The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.

So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character.

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.

You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?

Well, let's see. Each ANC holds roughly 2,000 people, so let's assume Tenleytown and Friendship Heights currently have about 3,000 people, rounding up for the sake of argument. I'm a different PP, and I'd be fine with adding more than 1,000 new affordable units in the neighborhood -- which would, assuming most of them are built to suit families, approximately double the current population. I think it'd probably be hard to fit many more units than that into the area, but it would be space, not the existence of more residents or their income levels, that would be my main worry about adding more than that.

The Tenleytown primary area had an estimated population of about 4000 when Planning did a SWOT analysis back in 2012. It’s undoubtedly higher now, but that’s a good number.

Currently Ward 3 has a poverty rate of 9%. By your own account you want to take the poverty rate of Tenleytown above 27%, which is 50% higher than the citywide poverty rate of 18% and according to you, this is unambiguously good and will not change the character of the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Affordable housing doesn't mean poverty. Sheesh, no one is talking about homeless shelters for thousands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.

So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character.

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.

You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?

I don't care if the "character" of the neighborhood changes. Affordable housing is generally good, hardworking people who simply make less than the AMI. Who doesn't want good hardworking people as neighbors, as fellow parents in schools etc? I don't get what the point you are trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing doesn't mean poverty. Sheesh, no one is talking about homeless shelters for thousands.

Oh my bad. I thought more neighbors were welcome. Thanks for clarifying that you only want neighbors at 80% AMI but not below. You don’t want to live by poor people either? I don’t blame you. But here’s a tip, in order to have vibrant retail you need more affluent people with high disposable incomes. If your goal is Columbia Heights income demographics then expect Columbia Heights retail. Or, instead of remaking Tenleytown into Columbia Heights to suit you, you could just move to Columbia Heights which seems to suit you better?

[Anonymous]

NP. I support "urbanism" if that means a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to thinking about development that is good for families and the environment.

It concerns me, however, when it's just manifested in random, performative acts of pretend solidarity with certain groups to build or cement a political coalition. There are a lot of politicians who never shut up about the need for more affordable housing, but many of them live in areas that won't be affected at all and make next to no effort to grapple with the infrastructure needs that would accompany additional housing density. They'll talk about how it's only "fair" if more AH is built in one affluent suburb, but leave out the fact that they live in a different suburb or that the schools (public or private) their own kids attend won't be impacted at all. You might wonder why they'd do this, but they've made a very calculated decision that the benefits of appealing to other self-styled progressive voters and politicians outweighs the risk of having their own hypocrisy called out by people who can always quickly be put down as NIMBYs, Trumpists, or reactionaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I support "urbanism" if that means a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to thinking about development that is good for families and the environment.

It concerns me, however, when it's just manifested in random, performative acts of pretend solidarity with certain groups to build or cement a political coalition. There are a lot of politicians who never shut up about the need for more affordable housing, but many of them live in areas that won't be affected at all and make next to no effort to grapple with the infrastructure needs that would accompany additional housing density. They'll talk about how it's only "fair" if more AH is built in one affluent suburb, but leave out the fact that they live in a different suburb or that the schools (public or private) their own kids attend won't be impacted at all. You might wonder why they'd do this, but they've made a very calculated decision that the benefits of appealing to other self-styled progressive voters and politicians outweighs the risk of having their own hypocrisy called out by people who can always quickly be put down as NIMBYs, Trumpists, or reactionaries.

100% This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.

So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character.

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.

You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?

Well, let's see. Each ANC holds roughly 2,000 people, so let's assume Tenleytown and Friendship Heights currently have about 3,000 people, rounding up for the sake of argument. I'm a different PP, and I'd be fine with adding more than 1,000 new affordable units in the neighborhood -- which would, assuming most of them are built to suit families, approximately double the current population. I think it'd probably be hard to fit many more units than that into the area, but it would be space, not the existence of more residents or their income levels, that would be my main worry about adding more than that.

The Tenleytown primary area had an estimated population of about 4000 when Planning did a SWOT analysis back in 2012. It’s undoubtedly higher now, but that’s a good number.

Currently Ward 3 has a poverty rate of 9%. By your own account you want to take the poverty rate of Tenleytown above 27%, which is 50% higher than the citywide poverty rate of 18% and according to you, this is unambiguously good and will not change the character of the neighborhood.

