We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

[Anonymous]

DC's population is shrinking. By a lot. Look how many people have filed permanent change of address forms with the post office.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of middle-income homes in Prince George's, if buyers would broaden their horizons beyond certain pricey neighborhoods in the District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

The median home price in the United States is less than $270,000. There are cities, towns and villages across the country that are losing population. A couple making $15 per hour working full time would make roughly the current U.S. median household income and could easily afford to buy the median home. We are a big country, with plenty of room for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

DC has a smaller population than it did in 1950. And I do not believe the homeless population was larger in 1950 than today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't live live they did in the 1950s. The market has moved on. Younger residents want their own places and buyers/renters want more amenities.
The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

DC has a smaller population than it did in 1950. And I do not believe the homeless population was larger in 1950 than today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

DC has a smaller population than it did in 1950. And I do not believe the homeless population was larger in 1950 than today.

But people don't live live they did in the 1950s. The market has moved on. Younger residents want their own place and buyers/renters want more amenities.
The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

The point that you are refusing to acknowledge is that more quantity is not always better. I suppose that you don’t eat all of your meals at a buffet, correct?

First let's agree that there needs to be more housing, and it has to go somewhere, and it has to be built by someone.

I do not agree with that. Claims of shortages or crises are unfounded. Housing utilization can be improved through appropriate tax policy and economic policy.

DC has a smaller population than it did in 1950. And I do not believe the homeless population was larger in 1950 than today.

In 1950, my grandfather rented a room in a boarding house in 16th Street Heights (and he was a dentist). I don't think many 30something professionals with doctorate degrees are in the market for single rooms these days, for better of for worse. The entire housing market is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

No, but expensive cities are where economic opportunities are. Cities like DC, New York, and Boston are expensive not just because of the cultural amenities they offer, but also because of their dynamic economies that create opportunities for people looking to climb the socioeconomic ladder. If you expect people to be able to transcend themselves, you need to give them opportunities to do so. Locking them out of cities with dynamic economies because they can't afford housing is not only short-sighted, but also mean-spirited.

Sure there's plenty of cheap housing in this country, but it's largely in far-flung exurban and rural cities with stagnant economies. Housing is cheap in Staunton because there's little economic opportunity, unless you consider rounding up shopping carts at the Dollar General to be economic opportunity. Telling someone who can't afford DC to bugger off to Staunton for the cheap housing is also cutting them off from opportunity.

And by the way, the purchase of your house was subsidized by the government, so spare us all the intellectually bankrupt rhetoric about subsidized housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors.

Perhaps instead of letting those areas die and cramming everyone into the smallest space possible, we should create policies that allow the less populated areas to thrive.