DC Lost >15,000 Net Residents to Out-Migration in First 6 Months of 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It's too crowded anyways. For a city that has height restrictions and a housing crunch (setting fancy 1bdrm condos aside), why do we always posit that robust growth is the best way to be?
There's a middle ground between the growth rate that happened in DC from 2004-2015 and the decline of places like Detroit. I don't think it's such a bad thing if things slow down for awhile.

I agree with you. My question would be if this will be the status quo for the immediate future, what should it mean for policies. Should there be more 1-BD condos and large apartment buildings? More density in NW? Or should building more desirable housing like THs be prioritized in areas where there is vacant land to do so. Particularly in the parts of the city that could use more investment.

Landowners and the free market should decide. Eliminate single family zoning, eliminate the height of buildings act, eliminate parking requirements, let people build what they want on their own property wherever it happens to be in the city. If people don't want to live there, the market will adjust and landowners will convert them and start building different types of buildings that the market desires more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It's too crowded anyways. For a city that has height restrictions and a housing crunch (setting fancy 1bdrm condos aside), why do we always posit that robust growth is the best way to be?
There's a middle ground between the growth rate that happened in DC from 2004-2015 and the decline of places like Detroit. I don't think it's such a bad thing if things slow down for awhile.

I agree with you. My question would be if this will be the status quo for the immediate future, what should it mean for policies. Should there be more 1-BD condos and large apartment buildings? More density in NW? Or should building more desirable housing like THs be prioritized in areas where there is vacant land to do so. Particularly in the parts of the city that could use more investment.

Landowners and the free market should decide. Eliminate single family zoning, eliminate the height of buildings act, eliminate parking requirements, let people build what they want on their own property wherever it happens to be in the city. If people don't want to live there, the market will adjust and landowners will convert them and start building different types of buildings that the market desires more.

I agree, let’s eliminate zoning entirely. Residential zoning is exclusionary zoning because it denies other property uses. I think the US should be more like Europe, particularly England. We should have factories centering neighborhoods. We should have pubs on every corner. Exclusionary zoning that only allows residential use is preventing this from happening. We have a lot to learn from Europe. Everything is better there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It's too crowded anyways. For a city that has height restrictions and a housing crunch (setting fancy 1bdrm condos aside), why do we always posit that robust growth is the best way to be?
There's a middle ground between the growth rate that happened in DC from 2004-2015 and the decline of places like Detroit. I don't think it's such a bad thing if things slow down for awhile.

I agree with you. My question would be if this will be the status quo for the immediate future, what should it mean for policies. Should there be more 1-BD condos and large apartment buildings? More density in NW? Or should building more desirable housing like THs be prioritized in areas where there is vacant land to do so. Particularly in the parts of the city that could use more investment.

Landowners and the free market should decide. Eliminate single family zoning, eliminate the height of buildings act, eliminate parking requirements, let people build what they want on their own property wherever it happens to be in the city. If people don't want to live there, the market will adjust and landowners will convert them and start building different types of buildings that the market desires more.

I agree, let’s eliminate zoning entirely. Residential zoning is exclusionary zoning because it denies other property uses. I think the US should be more like Europe, particularly England. We should have factories centering neighborhoods. We should have pubs on every corner. Exclusionary zoning that only allows residential use is preventing this from happening. We have a lot to learn from Europe. Everything is better there.

Yes. Exclusionary zoning is preventing people from being able to open commercial establishments in their homes. It enhances neighborhoods when people can convert the first floor of their home into a salon or tailor or corner store. Exclusionary residential zoning is preventing people from exercising entrepreneurship and forcing anyone that want to run a business into paying commercial rents, usually to major REITs or real estate investment companies.

[Anonymous]

Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

The fact is that residential exclusionary zoning was borne out of all of this stuff. It was about creating “order” and a reaction to decades of public health crises (pandemics, malaria, typhoid, etc) that were associated with what was considers an “unclean” urban environment. It was to keep out everything that they found undesirable. That included minorities, it included agriculture, commercial, and industrial land uses. People that lived in mixed land use neighborhoods were considered “dirty” popes.

If we are going to attack exclusionary zoning, we cannot just focus on single family homes. That’s just a small part of it. We have to and must address the totality of this injustice that prevents people from using their land for economically productive uses. Only the rich can afford to let land sit fallow for gardens. To build on all of it would create too much runoff. The only solution and the only way to justice is to completely repeal all of it. Half measures only continue to promote inequality and injustice.

People should be allowed to run small shops out of their homes. People should be allowed to grow vegetables and raise poultry and livestock for income. People should be allowed to legally fix others cars on their property. This is the only way that lower income people are going to be able to get ahead, which is to own their own labor and residential exclusionary zoning takes that away from them.

