Looks like CC Historic District is Dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

There's a big need for it everywhere. Why should CC be exempt?

Why is there a need for it “everywhere?”

Seems like there are plenty of areas to increase density where it would be less difficult and more welcome. Why waste all of that time and money? Is it just punitive?

Because there is a housing shortage generally.

Where do you think it would be "less difficult" and "more welcome"? Wheaton? Silver Spring?

I think what you mean is, there are plenty of areas to increase density where local residents have less money and political clout than they do in CC.

Again: Why should CC be exempt from developing denser/more affordable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

no there is not. Life isn't fair.

CC is a wealthier area. That's Ok. Move to SS or Takoma Park - easy commute if you work in CC

[Anonymous]

Should Chevy Chase DC become Chevy Chase Vibrant Urbanist Dense Mixed-Use Civic Corridor Core Commons?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

That’s not true. It’s about creating housing in areas close to transit and amenities. Like, there aren’t even any 3 bedroom apartments basically anywhere in the entire DC proper. And urbanists are also excited about density being created near any metro stop.

There is housing that is near transit and the "amenities" (amenities means I want to live near the people who make more than me, not near the people who make what I make), just live in it. Any new housing in these places with "amenities" isn't going to be anything that people begging for it can afford. The condos are not going to be 300k just becuse they are small and/or condos. There isn't a hack to getting to live in a desirable neighborhood w/o paying a lot for it.

OK sweetie. Your perception of how very desireable your neighborhood is doesn’t mean you are exempt from everything.

Hey everyone, another pleasant prospective YImBY neighbor. They are all so charming!

Don't worry, they will never be able to afford the type of housing they are begging to get built, they just don't realize it. These condos in desirable neighborhoods they dream about will have desirable-area prices still-they will be very expensive, and SFHs in these neighborhoods will become astronomically expensive instead of just very expensive. Were the condos near the Clarendon Metro every "affordable" (a meaningless word anyway when you think about it)? Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

There's a big need for it everywhere. Why should CC be exempt?

Why is there a need for it “everywhere?”

Seems like there are plenty of areas to increase density where it would be less difficult and more welcome. Why waste all of that time and money? Is it just punitive?

Because there is a housing shortage generally.

Where do you think it would be "less difficult" and "more welcome"? Wheaton? Silver Spring?

I think what you mean is, there are plenty of areas to increase density where local residents have less money and political clout than they do in CC.

Again: Why should CC be exempt from developing denser/more affordable housing?

Why do you think the new housing would be affordable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an empty nester, and I am hanging on to my rather large single family home for a few reasons. 1) I don't want to live in a condo and even if I did, three bedroom condos are pretty rare around here. 2) Condos are incredibly expensive to own -- I doubt I'd save much money at all going from a 3600 square foot home into a 2000 square foot condo. 3) I like outdoor space, spend time gardening. 4) My home feels like a precious asset and I'm going to hold onto it until I conclude my kids don't want it. I might change my mind if there were decent townhouse options here, but developers are not building many and the ones they are building are as big as my sfh.

Agree. First, to extent a SFH owner has a mortgage, his or her mortgage rate is probably low 3%. Second, the condos and townhouses that are being built are too expensive and small. Even the nearby EYA townhouses have small floor plans. Accordingly, today, a SFH owner is not likely to be taking anything off the table by selling the SFH and moving into a condo or TH. No financial incentive. More likely, a financial disincentive. Mortgage rates and condo/TH prices will need to come down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

There's a big need for it everywhere. Why should CC be exempt?

Why is there a need for it “everywhere?”

Seems like there are plenty of areas to increase density where it would be less difficult and more welcome. Why waste all of that time and money? Is it just punitive?

Because there is a housing shortage generally.

Where do you think it would be "less difficult" and "more welcome"? Wheaton? Silver Spring?

I think what you mean is, there are plenty of areas to increase density where local residents have less money and political clout than they do in CC.

Again: Why should CC be exempt from developing denser/more affordable housing?

Why do you think the new housing would be affordable?

Where in PP's post does it say that?

And FYI, affordability is as much about policy as anything else. Local government can dictate that a certain number of units be affordable, if they so choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

There's a big need for it everywhere. Why should CC be exempt?

Why is there a need for it “everywhere?”

Seems like there are plenty of areas to increase density where it would be less difficult and more welcome. Why waste all of that time and money? Is it just punitive?

Because there is a housing shortage generally.

Where do you think it would be "less difficult" and "more welcome"? Wheaton? Silver Spring?

I think what you mean is, there are plenty of areas to increase density where local residents have less money and political clout than they do in CC.

Again: Why should CC be exempt from developing denser/more affordable housing?

Why do you think the new housing would be affordable?

Where in PP's post does it say that?

And FYI, affordability is as much about policy as anything else. Local government can dictate that a certain number of units be affordable, if they so choose.

DC's baseline requirement for affordability (and their "inclusionary zoning" program is not really affordable) is about half what Montgomery County requires. DC politicians and the developers who fund them prattle on about "affordable housing" when in reality DC is a regulatory powderpuff. The DC government isn't serious about requiring the private sector to put a serious number of affordable housing in large market-rate developments. But Bowser pretends to claim credit for more affordable housing and developers pretend that their projects deliver it, all to create a favorable narrative for more up-zoning and less regulation to build more and more upmarket 1-BR flats and condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

They will not want to do this. So what is your plan for forcing them to do so? Just like road diets are to force us to find driving intolerable, how will you make the "oldsters" lives intolorable?

Smart Growth can advocate for higher tax rates on empty nester SFHs. That could make a dent in the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

They will not want to do this. So what is your plan for forcing them to do so? Just like road diets are to force us to find driving intolerable, how will you make the "oldsters" lives intolorable?

Smart Growth can advocate for higher tax rates on empty nester SFHs. That could make a dent in the problem.

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good. the whole thing was just designed to make it harder to develop denser/more affordable housing.

Is there a big need for that in CC?

There's a big need for it everywhere. Why should CC be exempt?

Why is there a need for it “everywhere?”

Seems like there are plenty of areas to increase density where it would be less difficult and more welcome. Why waste all of that time and money? Is it just punitive?

Because there is a housing shortage generally.

Where do you think it would be "less difficult" and "more welcome"? Wheaton? Silver Spring?

I think what you mean is, there are plenty of areas to increase density where local residents have less money and political clout than they do in CC.

Again: Why should CC be exempt from developing denser/more affordable housing?

Why do you think the new housing would be affordable?

DP...because the city owns the land and can mandate the level of affordability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

They will not want to do this. So what is your plan for forcing them to do so? Just like road diets are to force us to find driving intolerable, how will you make the "oldsters" lives intolorable?

Smart Growth can advocate for higher tax rates on empty nester SFHs. That could make a dent in the problem.

Congress would never let DC apply a special tax to force elderly seniors out of their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

They will not want to do this. So what is your plan for forcing them to do so? Just like road diets are to force us to find driving intolerable, how will you make the "oldsters" lives intolorable?

Smart Growth can advocate for higher tax rates on empty nester SFHs. That could make a dent in the problem.

Congress would never let DC apply a special tax to force elderly seniors out of their homes.

What about a special DC surtax on pearls, for the pearl clutchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.