Socialist DC mayoral candidate who sought Mamdani endorsement bought $1M home after railing against single-family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems you ask haven't paid attention to her message. "Lift as we climb" means that she, as part of a dual income family, can do ok, and also strive to help others.

It's not complicated unless you're a selfish turd.

$583,000 was the average home price in Washington DC. per Zillow.
I have zero problem with people spending their own money the way they see fit- and a decent neighborhood with good schools is something I would applaud. I do have a problem with people telling people to live one way while they live another. Just be honest. If you and your husband are millionaires- own it. Don’t preach to the rest of us who aren’t.

So you want to force her out of the neighborhood she grew up in? She's not allowed to buy a house there even though she's done well enough to afford it?

And she's not telling anyone how to live. Restrictive zoning is telling people what they can or can't do with their property.

gtfo with your bad faith arguments

Absolutely the f not. She could have purchased a condo and lived in the multi family housing she wants the rest of us to live in

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt it's "lavish" for 1.1m near the White House. This isn't Kansas.

NP. Does it matter how nice it is if she is railing against people having single family homes?

I’m as against upzoning as the next sane person, but not supporting exclusive SFH zoning doesn’t mean that she hates SFH, nor does it make her a hypocrite, nor does it make her “far left.” This is all just poor logic on your part.

DP. Except - once again:

The home is also situated in a residential zone of the city that “discourages multi-household development,” something George has railed against as part of her campaign.

Not sure how you can possibly square her statements with her actions, but I'm sure you'll try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt it's "lavish" for 1.1m near the White House. This isn't Kansas.

NP. Does it matter how nice it is if she is railing against people having single family homes?

Being against zoning that ONLY allows single family homes to be built is not being against the existence of single family homes.

And yet, that's exactly where she bought her house. Are you people just not bright at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. She could have purchased a condo and lived in the multi family housing she wants the rest of us to live in

+1 to the quoted text.

The issue here is not the stated policy.

The issue is the extreme hypocrisy of do as I say but not as I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt it's "lavish" for 1.1m near the White House. This isn't Kansas.

NP. Does it matter how nice it is if she is railing against people having single family homes?

Being against zoning that ONLY allows single family homes to be built is not being against the existence of single family homes.

And yet, that's exactly where she bought her house. Are you people just not bright at all?

Her second house.

[Anonymous]

I’m a liberal. No one defending Janeese makes sense. We need to be honest with ourselves and show we understand people being honest with themselves. Restrictive housing policies create pretty houses like the one Janeese just brought. They are also exclusionary. Many more people want to live in pretty houses than are available. What do we do about it?

[Anonymous]

Manor Park isn't single family zoned, you ignorant goombas.

Why do Republicans hate truth?

https://www.redfin.com/neighborhood/19417/DC/Washington-DC/Manor-Park/filter/property-type=house+condo+townhouse+multifamily+co-op,viewport=38.96513:38.94825:-77.00836:-77.01917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor_Park_(Washington,_D.C.)

[Anonymous]

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/hold_the_cider_47-unit_apartment_building_planned_in_manor_park/21958

RE1 LLC plans to construct a four-story, 47-unit apartment building at the same Kennedy Street NW address

[Anonymous]

Obviously she should remain homeless until her preferred hoslusing laws are on the books.

If Republicans didn't have bad faith, they'd have no faith at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks pretty nice to me. Regardless, this isn't about how "lavish" the house is. She is a complete hypocrite yet no one on the left is willing to admit it.



The price tag for George’s pad was nearly double the average home value in the District of Columbia, according to the real estate online search platform Redfin, and almost $500,000 more than the average price for a home in that zip code.

Just 15 days before her home purchase, George had published an op-ed decrying “how exclusionary zoning preserves segregation and exacerbates displacement” and blaming “politically-connected wealthy residents” for being opposed to new housing construction.

The Tudor-style home was built in 1935 and spans 3,122 square feet across three levels. It boasts four bedrooms, five bathrooms, a chef’s kitchen including a waterfall island, vaulted ceilings in the primary suite, a finished basement — and a luxe sauna, per a real estate listing.

Sweeping renovations in 2023 transformed the brick exterior and gave the home its striking black-and-white Tudor-meets-contemporary look.

The home is also situated in a residential zone of the city that “[d]iscourages multi-household development,” something George has railed against as part of her campaign.

It was built almost 100 years ago. If it were new development SFH perhaps there would be some sort of irony here, but century-old housing stock is not really part of the problem that her campaign platform highlights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt it's "lavish" for 1.1m near the White House. This isn't Kansas.

NP. Does it matter how nice it is if she is railing against people having single family homes?

I’m as against upzoning as the next sane person, but not supporting exclusive SFH zoning doesn’t mean that she hates SFH, nor does it make her a hypocrite, nor does it make her “far left.” This is all just poor logic on your part.

DP. Except - once again:

The home is also situated in a residential zone of the city that “discourages multi-household development,” something George has railed against as part of her campaign.

Not sure how you can possibly square her statements with her actions, but I'm sure you'll try.

I don't like out tax code, but I pay my taxes.
I don't like "no right on red laws" but I don't turn right on red.
I don't like SFZ, but I live in a home that is currently zoned as SF only. I think the zoning should be changed.
My daughter doesn't agree with the policies of red states, but she currently lives in one.

There is no contradiction here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. She could have purchased a condo and lived in the multi family housing she wants the rest of us to live in

+1 to the quoted text.

The issue here is not the stated policy.

The issue is the extreme hypocrisy of do as I say but not as I do.

No hypocrisy. I believe in gay rights, but I'm not gay.
Is it hypocritical for the liberal to live in a red state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. She could have purchased a condo and lived in the multi family housing she wants the rest of us to live in

+1 to the quoted text.

The issue here is not the stated policy.

The issue is the extreme hypocrisy of do as I say but not as I do.

No hypocrisy. I believe in gay rights, but I'm not gay.
Is it hypocritical for the liberal to live in a red state?

Do you also frequent Chick-fil-A as a supporter of gay rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. She could have purchased a condo and lived in the multi family housing she wants the rest of us to live in

+1 to the quoted text.

The issue here is not the stated policy.

The issue is the extreme hypocrisy of do as I say but not as I do.

No hypocrisy. I believe in gay rights, but I'm not gay.
Is it hypocritical for the liberal to live in a red state?

Do you also frequent Chick-fil-A as a supporter of gay rights?

DP

Chick fil a doesn't support gay rights. Eating Chick fil a is a personal choice. Chick Fil A isn't entitled to my patronage. And there are other options for getting a chicken sandwich. No hypocrisy, no issue there whatsoever. If you think there's one, that's entirely on you.

[Anonymous]

Come on guys. Liberal here. We can understand people spending a lifetime earning and saving for a nice house wanting it to stay nice right? Wanting property values not to drop?

And we can also understand the need for people to have nice, affordable housing.

How do we do that?

We can’t be the party that stands against single family houses, even if that’s just how things get twisted in the media.