The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Urbanist Cult and DC Smart Growth Industry use "affordable housing" as a pretext and a smokescreen for a far-reaching, more laissez faire approach to zoning, planning and historic preservation. Their goal is a substantial increase in market rate density, particularly in areas that developers see as offering the highest potential profit opportunities. The paltry number of resulting IZ ("Inclusive zoning) units - which are not even truly "affordable" -- are grandly cited by the Smart Growth Urbanists to justify upFLUMming and up zoning on a massive scale. When the hollowness of DC's IZ program are pointed out, together with DC regulators' lax interest in even holding developers to their IZ promises, the Urbanists fall back on a lame trickle down theory that Build, Baby, Build! across DC will result in affordable housing. Trickle down was discredited as a general economic theory by the end of the Reagan years, and its application to housing markets, which are highly segmented and localized, is even more dubious. The only thing that is more outrageous than citing warmed over Reaganomics to justify their laissez faire development agenda is when DC Smart Growth, Inc. hires Trumpy GOP operatives to shamelessly pretend that it's all about brining more affordable housing to the District.

You are projecting.

Some of us have been affordable housing advocates for many years, and were simply advocating under the tools available to create it. If you want more toold, then join with us to change the laws or get more funding. But throwing all of us together in one evil cabal does a disservice to all involved.

DP, but I’ll be happy to join you when stop advocating policies that only serve developers’ profits. The tools available aren’t the ones that will get us more affordable housing. For that, we need land value taxes, truly finite timelines for project approvals, and high taxes on apartments or houses that are converted to short-term rentals. Upzoning is good too, but only close to rail lines because anywhere else it will cause an increase in car driving. And we should get rid of parking minimums near transit too. And stop building public parking lots.

Then run for Council and make it happen. In the meantime, I will advocate using the tools available.

[Anonymous]

No one wants the freaking football stadium. There is noting to opine about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Urbanist Cult and DC Smart Growth Industry use "affordable housing" as a pretext and a smokescreen for a far-reaching, more laissez faire approach to zoning, planning and historic preservation. Their goal is a substantial increase in market rate density, particularly in areas that developers see as offering the highest potential profit opportunities. The paltry number of resulting IZ ("Inclusive zoning) units - which are not even truly "affordable" -- are grandly cited by the Smart Growth Urbanists to justify upFLUMming and up zoning on a massive scale. When the hollowness of DC's IZ program are pointed out, together with DC regulators' lax interest in even holding developers to their IZ promises, the Urbanists fall back on a lame trickle down theory that Build, Baby, Build! across DC will result in affordable housing. Trickle down was discredited as a general economic theory by the end of the Reagan years, and its application to housing markets, which are highly segmented and localized, is even more dubious. The only thing that is more outrageous than citing warmed over Reaganomics to justify their laissez faire development agenda is when DC Smart Growth, Inc. hires Trumpy GOP operatives to shamelessly pretend that it's all about brining more affordable housing to the District.

You are projecting.

Some of us have been affordable housing advocates for many years, and were simply advocating under the tools available to create it. If you want more toold, then join with us to change the laws or get more funding. But throwing all of us together in one evil cabal does a disservice to all involved.

DP, but I’ll be happy to join you when stop advocating policies that only serve developers’ profits. The tools available aren’t the ones that will get us more affordable housing. For that, we need land value taxes, truly finite timelines for project approvals, and high taxes on apartments or houses that are converted to short-term rentals. Upzoning is good too, but only close to rail lines because anywhere else it will cause an increase in car driving. And we should get rid of parking minimums near transit too. And stop building public parking lots.

Land value taxes will never happen.

There is nothing wrong with developers making a profit. We do live in America.

Besides, they make a fraction of what the NIMBYs make on housing appreciation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Urbanist Cult and DC Smart Growth Industry use "affordable housing" as a pretext and a smokescreen for a far-reaching, more laissez faire approach to zoning, planning and historic preservation. Their goal is a substantial increase in market rate density, particularly in areas that developers see as offering the highest potential profit opportunities. The paltry number of resulting IZ ("Inclusive zoning) units - which are not even truly "affordable" -- are grandly cited by the Smart Growth Urbanists to justify upFLUMming and up zoning on a massive scale. When the hollowness of DC's IZ program are pointed out, together with DC regulators' lax interest in even holding developers to their IZ promises, the Urbanists fall back on a lame trickle down theory that Build, Baby, Build! across DC will result in affordable housing. Trickle down was discredited as a general economic theory by the end of the Reagan years, and its application to housing markets, which are highly segmented and localized, is even more dubious. The only thing that is more outrageous than citing warmed over Reaganomics to justify their laissez faire development agenda is when DC Smart Growth, Inc. hires Trumpy GOP operatives to shamelessly pretend that it's all about brining more affordable housing to the District.

