We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is DC. It has nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with corrupt city employees.

Case in point: I am friends with the developers who tore down the dilapidated house at the corner of Connecticut and Nebraska with the intention of building an six-unit condo building. In other words, David Alpert's wet dream, a SFH in evil Ward 3 turned into six luxury condos. But they had never developed a property in DC before, only in Maryland. It took them 18 MONTHS not to get their permits in order, but to find the right person they needed to bribe to get the permits. The building is now almost done. It could have been done a few years ago, but was held up by typical DC corruption.

This is why no one wants to build like this in DC. Unless you are a developer who has lined Muriel Bowser's campaign war chest, you have no hope of profit or even mere completion.

BS, they started work without getting permits and had a stop work order for doing illegal work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want slums? Maybe Jared will invest here after Trump leaves office...

Seriously though. Integrated affordable housing is what we should all want not slums.

What gives you the impression that would build slums?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

I think (as is obvious) that it is super easy to "offer up" something that will never happen. The developers are licking their chops to develop in Ward 3. It is simply a profit motive--it's a more expensive part of town, so they see dollar signs for their investment. GGW isn't an altruistic movement that cares about people, affordable housing, true vibrancy (or they would see that Ward 3 is already vibrant) or the longterm sustainability and attractiveness of our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

Define "insane deals" please?

Months of free rent.

It used to be that sometimes you would see that your move in month was free. Now there are signs all over that say no rent in 2020 (Those signs were up in September). First and last month free. Three months no rent once on one year anniversary...

How many months, and what's the rent when it isn't free?

group homes, basement apartments, room-mates, living with parents or a longer commute. that's what we did when we were "millenials"

Millennials are now pushing 40, is that what you think grown adults with families should do? Is that what you did when you were 40?

NP. Yeah, move to where it's more affordable like Fairfax, or further out near Haymarket. I would live to live on the beach in San Diego but that's life. I don't know anyone waiting around for the govt to rescue them from income inequality.

When i was pushing 40 I lived in DC in a tiny apartment with my family because I liked the location. Now I live in a house (pushing 50) and still like the location. So yeah. that's what I did when I was 40. Grow up!

Do you not read newspapers? People like you keep insisting against all evidence that millennials just have to suck it up. Increasing housing prices and stagnating wages are a macroeconomic problem and millennials are objectively worse off compared to you. See the link.

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-income-v-housing-1-nationwide-.png

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

I think (as is obvious) that it is super easy to "offer up" something that will never happen. The developers are licking their chops to develop in Ward 3. It is simply a profit motive--it's a more expensive part of town, so they see dollar signs for their investment. GGW isn't an altruistic movement that cares about people, affordable housing, true vibrancy (or they would see that Ward 3 is already vibrant) or the longterm sustainability and attractiveness of our city.

Let's summarize the dialogue.

-Abolish zoning
-Starting with David Alpert's block, what a hypocrite!
-No, actually he supports that, including support for an actual project on the block he lives on.
-Oh yeah?
-Actually, yeah.
-Well, he's still a hypocrite, because that will never happen on his block!

I mean, I'm not a fan of the guy personally, but these obsessive accusation of hypocrisy are purely bananas. If David Alpert moved to Mars tomorrow, DC would still need more housing, less restrictive zoning, and less opportunity for a few neighborhood cranks to stall or kill projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

I think (as is obvious) that it is super easy to "offer up" something that will never happen. The developers are licking their chops to develop in Ward 3. It is simply a profit motive--it's a more expensive part of town, so they see dollar signs for their investment. GGW isn't an altruistic movement that cares about people, affordable housing, true vibrancy (or they would see that Ward 3 is already vibrant) or the longterm sustainability and attractiveness of our city.

This +1000

The only reason that the developers, the Mayor and GGW are interested in Ward 3 is because of money. They continually turn away from meaningful development in EOR that the residents have been demanding for more than a decade. The residents demands simply cannot gain traction because there is no perceived money to be made. That is the ugly truth about all of this development nonsense. Waterfront condos are stunning and they have build a vibrant community, but how about developing the same community along the waterfront EOR. Heck, put water taxi's between the two communities. While we are at it can we build a few nice grocery stores EOR, an urgent care or two and a few basic health clinics.

This stuff is not rocket science. The Wards have been telling us for years what they need. Heck you can find a dozen WP articles talking food deserts and lack of availability to health care. Only issue is that the city council and the developers cannot figure out how to make money building it there. Instead they make tenuous arguments that if you simply built less expensive dense housing in Ward 3, they would move thre and have access to the things they wanted in their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first upzoning project should be an eminent-domain takeover of David Alpert's house. It's a single-family home less than a half-mile to the Metro, which should not be allowed in the eyes of many here. Just a horrible use of that land. If that home was in Ward 3, he'd demand that an apartment building be built on that land, so let's start with him.

