Marc Elrich doesn’t think there “is demand for market housing.” He’s never going to fix our housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that that price of land in the county has eclipsed the average wage/affordability. We have a lot of rich people in MoCo (as does surrounding counties of the DMV), but also lots of middle and lower income people too. Developers make better profits catering to the wealthier residents, but that market is tapped out. The demand for housing is enormous among lower and middle class residents, yet the speculative prices for land are just too high to cater to that demographic. How do we bridge the gap?

Summary: There is no more cheap land. But we still have insatiable demand among lower and middle-income residents. How do we fix it?

By enabling more housing to be built, including on land where there already is housing.

There's no reason to build low income housing if there is middle class demand.

If the middle class are getting squeezed, I guarantee it’s worse for her lower classes.

+1

Part of the homeless crisis in CA is due to the high housing costs.

UMC are buying homes that previously MC people could afford, which pushes the MC down to buy homes that previously LC people could afford, which pushes the LC out completely.

This. We purchased our first house in 2010 at a HHI of $200K. The seller was a divorced immigrant who cut hair at a chain barber shop. They paid $150K for the house in 1994. We paid $500K in 2010. We just bought our second house last year at $400K HHI. The sellers were modestly paid government employees making about $150K combined. They bought the house 15 years ago for 400K. We paid $800K. It makes for an interesting mix of socioeconomic status in neighborhoods.

I think some of this contributes to white and MC flight out of the county. If you are middle class (teachers, firefighters, etc.) and all you can afford is a neighborhood with a lot of LC people, you may look outside of the county, especially if you have children. I have a friend whose family moved to MoCo and make about $125K a year combined. They said when looking at townhouses in mid county in their price range, there were a lot of people hanging out during the day, sitting outside, multiple families in one unit, etc.

So it's not just about affording, but affording something in a neighborhood with people you perceive to be like you. Not saying it's right, but this is the thought process for some people.

I have several friends who moved from MoCo to Frederick. This was not because they couldn't afford to buy a decent home in MoCo, but because they wanted more for their money. I think there's a big difference between people who move because they can't afford and people who want to live on 3 acres of land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This has got to be that “MoCo Mike” dude right? Loves to hammer home on Twitter that his studio condo makes him a “homeowner” like that’s important. Lol.

Are you saying it doesn't?

Do you think it’s important to be a “homeowner” in order to be able to voice an opinion about housing? He does and so do you apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's plenty of land available. It's just preserved for no reason.

Exactly. The biggest fallacy is that land is somehow limited. It’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

So there we have it. Cutting direct subsidies and this “slush fund” could provide at least 150 affordable units per year. Which is a lot of housing that is not getting built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

So there we have it. Cutting direct subsidies and this “slush fund” could provide at least 150 affordable units per year. Which is a lot of housing that is not getting built.

Show your work, please. Which community organizations, specifically, are you planning to cut funding to? And where, specifically, are you planning to get $47 million per year from? Also, where are you planning to put these units, and where will the money come from to pay for the land? Also, who will pay for to maintain and operate the units, once they are built? And finally, where do you get the idea that 150 units per year is "a lot" - compared to what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

So there we have it. Cutting direct subsidies and this “slush fund” could provide at least 150 affordable units per year. Which is a lot of housing that is not getting built.

Show your work, please. Which community organizations, specifically, are you planning to cut funding to? And where, specifically, are you planning to get $47 million per year from? Also, where are you planning to put these units, and where will the money come from to pay for the land? Also, who will pay for to maintain and operate the units, once they are built? And finally, where do you get the idea that 150 units per year is "a lot" - compared to what?

DP, but show your work is tiresome. Do your own work. It's clear if we directed the subsidies Riemer is giving to luxury condos to building deeply affordable units then we'd get more deeply affordable units than we're getting now. If we dropped the MPDU requirement, we'd get more housing overall, which would cause older properties to fall in price, thus improving affordability across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

So there we have it. Cutting direct subsidies and this “slush fund” could provide at least 150 affordable units per year. Which is a lot of housing that is not getting built.

Show your work, please. Which community organizations, specifically, are you planning to cut funding to? And where, specifically, are you planning to get $47 million per year from? Also, where are you planning to put these units, and where will the money come from to pay for the land? Also, who will pay for to maintain and operate the units, once they are built? And finally, where do you get the idea that 150 units per year is "a lot" - compared to what?

