they have to resort to living now, obviously not satisfied with their options. I don't see millions descending upon DC in search of homes and whoever lives here or comes and goes seems to find place to live according to the budget. My working class family managed to buy homes in South Arlington and Silver Spring and further out burbs to get nicer homes, they are not rich or even professionals. My wealthier friends all own decent homes in NWDC, Mclean, Bethesda, GF, Clarendon. My poor cousin lives in a garden apartment zoned for Longfellow, because that's all she can afford and because she is dead set on her kid going there, but she is not homeless and doesn't have to resort to living in unsafe area. My DINK friends rent a luxury condo in trendy part of DC and my disabled low income relative lives in an apartment in NWDC. Where is the crisis other than people with LMC budget wanting to live UMC lifestyle?

Working people being homeless is weird criteria for a housing crisis.

Too many middle and working class people spend too much of their income on housing, which also hurts the rest of the economy (though its good for landlords, I guess)

Too many people are in inadequate or substandard housing.

And too many people have unnecessarily long commutes - leading to harm to the physical and mental health and financial well being, adding congestion to our roads (at signficant financial cost to local govts), and at harm to our regional and planetary environment.

And this is despite the existence of new supply, both market rate and committed affordable, thanks to the efforts of planners, urbanists, and housing advocates.

The problem you describe here is with capitalism and the fact that RE is an asset to be sold/bought/traded. Everyone wants property prices to drop when they are looking to buy. Once they become home owners, they want the opposite, they want prices to rise at least to keep up with inflation as paper money depreciates. Most of the Americans, especially MC have majority of their wealth in their primary residence. Everyone who owns stakes in RE will vote against policies that would reduce their wealth, that's pretty much it.

To accommodate those who make no income or make very low income you have to have government subsidized housing, because private RE owners and developers will not sacrifice their bottom line without some significant subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

Who said that the PP did NOT buy in Dupont then? Why personalize this? This, IMO, is about what is the best policy for the city, the region, the planet, not about showing that you are better than someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone can live in DuPont Circle. Sorry!

Exactly, all I see is anguish that someone cannot afford the type of housing or neighborhood for the same price as where they have to resort to living now, obviously not satisfied with their options. I don't see millions descending upon DC in search of homes and whoever lives here or comes and goes seems to find place to live according to the budget. My working class family managed to buy homes in South Arlington and Silver Spring and further out burbs to get nicer homes, they are not rich or even professionals. My wealthier friends all own decent homes in NWDC, Mclean, Bethesda, GF, Clarendon. My poor cousin lives in a garden apartment zoned for Longfellow, because that's all she can afford and because she is dead set on her kid going there, but she is not homeless and doesn't have to resort to living in unsafe area. My DINK friends rent a luxury condo in trendy part of DC and my disabled low income relative lives in an apartment in NWDC. Where is the crisis other than people with LMC budget wanting to live UMC lifestyle?

Working people being homeless is weird criteria for a housing crisis.

Too many middle and working class people spend too much of their income on housing, which also hurts the rest of the economy (though its good for landlords, I guess)

Too many people are in inadequate or substandard housing.

And too many people have unnecessarily long commutes - leading to harm to the physical and mental health and financial well being, adding congestion to our roads (at signficant financial cost to local govts), and at harm to our regional and planetary environment.

And this is despite the existence of new supply, both market rate and committed affordable, thanks to the efforts of planners, urbanists, and housing advocates.

The problem you describe here is with capitalism and the fact that RE is an asset to be sold/bought/traded. Everyone wants property prices to drop when they are looking to buy. Once they become home owners, they want the opposite, they want prices to rise at least to keep up with inflation as paper money depreciates. Most of the Americans, especially MC have majority of their wealth in their primary residence. Everyone who owns stakes in RE will vote against policies that would reduce their wealth, that's pretty much it.

To accommodate those who make no income or make very low income you have to have government subsidized housing, because private RE owners and developers will not sacrifice their bottom line without some significant subsidies.

1. For genuinely low income people, subsidies are needed. And many different kinds of subsidies exist, including, as noted above, density bonuses

2. For the rest we may NOT need subsidies, just getting out of the way of private developers, so we let supply impact the market. That is ALSO opposed by people who hoard opportunity, but not by their actions in the market - but by their actions as voters, supporting restrictive zoning. As the logic of that is pointed out, the position becomes politically weaker. We can see it has lost in Minneapolis, where apts have been legalized in all residential zones. In Seattle where they have been legalized in much of the City. In California where there is major support for state mandated upzoning near transit that would override local NIMBYISM.

In our region, MoCo has just relaxed rules on accessory dwelling units. Arlington is looking at something similar, and at other changes. In DC the lawsuit blocking the McMillan development has lost.