This is more bad-faith argument, since you initially started asking for upper bounds and are now taking them as minimums or goals. But yes, I think it'd be just fine. (Another poster here is also correct that not every single household that qualifies for affordable housing makes below poverty-level incomes, so your numbers are even more bogus than my ANC-based guess was, but that's beside the point.) I've lived in mixed-income neighborhoods before I lived in Tenleytown, so the idea that -- gasp! -- 1 in 4 of the people who live near me might be poor isn't really as horrifying to me as you seem to think it would be.

What's the point you're trying to make, exactly? First you implied people advocating for more affordable housing and density in Tenleytown weren't asking for enough. Now you're suggesting we want too much. If you just oppose adding any affordable housing to this neighborhood, you can just say so; you certainly fit in well with a large number of our neighbors, and at any rate, this forum is anonymous and nothing that gets posted here manifests itself into policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing doesn't mean poverty. Sheesh, no one is talking about homeless shelters for thousands.

Oh my bad. I thought more neighbors were welcome. Thanks for clarifying that you only want neighbors at 80% AMI but not below. You don’t want to live by poor people either? I don’t blame you. But here’s a tip, in order to have vibrant retail you need more affluent people with high disposable incomes. If your goal is Columbia Heights income demographics then expect Columbia Heights retail. Or, instead of remaking Tenleytown into Columbia Heights to suit you, you could just move to Columbia Heights which seems to suit you better?

Oh, vibrant retail is what we have in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights? Sorry, I thought we primarily had bank branches, CVS locations, take-out restaurants catering to college kids, framing stores with unpredictable hours, and vacant storefronts that used to hold luxury brands but don't anymore. Good thing there's so much income nearby, or we might have what Columbia Heights has!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.

So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character.

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.

You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?

Well, let's see. Each ANC holds roughly 2,000 people, so let's assume Tenleytown and Friendship Heights currently have about 3,000 people, rounding up for the sake of argument. I'm a different PP, and I'd be fine with adding more than 1,000 new affordable units in the neighborhood -- which would, assuming most of them are built to suit families, approximately double the current population. I think it'd probably be hard to fit many more units than that into the area, but it would be space, not the existence of more residents or their income levels, that would be my main worry about adding more than that.

The Tenleytown primary area had an estimated population of about 4000 when Planning did a SWOT analysis back in 2012. It’s undoubtedly higher now, but that’s a good number.

Currently Ward 3 has a poverty rate of 9%. By your own account you want to take the poverty rate of Tenleytown above 27%, which is 50% higher than the citywide poverty rate of 18% and according to you, this is unambiguously good and will not change the character of the neighborhood.

This is more bad-faith argument, since you initially started asking for upper bounds and are now taking them as minimums or goals. But yes, I think it'd be just fine. (Another poster here is also correct that not every single household that qualifies for affordable housing makes below poverty-level incomes, so your numbers are even more bogus than my ANC-based guess was, but that's beside the point.) I've lived in mixed-income neighborhoods before I lived in Tenleytown, so the idea that -- gasp! -- 1 in 4 of the people who live near me might be poor isn't really as horrifying to me as you seem to think it would be.

What's the point you're trying to make, exactly? First you implied people advocating for more affordable housing and density in Tenleytown weren't asking for enough. Now you're suggesting we want too much. If you just oppose adding any affordable housing to this neighborhood, you can just say so; you certainly fit in well with a large number of our neighbors, and at any rate, this forum is anonymous and nothing that gets posted here manifests itself into policy.

The point is that turning a low poverty neighborhood into a high poverty neighborhood is a pretty significant and important change and I think there is merit to having an open discussion about that rather than you folks trying to play both sides, demanding policy changes to favor higher density and more affordable housing while also claiming that it’s not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing doesn't mean poverty. Sheesh, no one is talking about homeless shelters for thousands.

Oh my bad. I thought more neighbors were welcome. Thanks for clarifying that you only want neighbors at 80% AMI but not below. You don’t want to live by poor people either? I don’t blame you. But here’s a tip, in order to have vibrant retail you need more affluent people with high disposable incomes. If your goal is Columbia Heights income demographics then expect Columbia Heights retail. Or, instead of remaking Tenleytown into Columbia Heights to suit you, you could just move to Columbia Heights which seems to suit you better?

Somehow Columbia Heights was able to keep its Best Buy and instead Tenleytown has a ... Target. So I don't think you are saying what you meant to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing doesn't mean poverty. Sheesh, no one is talking about homeless shelters for thousands.

Oh my bad. I thought more neighbors were welcome. Thanks for clarifying that you only want neighbors at 80% AMI but not below. You don’t want to live by poor people either? I don’t blame you. But here’s a tip, in order to have vibrant retail you need more affluent people with high disposable incomes. If your goal is Columbia Heights income demographics then expect Columbia Heights retail. Or, instead of remaking Tenleytown into Columbia Heights to suit you, you could just move to Columbia Heights which seems to suit you better?