Exclusionary residential zoning needs to be repealed to right these wrongs.

[Anonymous]

I'm fine with restrictions and ordinances. I've lived places where everyone did what they want in terms of building, and since people are inherently selfish, the results weren't pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with restrictions and ordinances. I've lived places where everyone did what they want in terms of building, and since people are inherently selfish, the results weren't pretty.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with restrictions and ordinances. I've lived places where everyone did what they want in terms of building, and since people are inherently selfish, the results weren't pretty.

+1

Absolutely. It seems that we are in a era where we need to relearn why we have regulations in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is also one of the last places in the U.S. to allow kids to go back to school. Probably not a coincidence.

Uh do you see NYC...who opened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

You're funny, it seems you don't what the quality of food can do for one's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

I think these posters were being sarcastic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

I think these posters were being sarcastic

I’m the PP and I’m actually not being sarcastic. “exclusionary zoning” is about excluding everything that is considered undesirable, much of which is very closely tied to race. To focus only on single family housing completely misunderstands what exclusionary zoning was about. It’s all tied together and inseparable from one another. Zoning by its very nature is an act of exclusion. The arrival of zoning in the U.S. is inseparable from the historical context of Jim Crow.

Haar contends that a "ragtag grouping of idealists and special interest groups of the most diverse origins" looked to zoning as a tool for social reform as well as land use control. These social reformers believed that zoning offered a way not only to exclude incompatible uses from residential areas but also to slow the spread of slums into better neighborhoods.
…
Despite the obvious social implications of early zoning initiatives, however, the noblest intention of reformers like Marsh soon gave way to political pressures from those less inclined toward broad civic improvement. "What began as a means of improving the blighted physical environment in which people lived and worked," writes Yale Rabin, became "a mechanism for protecting property values and excluding the undesirables.

https://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--%20racialoriginsofzoning.pdf

These YIMBYs are therefore telling on themselves by talking about “neighbors welcome” when it’s clear they mean only neighbors with white collar jobs. If you say that you believe in vibrant communities, then what’s more vibrant than a community where people can sustain themselves economically? What’s more vibrant than communities like this in Baltimore where people can choose to turn their homes into storefront?


Pretty clear the YIMBYs carry the same Victorian classist attitudes which will continue to exclude people based on activities that can be easily linked to race. Because the restrictions on activities were intricately tied to the people. Exclusionary zoning today can be seen in things not just related to restricting the types of land uses but also behaviors, like occupancy limits and local nuisance ordinances, including restrictions on loud music, repairing vehicles in your driveway, bar-b-queing, etc.

To use the language of ending exclusionary zoning but only talking about single family housing misses the entire point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

I think these posters were being sarcastic

I’m the PP and I’m actually not being sarcastic. “exclusionary zoning” is about excluding everything that is considered undesirable, much of which is very closely tied to race. To focus only on single family housing completely misunderstands what exclusionary zoning was about. It’s all tied together and inseparable from one another. Zoning by its very nature is an act of exclusion. The arrival of zoning in the U.S. is inseparable from the historical context of Jim Crow.

Haar contends that a "ragtag grouping of idealists and special interest groups of the most diverse origins" looked to zoning as a tool for social reform as well as land use control. These social reformers believed that zoning offered a way not only to exclude incompatible uses from residential areas but also to slow the spread of slums into better neighborhoods.
…
Despite the obvious social implications of early zoning initiatives, however, the noblest intention of reformers like Marsh soon gave way to political pressures from those less inclined toward broad civic improvement. "What began as a means of improving the blighted physical environment in which people lived and worked," writes Yale Rabin, became "a mechanism for protecting property values and excluding the undesirables.

https://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--%20racialoriginsofzoning.pdf

These YIMBYs are therefore telling on themselves by talking about “neighbors welcome” when it’s clear they mean only neighbors with white collar jobs. If you say that you believe in vibrant communities, then what’s more vibrant than a community where people can sustain themselves economically? What’s more vibrant than communities like this in Baltimore where people can choose to turn their homes into storefront?


Pretty clear the YIMBYs carry the same Victorian classist attitudes which will continue to exclude people based on activities that can be easily linked to race. Because the restrictions on activities were intricately tied to the people. Exclusionary zoning today can be seen in things not just related to restricting the types of land uses but also behaviors, like occupancy limits and local nuisance ordinances, including restrictions on loud music, repairing vehicles in your driveway, bar-b-queing, etc.

To use the language of ending exclusionary zoning but only talking about single family housing misses the entire point.

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.