DP, but show your work is tiresome. Do your own work. It's clear if we directed the subsidies Riemer is giving to luxury condos to building deeply affordable units then we'd get more deeply affordable units than we're getting now. If we dropped the MPDU requirement, we'd get more housing overall, which would cause older properties to fall in price, thus improving affordability across the board.

Which subsidies is Riemer giving to luxury condos?

And in order to increase the number of affordable units, you want to DROP the MPDU requirement?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that that price of land in the county has eclipsed the average wage/affordability. We have a lot of rich people in MoCo (as does surrounding counties of the DMV), but also lots of middle and lower income people too. Developers make better profits catering to the wealthier residents, but that market is tapped out. The demand for housing is enormous among lower and middle class residents, yet the speculative prices for land are just too high to cater to that demographic. How do we bridge the gap?

Summary: There is no more cheap land. But we still have insatiable demand among lower and middle-income residents. How do we fix it?

By enabling more housing to be built, including on land where there already is housing.

There's no reason to build low income housing if there is middle class demand.

If the middle class are getting squeezed, I guarantee it’s worse for her lower classes.

+1

Part of the homeless crisis in CA is due to the high housing costs.

UMC are buying homes that previously MC people could afford, which pushes the MC down to buy homes that previously LC people could afford, which pushes the LC out completely.

This. We purchased our first house in 2010 at a HHI of $200K. The seller was a divorced immigrant who cut hair at a chain barber shop. They paid $150K for the house in 1994. We paid $500K in 2010. We just bought our second house last year at $400K HHI. The sellers were modestly paid government employees making about $150K combined. They bought the house 15 years ago for 400K. We paid $800K. It makes for an interesting mix of socioeconomic status in neighborhoods.

I think some of this contributes to white and MC flight out of the county. If you are middle class (teachers, firefighters, etc.) and all you can afford is a neighborhood with a lot of LC people, you may look outside of the county, especially if you have children. I have a friend whose family moved to MoCo and make about $125K a year combined. They said when looking at townhouses in mid county in their price range, there were a lot of people hanging out during the day, sitting outside, multiple families in one unit, etc.

So it's not just about affording, but affording something in a neighborhood with people you perceive to be like you. Not saying it's right, but this is the thought process for some people.

I have several friends who moved from MoCo to Frederick. This was not because they couldn't afford to buy a decent home in MoCo, but because they wanted more for their money. I think there's a big difference between people who move because they can't afford and people who want to live on 3 acres of land.

Sure, but I'm also one of those people, and I live in a TH with a postage stamp yard in Frederick. We actually couldn't afford $400k as the entry point, so here we are. Our income was $90k so I never felt LMC but that is the housing we could afford - i.e. nothing in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

So there we have it. Cutting direct subsidies and this “slush fund” could provide at least 150 affordable units per year. Which is a lot of housing that is not getting built.

Show your work, please. Which community organizations, specifically, are you planning to cut funding to? And where, specifically, are you planning to get $47 million per year from? Also, where are you planning to put these units, and where will the money come from to pay for the land? Also, who will pay for to maintain and operate the units, once they are built? And finally, where do you get the idea that 150 units per year is "a lot" - compared to what?

DP, but show your work is tiresome. Do your own work. It's clear if we directed the subsidies Riemer is giving to luxury condos to building deeply affordable units then we'd get more deeply affordable units than we're getting now. If we dropped the MPDU requirement, we'd get more housing overall, which would cause older properties to fall in price, thus improving affordability across the board.

Which subsidies is Riemer giving to luxury condos?

And in order to increase the number of affordable units, you want to DROP the MPDU requirement?!

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

Hans Riemer did this all by himself?

How come builders are voluntarily proferring a higher percentage of MPDUs than required?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

Hans Riemer did this all by himself?

How come builders are voluntarily proferring a higher percentage of MPDUs than required?

Thanks for asking. Yes, pretty much, he did, with some help from Casey Anderson and Andrew Friedson. But it was Riemer who introduced the bill, rushed it through his committee, and prevented an amendment requiring the developers to be means tested (so they couldn't just use the subsidies to pad their margins) from being attached to the bill.