He would be the first one to want to upzone his block. I don't know why you type this as a bad thing. He has been open about it for more than a decade and supported a very large development literally across the street from his house.

Exactly. He goes to zoning meetings to support upzoning including on his block.

But we need more than just advocacy at zoning meetings. We need to change the zoning rules so there ARE no zoning meetings where any neighbor can object.

And how likely is it to happen on HIS block? Can we get it in writing?

Do you think that changes in zoning regulations would be written to say, "This applies to all of DC except the block David Alpert (who has supported multi-family projects on that block) lives on)"?

I think (as is obvious) that it is super easy to "offer up" something that will never happen. The developers are licking their chops to develop in Ward 3. It is simply a profit motive--it's a more expensive part of town, so they see dollar signs for their investment. GGW isn't an altruistic movement that cares about people, affordable housing, true vibrancy (or they would see that Ward 3 is already vibrant) or the longterm sustainability and attractiveness of our city.

Let's summarize the dialogue.

-Abolish zoning
-Starting with David Alpert's block, what a hypocrite!
-No, actually he supports that, including support for an actual project on the block he lives on.
-Oh yeah?
-Actually, yeah.
-Well, he's still a hypocrite, because that will never happen on his block!

I mean, I'm not a fan of the guy personally, but these obsessive accusation of hypocrisy are purely bananas. If David Alpert moved to Mars tomorrow, DC would still need more housing, less restrictive zoning, and less opportunity for a few neighborhood cranks to stall or kill projects.

It's not about David Alperts "block". It's about the obsessive slavering by GGW to build up Ward 3, NOT David Alpert's neighborhood. On the one hand, GGW type folks make fun of ward 3 as sleepy and a 'suburb' in the city. But wait, people want to live there! So let's over-develop it without stopping to think why people want to live there. BECAUSE it's sleepy and a suburb in the city. That's hypocrisy!

[Anonymous]

I think you're thinking a lot more about them than they're thinking about you.

I also think you forgot what's really required for living in Ward 3, namely: lots of money to spend on housing, because demand far exceeds supply, because the people who already live there (and were able to spend a lot of money on housing) are generally successfully at opposing the efforts to increase supply, thereby making it impossible for more people to live in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This +1000

The only reason that the developers, the Mayor and GGW are interested in Ward 3 is because of money. They continually turn away from meaningful development in EOR that the residents have been demanding for more than a decade. The residents demands simply cannot gain traction because there is no perceived money to be made. That is the ugly truth about all of this development nonsense. Waterfront condos are stunning and they have build a vibrant community, but how about developing the same community along the waterfront EOR. Heck, put water taxi's between the two communities. While we are at it can we build a few nice grocery stores EOR, an urgent care or two and a few basic health clinics.

This stuff is not rocket science. The Wards have been telling us for years what they need. Heck you can find a dozen WP articles talking food deserts and lack of availability to health care. Only issue is that the city council and the developers cannot figure out how to make money building it there. Instead they make tenuous arguments that if you simply built less expensive dense housing in Ward 3, they would move thre and have access to the things they wanted in their homes.

How strange that developers want to build at a profit instead of at a loss.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This +1000

The only reason that the developers, the Mayor and GGW are interested in Ward 3 is because of money. They continually turn away from meaningful development in EOR that the residents have been demanding for more than a decade. The residents demands simply cannot gain traction because there is no perceived money to be made. That is the ugly truth about all of this development nonsense. Waterfront condos are stunning and they have build a vibrant community, but how about developing the same community along the waterfront EOR. Heck, put water taxi's between the two communities. While we are at it can we build a few nice grocery stores EOR, an urgent care or two and a few basic health clinics.

This stuff is not rocket science. The Wards have been telling us for years what they need. Heck you can find a dozen WP articles talking food deserts and lack of availability to health care. Only issue is that the city council and the developers cannot figure out how to make money building it there. Instead they make tenuous arguments that if you simply built less expensive dense housing in Ward 3, they would move thre and have access to the things they wanted in their homes.

How strange that developers want to build at a profit instead of at a loss.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Exactly. That is GGW's only real interest. They could give a darn about quality of life EOR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you're thinking a lot more about them than they're thinking about you.

I also think you forgot what's really required for living in Ward 3, namely: lots of money to spend on housing, because demand far exceeds supply, because the people who already live there (and were able to spend a lot of money on housing) are generally successfully at opposing the efforts to increase supply, thereby making it impossible for more people to live in Ward 3.

opposing efforts to rationally increase housing supply in DC with more opportunity for mixed income units and incentives for essential workers like teachers, fire fighters etc, or opposing efforts to cover green space, reduce parking, and reduce single family homes specifically in Ward 3 without bringing in any of the above?