Change is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

Who said that the PP did NOT buy in Dupont then? Why personalize this? This, IMO, is about what is the best policy for the city, the region, the planet, not about showing that you are better than someone else.

Everything on DCUM is about showing that you are better than someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

So, they won't get rich or build wealth. Maybe they will just find a place to live, for a price they are willing to pay, that makes a profit for some developer who wants to build that.

Why is that a problem?

Why should they instead go gentrify some other area, accelerating displacement, when the market would supply them with what they want? Why should they go live somewhere distant where they will add to GHGs and congest the highways?

Because socialism and entitlement! Or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

Who said that the PP did NOT buy in Dupont then? Why personalize this? This, IMO, is about what is the best policy for the city, the region, the planet, not about showing that you are better than someone else.

Everything on DCUM is about showing that you are better than someone else.

Duh. I forgot. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone can live in DuPont Circle. Sorry!

More people could live there than do, and the same is true for plenty of other close in, transit served places. Dupont circle is served by a metro station that was NOT built by locals who currently live there, why shouldn't we leverage it further? And its walking distance to the White House and gads of jobs, why shouldn't we have more people living walking distance to work?

And we wouldn't do this only at Dupont, but at lots and lots of close in and metro served locations. Everyone can and should have more and better housing choices than they do now.

I'm sorry you can't afford to live in the very best neighborhoods. It is a tragedy.

I remember when DuPont Circle was a sketchy neighborhood. I remember when no one walked down 14th street at night except for prostitutes. I remember when cabs wouldn't take you to Petworth. No one wants to live in "bad neighborhoods" until they become "good neighborhoods" and then suddenly everyone wants to live in the same place, in the place they previously turned their nose up at.

So, why didn't you buy in Dupont then? It used to be dirt cheap, you could have made an investment and cashed out big today. I guess it wasn't desirable then, it was scary, it was a risk, so you didn't want it, and now you cannot afford to live there and want some big daddy come in and build highrises all over to make it dirt cheap for you, so that you can take advantage of all the improvements without taking any risk like early investors or working on building wealth like new buyers who can afford it.

+1.

There's lots of affordable housing here. It's just in neighborhoods where entitled white guys don't want to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's lots of affordable housing here. It's just in neighborhoods where entitled white guys don't want to live.

Your solution seems to be for the entitled white guys to push out the non-entitled non-white guys. Who will then go where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's lots of affordable housing here. It's just in neighborhoods where entitled white guys don't want to live.

Your solution seems to be for the entitled white guys to push out the non-entitled non-white guys. Who will then go where?

I am guessing PP wants them to go "back to the shithole countries they come from" or something like that.

[Anonymous]

It's only "displacement" when you ask the change-the-zoning-laws-crowd to move into neighborhoods they don't want to move into (i.e. predominantly black neighborhoods). When it's a neighborhood they want to get into (i.e. everywhere else), it's all about "culture change."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's only "displacement" when you ask the change-the-zoning-laws-crowd to move into neighborhoods they don't want to move into (i.e. predominantly black neighborhoods). When it's a neighborhood they want to get into (i.e. everywhere else), it's all about "culture change."

Do what now?

[Anonymous]

The affordable housing advocates arguments seem to begin and end with saying that increasing supply will reduce prices.

What I don't understand is that the more single-family homes you tear down, in order to replace them with luxury condos, the more valuable single-family homes become.

Which means their price goes through the roof. Which means it no longer becomes economical for developers to buy single-family homes so they can replace them with luxury condos. Which means this whole process of trying to increase density stops. And the relax-the-zoning laws crowd is never able to get the massive number of new units built that they'd need to put in a dent in prices.

Also, if you own a single-family home and you're thinking of selling, and a developer comes sniffing around, you should triple your asking price. Why should developers make all the money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The affordable housing advocates arguments seem to begin and end with saying that increasing supply will reduce prices.

What I don't understand is that the more single-family homes you tear down, in order to replace them with luxury condos, the more valuable single-family homes become.

Which means their price goes through the roof. Which means it no longer becomes economical for developers to buy single-family homes so they can replace them with luxury condos. Which means this whole process of trying to increase density stops. And the relax-the-zoning laws crowd is never able to get the massive number of new units built that they'd need to put in a dent in prices.

Also, if you own a single-family home and you're thinking of selling, and a developer comes sniffing around, you should triple your asking price. Why should developers make all the money?

First: no, it begins there, but it doesn't end there.

Second: there are lots of places that people can build multi-family housing that don't involve buying and knocking down single-family housing.

Third: if you own single-family housing and you triple your asking price, the builder will likely look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Brookings responds

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/07/24/the-future-of-the-city-doesnt-have-to-be-childless/