The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

Unless the company got a property tax abatement for that building, which happens all too often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

Unless the company got a property tax abatement for that building, which happens all too often.

Homeowners of SFHs get property tax abatements (aka the homestead exemption), at least in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

Unless the company got a property tax abatement for that building, which happens all too often.

Homeowners of SFHs get property tax abatements (aka the homestead exemption), at least in Maryland.

Homeowners aren’t getting 100 percent (except in limited circumstances like fully disabled vets) and the homestead exemptions has become basically worthless as assessments have risen but the exemption hasn’t. MF developers are getting 100 percent abatements on top of massive fee reductions, at least in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

Unless the company got a property tax abatement for that building, which happens all too often.

Homeowners of SFHs get property tax abatements (aka the homestead exemption), at least in Maryland.

Homeowners aren’t getting 100 percent (except in limited circumstances like fully disabled vets) and the homestead exemptions has become basically worthless as assessments have risen but the exemption hasn’t. MF developers are getting 100 percent abatements on top of massive fee reductions, at least in Maryland.

You're welcome to pay the full amount of property tax on your property then. If the homestead exemption is worthless, and all.

Please provide two examples of MF developers in Maryland who got 100% property tax abatements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

This response indicates either a lack of math literacy or intentionally misleading rhetoric. Most local tax revenue a from property taxes and most localities don’t have direct income taxes, so they don’t necessarily benefit from changes in income tax revenue attributable to their district. Sales taxes make up a relatively small share or total tax revenue and they do not come close to offsetting the cost of providing services for new residents. A LVT is not a serious policy proposal unless you change the entire system for local government funding. It will force elderly people out of their homes and bankrupt local governments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

in Arlington? which street? I thought all developers weren't starting yet until the court case verdict came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

in Arlington? which street? I thought all developers weren't starting yet until the court case verdict came out.

Arlington has been illegally issuing permits anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

I agree that for many people, the main objection is the cars (but the parking! but the traffic!) Unfortunately for some people, the main objection is the people. And they don't just say that stuff anonymously on line; they say it in person at public meetings, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

This response indicates either a lack of math literacy or intentionally misleading rhetoric. Most local tax revenue a from property taxes and most localities don’t have direct income taxes, so they don’t necessarily benefit from changes in income tax revenue attributable to their district. Sales taxes make up a relatively small share or total tax revenue and they do not come close to offsetting the cost of providing services for new residents. A LVT is not a serious policy proposal unless you change the entire system for local government funding. It will force elderly people out of their homes and bankrupt local governments.

An expensive apartment close to transportation is probably going to be working adults without children who use minimal resources. Expensive apartment and then house in the suburbs has been the pattern for generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.