Oh, vibrant retail is what we have in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights? Sorry, I thought we primarily had bank branches, CVS locations, take-out restaurants catering to college kids, framing stores with unpredictable hours, and vacant storefronts that used to hold luxury brands but don't anymore. Good thing there's so much income nearby, or we might have what Columbia Heights has!

Freindship Heights has a vacancy rate for retail over 50%.

That is the opposite of vibrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.

So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character.

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.

You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?

Well, let's see. Each ANC holds roughly 2,000 people, so let's assume Tenleytown and Friendship Heights currently have about 3,000 people, rounding up for the sake of argument. I'm a different PP, and I'd be fine with adding more than 1,000 new affordable units in the neighborhood -- which would, assuming most of them are built to suit families, approximately double the current population. I think it'd probably be hard to fit many more units than that into the area, but it would be space, not the existence of more residents or their income levels, that would be my main worry about adding more than that.

The Tenleytown primary area had an estimated population of about 4000 when Planning did a SWOT analysis back in 2012. It’s undoubtedly higher now, but that’s a good number.

Currently Ward 3 has a poverty rate of 9%. By your own account you want to take the poverty rate of Tenleytown above 27%, which is 50% higher than the citywide poverty rate of 18% and according to you, this is unambiguously good and will not change the character of the neighborhood.

This is more bad-faith argument, since you initially started asking for upper bounds and are now taking them as minimums or goals. But yes, I think it'd be just fine. (Another poster here is also correct that not every single household that qualifies for affordable housing makes below poverty-level incomes, so your numbers are even more bogus than my ANC-based guess was, but that's beside the point.) I've lived in mixed-income neighborhoods before I lived in Tenleytown, so the idea that -- gasp! -- 1 in 4 of the people who live near me might be poor isn't really as horrifying to me as you seem to think it would be.

What's the point you're trying to make, exactly? First you implied people advocating for more affordable housing and density in Tenleytown weren't asking for enough. Now you're suggesting we want too much. If you just oppose adding any affordable housing to this neighborhood, you can just say so; you certainly fit in well with a large number of our neighbors, and at any rate, this forum is anonymous and nothing that gets posted here manifests itself into policy.

The point is that turning a low poverty neighborhood into a high poverty neighborhood is a pretty significant and important change and I think there is merit to having an open discussion about that rather than you folks trying to play both sides, demanding policy changes to favor higher density and more affordable housing while also claiming that it’s not a big deal.

Uh, how is that playing both sides? Neighborhoods can be denser, have more affordable housing, and also those changes not be a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Considering that most cities spend a considerable amount of energy trying to figure out how to reduce poverty, to pretend that increasing the poverty in a neighborhood 300% to make it a high poverty neighborhood is no big deal seems like an odd posture that is unlikely to find broad support and not because as you think people are racist and classist NIMBYS. The reason is because it’s an undesirable policy outcome. Hope that helps to clarify things for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering that most cities spend a considerable amount of energy trying to figure out how to reduce poverty, to pretend that increasing the poverty in a neighborhood 300% to make it a high poverty neighborhood is no big deal seems like an odd posture that is unlikely to find broad support and not because as you think people are racist and classist NIMBYS. The reason is because it’s an undesirable policy outcome. Hope that helps to clarify things for you.

DP, but no, it doesn't. Shouldn't every level of government, in every kind of area (urban, suburban, rural) be spending a considerable amount of energy on poverty-reduction measures? And if x% of the population of the area is poor, then dispersing the poor people throughout the area doesn't increase the poverty of the area, relative to concentrating all of the poor people in one small part of the area; it's still x% of the population that's poor, either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering that most cities spend a considerable amount of energy trying to figure out how to reduce poverty, to pretend that increasing the poverty in a neighborhood 300% to make it a high poverty neighborhood is no big deal seems like an odd posture that is unlikely to find broad support and not because as you think people are racist and classist NIMBYS. The reason is because it’s an undesirable policy outcome. Hope that helps to clarify things for you.

DP, but no, it doesn't. Shouldn't every level of government, in every kind of area (urban, suburban, rural) be spending a considerable amount of energy on poverty-reduction measures? And if x% of the population of the area is poor, then dispersing the poor people throughout the area doesn't increase the poverty of the area, relative to concentrating all of the poor people in one small part of the area; it's still x% of the population that's poor, either way.

The fact that you think poor people are like pollution says a lot about you and is pretty messed up.