As far as higher percentages of MPDUs, developers may build more MPDUs than required to get certain federal subsidies or density bonuses. We should just give them the density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

Hans Riemer did this all by himself?

How come builders are voluntarily proferring a higher percentage of MPDUs than required?

Thanks for asking. Yes, pretty much, he did, with some help from Casey Anderson and Andrew Friedson. But it was Riemer who introduced the bill, rushed it through his committee, and prevented an amendment requiring the developers to be means tested (so they couldn't just use the subsidies to pad their margins) from being attached to the bill.

As far as higher percentages of MPDUs, developers may build more MPDUs than required to get certain federal subsidies or density bonuses. We should just give them the density.

Developer giveaways are bad, and we should have more of them...

(I didn't know that you only need 1 vote (or maybe 2?) on the county council to pass legislation. The things I learn on DCUM!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

Hans Riemer did this all by himself?

How come builders are voluntarily proferring a higher percentage of MPDUs than required?

Thanks for asking. Yes, pretty much, he did, with some help from Casey Anderson and Andrew Friedson. But it was Riemer who introduced the bill, rushed it through his committee, and prevented an amendment requiring the developers to be means tested (so they couldn't just use the subsidies to pad their margins) from being attached to the bill.

As far as higher percentages of MPDUs, developers may build more MPDUs than required to get certain federal subsidies or density bonuses. We should just give them the density.

Developer giveaways are bad, and we should have more of them...

(I didn't know that you only need 1 vote (or maybe 2?) on the county council to pass legislation. The things I learn on DCUM!)

DP. You’re oddly both annoying and dumb. Maybe playing intentionally stupid? Either way doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He is subsidizing luxury housing at Grosvenor. He did it on the premise that the builder would put up a high-rise instead of mid-rises, but the builder is just building mid-rises for now. They already qualify for the subsidy (full property tax abatement for the entire site for 15 years) because they have high rises in the site plan. The developer never has to build the high rises. Just keep one in the site plan. And there's the impact fee cut. He cut school impact fees well below the cost of adding a seat to a school.

If you drop the MPDU requirement, building will be more profitable, so developers will build more housing. If you build more housing, prices drop.

Hans Riemer did this all by himself?

How come builders are voluntarily proferring a higher percentage of MPDUs than required?

Thanks for asking. Yes, pretty much, he did, with some help from Casey Anderson and Andrew Friedson. But it was Riemer who introduced the bill, rushed it through his committee, and prevented an amendment requiring the developers to be means tested (so they couldn't just use the subsidies to pad their margins) from being attached to the bill.

As far as higher percentages of MPDUs, developers may build more MPDUs than required to get certain federal subsidies or density bonuses. We should just give them the density.

Developer giveaways are bad, and we should have more of them...

(I didn't know that you only need 1 vote (or maybe 2?) on the county council to pass legislation. The things I learn on DCUM!)

DP. Funny Hans fan. Your best defense of his policy is that everyone else is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that that price of land in the county has eclipsed the average wage/affordability. We have a lot of rich people in MoCo (as does surrounding counties of the DMV), but also lots of middle and lower income people too. Developers make better profits catering to the wealthier residents, but that market is tapped out. The demand for housing is enormous among lower and middle class residents, yet the speculative prices for land are just too high to cater to that demographic. How do we bridge the gap?

Summary: There is no more cheap land. But we still have insatiable demand among lower and middle-income residents. How do we fix it?

AND... the government and activists want to put low income housing on the MOST expensive land, rather than just achieving the most units by concentrating them on the cheapest land available in the county.

How did we get from rezoning to allow duplexes to "putting low income housing on the MOST expensive land"?

Not to mention that it would be housing policy (I guess) for the county to (somehow) finance and build 50 high-rise towers for poor people on cheap land next to the Dickerson incinerator, but it wouldn't be good housing policy.

There are plenty of people calling for affordable housing in Potomac, Bethesda, etc. in a bid to stop "segregation." MDPUs and HOC units in high cost new developments are exactly this -putting a small number of more affordable units on land that is by definition too expensive to produce them. And expecting the rest of us to bear both the higher cost of our own housing plus subsidize it directly for the increasing number of low income folk who continue to move to MoCo.