Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol no. Just build more housing. This isn't complicated to anyone but NIMBY trash.

Another adorable argument from the cutest developer pets, the YIMBY.

Do you have any proof that upzoning will do anything that you think it will?

Something academic and researched with citations, not from the some YIMBY yokel blog.

This was a few minutes of search, but it’s all out there if you look. I think that the conclusion you will find that more housing is good, trying to shoehorn in into existing neighborhoods is stupid and a waste of energy.

We can start here, with an interview with a UCLA and London School of Economics Professor.

https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve-affordable-housing-crisis

Link to the referenced article:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb

Here is analysis how how upzoning worked elsewhere (links/citations within):

https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/21/colorado-housing-bill-upzoning/

But it appears that the end of single-family zoning wasn’t the real driver behind Minneapolis’ flat rent prices. The production of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes has been very modest — just 53 units in 2021, for example — since the 2040 plan went into effect.

“The change hasn’t been that big,” said Alex Schieferdecker, a Twin Cities transit planner who’s analyzed city development data.

Rather, it appears that earlier parking reforms were responsible for a boom in new apartment buildings, and the subsequent rent moderation. Minneapolis has eliminated minimum parking requirements for new developments — first for areas near frequent transit lines in 2015 and later for the entire city.

Another article pointing out that trying to force housing into established neighborhoods is a waste of time and energy when better solutions exist.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348955586_Exploring_the_Impacts_of_Zoning_and_Upzoning_on_Housing_Development_A_Quasi-experimental_Analysis_at_the_Parcel_Level

Because redevelopments tend to be costlier, the effect of upzoning would be much stronger when it is applied to vacant parcels or underutilized parcels. When citywide blanket upzoning is politically difficult, localized upzoning should target vacant and underutilized parcels. The effect of upzoning in built-up areas tends to be weak. I anticipate a moderate impact of upzoning on housing developments in a built-up city such as Portland where less than 10% of land is vacant. Geographically, I expect to see a more prominent effect of citywide upzoning in suburban and fringe areas where developers can find more vacant and underutilized land… Simply permitting residential buildings in commercial zones or rezoning commercial zones into mixed-use zones can create a huge potential for multifamily housing development. Another advantage of rezoning commercial zones into mixed-use zones is that rezoning in commercial districts usually faces a lot less neighborhood resistance compared to upzoning in single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, modifying commercial zones to allow mixed-use developments could be another policy option to increase housing supply when large-scale upzoning in single-family neighborhoods is politically difficult.

Of course, neighborhoods and areas and demographics are different. In poorer neighborhoods the upzoning very well might cause a lot of gentrification…

https://www.thewagnerreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Team-1_Final-Version_v2.pdf

We find that upzonings that occurred between 2000 and 2007 are associated with a five to nine percentage point increase in the share of White people in that area. This influx is particularly notable

We could do this all day. Do you have…anything besides “more is gooder!” Anything that takes into account efficiency or possible unintended consequences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

Your property will be more valuable, but the increased number of rental units will help stablize the rental market, which is where affordability is needed.

[Anonymous]

I’m from Long Beach, ÇA which has Long allowed for ADUs. Much of the city was developed in the 1940s-60s with ADUs in the backyard. The city once again liberalized the zoning and building codes to streamline construction of ADUs.

The first thing they did was ban ADUs from appearing on short term rental websites. If you build an ADU, it cannot legally be rented on Airbnb or VRBO. All homes in the city that are ST rentals must be licensed by the city, there’s a limited number of licenses, and an ADU (either old or new) will never qualify for a ST rental license.

It seems to be a pretty good compromise. Of course, the RE investors hate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

Why would you spend $300,000 to build a 1,300 square foot house? That's $230 per square foot.

And why would I object to you renting it at market rate?

[Anonymous]

ADUs are fine and there aren’t enough of them to make a difference at a macro level. They might one day be an important source of affordable rentals.

Government policy seems to be more about creating affordable houses available for rent instead of affordable houses available for purchase. That seems backward, given the huge subsidies for ownership and the clear benefits of ownership for generational wealth creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ADUs are fine and there aren’t enough of them to make a difference at a macro level. They might one day be an important source of affordable rentals.

Government policy seems to be more about creating affordable houses available for rent instead of affordable houses available for purchase. That seems backward, given the huge subsidies for ownership and the clear benefits of ownership for generational wealth creation.

Maybe there shouldn't be huge subsidies for ownership. Maybe homeownership shouldn't be the major route for generational wealth creation. Maybe both of those goverment policies are bad policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

[Anonymous]

As a single person I love ADUs because they potentially allow me to live in a nice neighborhood without having to by a 1.2 to 3 million dollar house. I have asthma and hate second hand smoke etc. Haven’t found one to rent yet but ADUs are good for people like me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

Your property will be more valuable, but the increased number of rental units will help stablize the rental market, which is where affordability is needed.

And the government will tell you how much rent you charge but not collect. So win-win?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

[Anonymous]

The way to make housing more affordable in the district is to stop policing certain areas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will result in there being more houses in those areas for people to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will result in there being more houses in those areas for people to live in.

Doesn't this change single family zoning into DC into at least two-family-plus zoning in many parts of DC?