Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will result in there being more houses in those areas for people to live in.

At high prices. And many will become expensive Airbnbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol no. Just build more housing. This isn't complicated to anyone but NIMBY trash.

Another adorable argument from the cutest developer pets, the YIMBY.

Do you have any proof that upzoning will do anything that you think it will?

Something academic and researched with citations, not from the some YIMBY yokel blog.

This was a few minutes of search, but it’s all out there if you look. I think that the conclusion you will find that more housing is good, trying to shoehorn in into existing neighborhoods is stupid and a waste of energy.

We can start here, with an interview with a UCLA and London School of Economics Professor.

https://www.planningreport.com/2019/03/15/blanket-upzoning-blunt-instrument-wont-solve-affordable-housing-crisis

Link to the referenced article:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb

Here is analysis how how upzoning worked elsewhere (links/citations within):

https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/21/colorado-housing-bill-upzoning/

But it appears that the end of single-family zoning wasn’t the real driver behind Minneapolis’ flat rent prices. The production of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes has been very modest — just 53 units in 2021, for example — since the 2040 plan went into effect.

“The change hasn’t been that big,” said Alex Schieferdecker, a Twin Cities transit planner who’s analyzed city development data.

Rather, it appears that earlier parking reforms were responsible for a boom in new apartment buildings, and the subsequent rent moderation. Minneapolis has eliminated minimum parking requirements for new developments — first for areas near frequent transit lines in 2015 and later for the entire city.

Another article pointing out that trying to force housing into established neighborhoods is a waste of time and energy when better solutions exist.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348955586_Exploring_the_Impacts_of_Zoning_and_Upzoning_on_Housing_Development_A_Quasi-experimental_Analysis_at_the_Parcel_Level

Because redevelopments tend to be costlier, the effect of upzoning would be much stronger when it is applied to vacant parcels or underutilized parcels. When citywide blanket upzoning is politically difficult, localized upzoning should target vacant and underutilized parcels. The effect of upzoning in built-up areas tends to be weak. I anticipate a moderate impact of upzoning on housing developments in a built-up city such as Portland where less than 10% of land is vacant. Geographically, I expect to see a more prominent effect of citywide upzoning in suburban and fringe areas where developers can find more vacant and underutilized land… Simply permitting residential buildings in commercial zones or rezoning commercial zones into mixed-use zones can create a huge potential for multifamily housing development. Another advantage of rezoning commercial zones into mixed-use zones is that rezoning in commercial districts usually faces a lot less neighborhood resistance compared to upzoning in single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, modifying commercial zones to allow mixed-use developments could be another policy option to increase housing supply when large-scale upzoning in single-family neighborhoods is politically difficult.

Of course, neighborhoods and areas and demographics are different. In poorer neighborhoods the upzoning very well might cause a lot of gentrification…

https://www.thewagnerreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Team-1_Final-Version_v2.pdf

We find that upzonings that occurred between 2000 and 2007 are associated with a five to nine percentage point increase in the share of White people in that area. This influx is particularly notable

We could do this all day. Do you have…anything besides “more is gooder!” Anything that takes into account efficiency or possible unintended consequences?

YIMBYs are actually scarce creatures. On closer examination, mosts self-declared YIMBYs in fact turn out to be YIYBYs -- "Yes, in your back yard."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an ADU? Where do you live that this is legal?

While it's technically legal in DC it's not very easy to make it happen due to regulations making it difficult.

It's really not that difficult. It's quite possible to build ADUs up to 900 square feet today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will result in there being more houses in those areas for people to live in.

At high prices. And many will become expensive Airbnbs.

Ah, so adding housing results in an increase in the cost of housing? How about that.

You can solve the Airbnb problem by not allowing Airbnbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

That's fine too.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will likely drive up both residential purchase prices and rental housing costs in SFH areas.

Developers and investors buying up residential properties to build 1300 sq ft second houses will result in there being more houses in those areas for people to live in.

Doesn't this change single family zoning into DC into at least two-family-plus zoning in many parts of DC?

That's fine too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.

So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol no. Just build more housing. This isn't complicated to anyone but NIMBY trash.

Very Trumpy.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I don’t care. If people have the space to build a structure on their property and can meet reasonable building code standards they should be allowed to do it. It’s their own property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.

The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?

That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.

Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.

People would be living in them. There's no rent if there's nobody living in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I don’t care. If people have the space to build a structure on their property and can meet reasonable building code standards they should be allowed to do it. It’s their own property.

+1
Their property, their right to build
Fwiw all the ADUs I know that are getting built are for multigenerational housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.

So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?

Why do you think only certain types of property owners should be allowed to build ADUs on their property or own a property with an ADU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.

So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?

Why do you think only certain types of property owners should be allowed to build ADUs on their property or own a property with an ADU?

Aren't ADUs intended primarily to be "granny flats", in-law apartments, student accommodations, etc? And to allow homeowners to have an income stream to help pay taxes and defray other expenses, and thereby to stay in their homes as they become empty nesters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I don’t care. If people have the space to build a structure on their property and can meet reasonable building code standards they should be allowed to do it. It’s their own property.

Trumpy-Libertarian property rights Libertarian view. Probably hates zoning and historic preservation laws, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.

ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.

So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?

Why do you think only certain types of property owners should be allowed to build ADUs on their property or own a property with an ADU?

Aren't ADUs intended primarily to be "granny flats", in-law apartments, student accommodations, etc? And to allow homeowners to have an income stream to help pay taxes and defray other expenses, and thereby to stay in their homes as they become empty nesters?

Grannies, in-laws, students, and etc. can all live in an ADU without the property owner living in the other unit.