You are projecting.

Some of us have been affordable housing advocates for many years, and were simply advocating under the tools available to create it. If you want more toold, then join with us to change the laws or get more funding. But throwing all of us together in one evil cabal does a disservice to all involved.

DP, but I’ll be happy to join you when stop advocating policies that only serve developers’ profits. The tools available aren’t the ones that will get us more affordable housing. For that, we need land value taxes, truly finite timelines for project approvals, and high taxes on apartments or houses that are converted to short-term rentals. Upzoning is good too, but only close to rail lines because anywhere else it will cause an increase in car driving. And we should get rid of parking minimums near transit too. And stop building public parking lots.

Land value taxes will never happen.

There is nothing wrong with developers making a profit. We do live in America.

Besides, they make a fraction of what the NIMBYs make on housing appreciation.

Developers can make a profit but there's no reason the rest of us should subsidize it. Toll Brothers made 23.5 percent last year. How many home owners turned 23.5 percent in a single year even in last year's crazy market? And the 23.5 percent was down from 25 percent. I refuse to accept policies that make developers fat but fail to produce affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the Urbanist Cult and DC Smart Growth Industry use "affordable housing" as a pretext and a smokescreen for a far-reaching, more laissez faire approach to zoning, planning and historic preservation. Their goal is a substantial increase in market rate density, particularly in areas that developers see as offering the highest potential profit opportunities. The paltry number of resulting IZ ("Inclusive zoning) units - which are not even truly "affordable" -- are grandly cited by the Smart Growth Urbanists to justify upFLUMming and up zoning on a massive scale. When the hollowness of DC's IZ program are pointed out, together with DC regulators' lax interest in even holding developers to their IZ promises, the Urbanists fall back on a lame trickle down theory that Build, Baby, Build! across DC will result in affordable housing. Trickle down was discredited as a general economic theory by the end of the Reagan years, and its application to housing markets, which are highly segmented and localized, is even more dubious. The only thing that is more outrageous than citing warmed over Reaganomics to justify their laissez faire development agenda is when DC Smart Growth, Inc. hires Trumpy GOP operatives to shamelessly pretend that it's all about brining more affordable housing to the District.

You are projecting.

Some of us have been affordable housing advocates for many years, and were simply advocating under the tools available to create it. If you want more toold, then join with us to change the laws or get more funding. But throwing all of us together in one evil cabal does a disservice to all involved.

DP, but I’ll be happy to join you when stop advocating policies that only serve developers’ profits. The tools available aren’t the ones that will get us more affordable housing. For that, we need land value taxes, truly finite timelines for project approvals, and high taxes on apartments or houses that are converted to short-term rentals. Upzoning is good too, but only close to rail lines because anywhere else it will cause an increase in car driving. And we should get rid of parking minimums near transit too. And stop building public parking lots.

Then run for Council and make it happen. In the meantime, I will advocate using the tools available.

Then you are pro developer, but you are not pro housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

Thank god some common sense. Please keep yourself talking about Tenleytown and only Tenleytown. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them.

Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about.

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool.

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants the freaking football stadium. There is noting to opine about.

Bowser seems to want it (as did Jack Evans, but I guess we don't have to worry about that anymore).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them.

Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about.

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool.

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.

You brought up free land. There is no bigger piece of free land in DC than RFK. And yet none of y’all want to talk about it ever. It’s frankly bizarre considering that it had a metro stop. Whatever’s fevered dream you have for urban utopia could be fulfilled at RFK and yet it’s crickets as the city prioritized a couple soccer fields and unneeded commercial office space over affordable housing. Where’s the outcry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them.

Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about.

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool.

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.

You brought up free land. There is no bigger piece of free land in DC than RFK. And yet none of y’all want to talk about it ever. It’s frankly bizarre considering that it had a metro stop. Whatever’s fevered dream you have for urban utopia could be fulfilled at RFK and yet it’s crickets as the city prioritized a couple soccer fields and unneeded commercial office space over affordable housing. Where’s the outcry?

