There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter

[Anonymous]

Crime rates are associated with areas with a HIGH concentration of extremely low income in a particular areas due in part to the lack of economic and educational opportunity in those areas. Part of the point is to reduce these high concentrations (intentionally created by past public policy by the way) and thereby decrease overall crime.

Sorry, but that doesn't actually work. The poor people bring their problems with them, as demonstrated by the story shared by the North Arlington renter above. Reminds me of how people think that in workplaces, if you move a low performer to a high-performing team, the low-performer will improve, when studies show that what actually happens is that everyone gets dragged down and that the team gets worse overall.

I have data, do you?

“We found that the connection people observe between voucher households and crime has more to do with the fact that voucher households have limited options on the housing market, and they are more likely to move to higher crime environments,” he said. “It’s not that they tend to bring crime to neighborhoods.”

Here is "data" from the research you referenced.
It states that there was "a 2 percent increase in burglary" and "a 2 percent increase assault and battery ... in and near the blocks in which the former high-rise households relocated". Also mentioned in the research you referenced. "a study of crime reports, arrests, and voucher records in Chicago suggests that relocated households are more likely to be the alleged perpetrators of crime and more likely to be the victims of crime than the average resident in the neighborhoods to which they move" It does bring crime to the neighborhoods where they relocate to and the research does not even refute this statement. The research author is just claiming that it is"more to do with" limited financial resources, which is a very dubious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

I am 33yo high earner and am quite the opposite. People need to figure it out. If you want to live close in then you may need to be in an apt or condo/TH. If you want a house, move to Olney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.

Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.

When you bet against the younger generation, you always lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

These micro luxury apartments aren't getting filled. Upton place was meant to be condos, then apartments, now a pop up hotel? Maybe the developers will get the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

Deeply affordable housing is wonderful because it brings so much value to the community. The low income housing complex near my neighborhood has only had two murders in the last three years.

At least you don’t have them under the same roof. We rented in Arlington and we’re not told there were set aside affordable units in the expensive condo building. We are in the 11th month of a 12 month lease and are moving to a small condo in Falls Church which limits the number of rentals.

All the fires, arrests, break ins, stolen packages, fire alarms, pool clearings, police calls were down to the affordable unit people. They also grabbed food meant for others from drivers that we nowvhave to go to the delivery person’s car to get a delivery.

This was $2,400 a month in North Arlington so it wasn’t a slum.

+1. This is the ugly truth that you're not supposed to talk about. Just wait for Plan Langston Blvd.

Supporting affordable housing is fine, but don't lie about the consequences. Crime rates will go up. There is a 20x discrepancy between incarceration rates among males born to families in bottom 10% of income distribution vs the top 10% of income distribution. There is no serious research that suggests any crime prevention policies will come close to reducing the incidence of criminality by 95%.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/14/17114226/incarceration-family-income-parents-study-brookings-rich-kid-poor-kid

Crime rates are associated with areas with a HIGH concentration of extremely low income in a particular areas due in part to the lack of economic and educational opportunity in those areas. Part of the point is to reduce these high concentrations (intentionally created by past public policy by the way) and thereby decrease overall crime.

Sounds like redistributing crime, not decreasing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^boomer is a state of mind, not an age range. You can be a 30 year old boomer

30 year old boomers, if such a thing exists, weren't buying houses in 1940 either.

[Anonymous]

There are 4400 vacant units in Alexandria alone. Anyone that wants to try and convince me that there isn't enough housing can SMD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 4400 vacant units in Alexandria alone. Anyone that wants to try and convince me that there isn't enough housing can SMD.

Nobody needs to convince you of anything. You can have any opinion you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

You give developers way too much credit. They specialize in using a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to them. Secondly, we just came out of a period of easy money where even bad projects penciled out. It will take a while for the new financial reality to sink in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.

Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc

That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.

That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196

There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.

lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.

I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.

Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?

DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.

Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.

You give developers way too much credit. They specialize in using a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to them. Secondly, we just came out of a period of easy money where even bad projects penciled out. It will take a while for the new financial reality to sink in.

Too much credit for what? Building what they think there's demand for? If it turns out there isn't demand - well, it's their money. Being more informed about demand than anonymous complainers on DCUM? That's a low bar, and yes, I think they clear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

It was difficult for the boomers to buy back then too, but we didn't blow our money on stupid stuff like $5 lattes and $1000 phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

It was difficult for the boomers to buy back then too, but we didn't blow our money on stupid stuff like $5 lattes and $1000 phones.

Because they didn't exist. Let's talk about the stupid stuff that did exist that boomers did blow their money on.