Expansion of Housing Choice Voucher Program in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

You must not have read today's Post article about urban heat domes. I don't think I need to justify liking tree canopy and other foliage. Speaking of which, what on earth is that godawful structure that has gone up on the lawn of the Fannie Mae/City Ridge site? They have completely lost the vista and feel of the Fannie Mae lawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I know someone who lives in a rent controlled NW apartment. They are exactly the kind of person people say they want "affordable housing" for. At least one of the prototypes - hard working, responsible,.service type job,.could not afford it otherwise, definitely appreciative and add to our city.

Exactly. And rent controlled housing exists today - it needs to be nurtured, preserved and even expanded. Ward 3 today has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the District, with access to good schools, etc for working class families. Yet when one brings up the importance of rent controlled housing with OP and their allies in the DC Smart Growth industry they get incredibly defensive. They only want to talk about more development and the (paltry) resulting number of IZ units (that aren’t really affordable). It’s like “affordable housing” is just a pretext for them, to build more dense upmarket mixed use in high profit areas of DC.

YOu are either trying to mislead or you are uninformed. Rent control units do almost nothing to deliver affordable housing to low income renters. Rent control is NOT means-tested so anyone of any income can snag a rent contolled unit and hang on to it for an entire life (see NYC). I lived in rent contolled unit for 10 years in DC in a very nice area and my income was over 90k. my place was super cheap but I certainly didnt need rent control.

They are usually not the swankiest of apartments, so that's a little misleading. I am fine with having working poor/middle class afford reasonable apartments in the city via rent control. Healthy, thriving, "vibrant" cities don't need to be exclusively poor/rich barbells --but thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

And it’s downright shameless when DC Smart Growth operatives who worked with Trump - the most anti-climate President - try to offer climate change as a pretext for zoning changes to build more upmarket flats across DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I know someone who lives in a rent controlled NW apartment. They are exactly the kind of person people say they want "affordable housing" for. At least one of the prototypes - hard working, responsible,.service type job,.could not afford it otherwise, definitely appreciative and add to our city.

Exactly. And rent controlled housing exists today - it needs to be nurtured, preserved and even expanded. Ward 3 today has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the District, with access to good schools, etc for working class families. Yet when one brings up the importance of rent controlled housing with OP and their allies in the DC Smart Growth industry they get incredibly defensive. They only want to talk about more development and the (paltry) resulting number of IZ units (that aren’t really affordable). It’s like “affordable housing” is just a pretext for them, to build more dense upmarket mixed use in high profit areas of DC.

And there is a reason for that which is that rent control units are not income screened nor are their numbers growing nor is there a mechanism to grow them. It is worth adding one of the other reasons landlords love to convert them to vouchers is because it effectively allows them to raise the rent without investing any money in them - if you've ever checked out any rent controlled buildings most of them are in abysmal condition because the landlord has no incentive to do more than the bare minimum to keep them legal.

What is interesting is that the price for rent control units in Ward 3 at least is not much lower than the market rate for units in older buildings that aren't near Metro - it is not unusual to find a 1 bedroom in an older building on Upper CT or in Glover Park for $1400 a month.

IZ through new construction actually puts new build units into an income restricted program while also delivering badly needed market rate units which reduce the pressure to convert/upgrade existing units.

The problem is that because of NIMBYs hardly any new units are getting built in affluent areas but if they were IZ could relatively quickly catch up to the modest number of rent control units which is actually about 8% of the city total so it is not a high bar.

What do you call 1500 units being built now in two blocks alone in Ward 3? Chump change? DC Smart Growth shills need to start telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

And it’s downright shameless when DC Smart Growth operatives who worked with Trump - the most anti-climate President - try to offer climate change as a pretext for zoning changes to build more upmarket flats across DC.

Please go and take your meds.

Wow, you are really desperate. Climate change has been an incessant DC Smart Growth pretext and we aren't buying it.

[Anonymous]

Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

You must not have read today's Post article about urban heat domes. I don't think I need to justify liking tree canopy and other foliage. Speaking of which, what on earth is that godawful structure that has gone up on the lawn of the Fannie Mae/City Ridge site? They have completely lost the vista and feel of the Fannie Mae lawn.

That is the garage entrance. It looks concrete now but it is the roof and base to the green roof which is part of the overall green area of City Ridge.

I am not sure anybody realized that it would entirely block your view of the Fannie Mae facade when approaching City Ridge from the south on Wis. You now have to be adjacent to the site to see the development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I know someone who lives in a rent controlled NW apartment. They are exactly the kind of person people say they want "affordable housing" for. At least one of the prototypes - hard working, responsible,.service type job,.could not afford it otherwise, definitely appreciative and add to our city.

Exactly. And rent controlled housing exists today - it needs to be nurtured, preserved and even expanded. Ward 3 today has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the District, with access to good schools, etc for working class families. Yet when one brings up the importance of rent controlled housing with OP and their allies in the DC Smart Growth industry they get incredibly defensive. They only want to talk about more development and the (paltry) resulting number of IZ units (that aren’t really affordable). It’s like “affordable housing” is just a pretext for them, to build more dense upmarket mixed use in high profit areas of DC.

YOu are either trying to mislead or you are uninformed. Rent control units do almost nothing to deliver affordable housing to low income renters. Rent control is NOT means-tested so anyone of any income can snag a rent contolled unit and hang on to it for an entire life (see NYC). I lived in rent contolled unit for 10 years in DC in a very nice area and my income was over 90k. my place was super cheap but I certainly didnt need rent control.

+1

This is anecdotal but all of the rent controlled apartments I know of in NYC have been passed down within a family for decades. These a couples making 150K in NYC paying 1000 a month for a two bedroom apartment.

[Anonymous]

The rent controlled housing situation is totally different than the unusual legal structure in NYC. Trumpy Smart Growthers especially should know the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

Or when Trump campaign apparatchiks, who worked for the most anti-climate president in US history then claim… you guessed it, climate change to sell their other clients’ aggressive development agenda for DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

Or when Trump campaign apparatchiks, who worked for the most anti-climate president in US history then claim… you guessed it, climate change to sell their other clients’ aggressive development agenda for DC.

That would be discouraging if it happened, but fortunately it's fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

You must not have read today's Post article about urban heat domes. I don't think I need to justify liking tree canopy and other foliage. Speaking of which, what on earth is that godawful structure that has gone up on the lawn of the Fannie Mae/City Ridge site? They have completely lost the vista and feel of the Fannie Mae lawn.

That is the garage entrance. It looks concrete now but it is the roof and base to the green roof which is part of the overall green area of City Ridge.

I am not sure anybody realized that it would entirely block your view of the Fannie Mae facade when approaching City Ridge from the south on Wis. You now have to be adjacent to the site to see the development.

It really changed the sweep of the view. Tenleytown has borne so much development. Can we hit pause for a minute?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.