I didn't bring up free land.

I'd love to see RFK become residential housing. But RFK is also owned by the feds, leased to the city, and potentially in need of major environmental cleanup, so building anything there is going to a very long time. Whereas if they changed the zoning in Ward 3, someone could buy the house next to mine tomorrow, tear it down, and have four affordable apartments there within a year. Seems like a better fix to a housing problem to do both rather than insisting that we all talk about RFK instead of doing anything else!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them.

Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about.

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool.

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.

You brought up free land. There is no bigger piece of free land in DC than RFK. And yet none of y’all want to talk about it ever. It’s frankly bizarre considering that it had a metro stop. Whatever’s fevered dream you have for urban utopia could be fulfilled at RFK and yet it’s crickets as the city prioritized a couple soccer fields and unneeded commercial office space over affordable housing. Where’s the outcry?

I didn't bring up free land.

I'd love to see RFK become residential housing. But RFK is also owned by the feds, leased to the city, and potentially in need of major environmental cleanup, so building anything there is going to a very long time. Whereas if they changed the zoning in Ward 3, someone could buy the house next to mine tomorrow, tear it down, and have four affordable apartments there within a year. Seems like a better fix to a housing problem to do both rather than insisting that we all talk about RFK instead of doing anything else!

You advocated that the city build housing at UDC and yet they don't own that either. Whatever friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them.

Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is about.

I'm all for redeveloping RFK into a dense housing and commercial neighborhood. (I do also like the soccer fields.) But (a) I live in Tenleytown, so I feel like I have more of a stake in -- and more authority to opine about -- what happens here than what happens in RFK, (b) there's no reason you can't build affordable housing next door to my house and also build it at the RFK site, and (c) I recognize that the D.C. government appears more interested in building a football stadium at RFK than in doing something useful for the people who live in D.C.

We should only talk about and advocate for issues in our own neighborhood? That’s a great rule.

Also didn’t realize that you don’t seem too fussed that you think the city should prioritize using your tax dollars for a football stadium over affordable housing. So in terms of priorities you will advocate for they are very even. Cool, cool.

What are you talking about? I wasn't the person who brought up RFK in the first place -- that was you or someone else, who seems to think that you can't have affordable housing anywhere in D.C. if you don't first put it somewhere else. I don't think affordable housing and a football stadium are even or equivalent. One reason to oppose the football stadium is that the site could be used instead for something useful. Is your idea basically that anyone who wants affordable housing anywhere in the city needs to get involved in plans to redevelop RFK? Talk about stupid rules.

You brought up free land. There is no bigger piece of free land in DC than RFK. And yet none of y’all want to talk about it ever. It’s frankly bizarre considering that it had a metro stop. Whatever’s fevered dream you have for urban utopia could be fulfilled at RFK and yet it’s crickets as the city prioritized a couple soccer fields and unneeded commercial office space over affordable housing. Where’s the outcry?

I didn't bring up free land.

I'd love to see RFK become residential housing. But RFK is also owned by the feds, leased to the city, and potentially in need of major environmental cleanup, so building anything there is going to a very long time. Whereas if they changed the zoning in Ward 3, someone could buy the house next to mine tomorrow, tear it down, and have four affordable apartments there within a year. Seems like a better fix to a housing problem to do both rather than insisting that we all talk about RFK instead of doing anything else!

You advocated that the city build housing at UDC and yet they don't own that either. Whatever friend.

No, that wasn't me, either. (If it were up to me, the city would seize, not buy, land in my neighborhood near Metro and build low-income housing, but it isn't up to me.)

[Anonymous]

How come the affordable housing advocates here don't seem to know anything about housing? I get that they want public housing for all, but that is just a fantasy. They don't seem to understand that building homes costs a lot of money, lots and lots of money.

[Anonymous]

Not just RFK - but there are hundreds of acres in Rock Creek Park and elsewhere around the city that should be put to a higher good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How come the affordable housing advocates here don't seem to know anything about housing? I get that they want public housing for all, but that is just a fantasy. They don't seem to understand that building homes costs a lot of money, lots and lots of money.

Yes, I understand that housing costs money. I want the city to spend it building homes for people who can't afford them. Why does that have to be a fantasy?