Expansion of Housing Choice Voucher Program in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

No, you won't, because you're not accounting for the lifecycle costs of the Tesla (among other things). That's like somebody saying that it costs them $3 to drive somewhere, because it takes a gallon of gas, and gas is $3/gallon. No, that's not the full cost.

Plus you still need roads to drive the Tesla on, and parking spaces to park the Tesla in, and all of the many other things that go with driving a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

No, you won't, because you're not accounting for the lifecycle costs of the Tesla (among other things). That's like somebody saying that it costs them $3 to drive somewhere, because it takes a gallon of gas, and gas is $3/gallon. No, that's not the full cost.

Plus you still need roads to drive the Tesla on, and parking spaces to park the Tesla in, and all of the many other things that go with driving a car.

Are you stupid? What are the lifecycle costs of the Metrorail system? Calculate that first or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My friends love their rent control unit. It's on one of the avenues--a winner location-- and the price is reasonable. The thought of the number of fancy condos needing to be built by the developers you represent for IZs to catch up with rent control is terrifying. I am sorry that as the planet heats you want to turn our cool, shady city into a concrete jungle.

It's always discouraging when people use climate change to justify NIMBYism.

Or when Trump campaign apparatchiks, who worked for the most anti-climate president in US history then claim… you guessed it, climate change to sell their other clients’ aggressive development agenda for DC.

That would be discouraging if it happened, but fortunately it's fiction.

The founding partner of the firm that twice was Trump’s lead campaign pollster, message testing his divisive campaign themes, is a director and advisor to at least two DC smart growth groups. He regularly asserts on social media that dense mixed use development in NW DC is all about climate change. It’s not fiction at all. Google is the record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

No, you won't, because you're not accounting for the lifecycle costs of the Tesla (among other things). That's like somebody saying that it costs them $3 to drive somewhere, because it takes a gallon of gas, and gas is $3/gallon. No, that's not the full cost.

Plus you still need roads to drive the Tesla on, and parking spaces to park the Tesla in, and all of the many other things that go with driving a car.

This is someone that has no clue what they are talking about. This is not a financial comparison where you calculate depreciation. You are talking dollars, do you mean embedded GHG emissions? If you knew anything about transportation and if you have ever actually studied life cycle assessment in the sector (note, I have a masters degree in the subject), then you would surely know that the use phase produces the most significant emissions by far. You may want me I sit this one out friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is someone that has no clue what they are talking about. This is not a financial comparison where you calculate depreciation. You are talking dollars, do you mean embedded GHG emissions? If you knew anything about transportation and if you have ever actually studied life cycle assessment in the sector (note, I have a masters degree in the subject), then you would surely know that the use phase produces the most significant emissions by far. You may want me I sit this one out friend.

You don't seem to have learned much, though? Maybe they'll let you go back to try again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is someone that has no clue what they are talking about. This is not a financial comparison where you calculate depreciation. You are talking dollars, do you mean embedded GHG emissions? If you knew anything about transportation and if you have ever actually studied life cycle assessment in the sector (note, I have a masters degree in the subject), then you would surely know that the use phase produces the most significant emissions by far. You may want me I sit this one out friend.

You don't seem to have learned much, though? Maybe they'll let you go back to try again?

I just came in to tell you lack the expert to engage in this subject matter. But maybe I shouldn’t because you seem to be doing a good job proving that for yourself. I don’t have thin skin, although I do think wanted to insult someone else.

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder which reminds me of a lot of PhDs I know that had their degrees awarded from low ranked R2s. And since you seem to have such a high view of your own expertise in areas you have no clue about, I’m going to guess that you’re an economist. Only second rate economists are this arrogant and angry, narrowly beating out unhappy attorneys.

Good luck to you. I think you’re going to need it. Ciao.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

No, you won't, because you're not accounting for the lifecycle costs of the Tesla (among other things). That's like somebody saying that it costs them $3 to drive somewhere, because it takes a gallon of gas, and gas is $3/gallon. No, that's not the full cost.

Plus you still need roads to drive the Tesla on, and parking spaces to park the Tesla in, and all of the many other things that go with driving a car.

This is someone that has no clue what they are talking about. This is not a financial comparison where you calculate depreciation. You are talking dollars, do you mean embedded GHG emissions? If you knew anything about transportation and if you have ever actually studied life cycle assessment in the sector (note, I have a masters degree in the subject), then you would surely know that the use phase produces the most significant emissions by far. You may want me I sit this one out friend.

Yup Tesla driver hasn't thought much of anything through.

And his "analysis" completely fails to take into account all of the various costs of the poor land use patterns that all of our driving necessitates nor the cost of maintaining our roadway network which would be necessary for an apples to apples comparison of lifecycle costs of different modes of getting around.

Even the District of Columbia which spends a much higher percentage of its transportation budget on transit than the suburbs spends more every year just on re-paving its roads than it does on public transportation.

I'd also love to see his citations on WMATA's GHG emissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is someone that has no clue what they are talking about. This is not a financial comparison where you calculate depreciation. You are talking dollars, do you mean embedded GHG emissions? If you knew anything about transportation and if you have ever actually studied life cycle assessment in the sector (note, I have a masters degree in the subject), then you would surely know that the use phase produces the most significant emissions by far. You may want me I sit this one out friend.

You don't seem to have learned much, though? Maybe they'll let you go back to try again?

I just came in to tell you lack the expert to engage in this subject matter. But maybe I shouldn’t because you seem to be doing a good job proving that for yourself. I don’t have thin skin, although I do think wanted to insult someone else.

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder which reminds me of a lot of PhDs I know that had their degrees awarded from low ranked R2s. And since you seem to have such a high view of your own expertise in areas you have no clue about, I’m going to guess that you’re an economist. Only second rate economists are this arrogant and angry, narrowly beating out unhappy attorneys.

Good luck to you. I think you’re going to need it. Ciao.

Have you considered a career in writing fiction? You might do well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

Even if your information and math are correct, AND even if every joule that went into manufacturing, operating, and disposing of your Tesla came from renewable, non-CO2-emitting sources (and every joule that went into those sources likewise came from renewable, non-CO2-emitting sources, and so on a la "turtles all the way down"), then there would still be the harmful environmental/climate effects of car-dependent land use.

Of course, to reduce your carbon footprint even compared to transit, you should use a you-powered bike for all of your trips to destinations that are 3 miles or less away (assuming that you're able-bodied, or disabled but able to ride a bike). And what really helps with that is...land use where lots of stuff is within 3 miles of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I know someone who lives in a rent controlled NW apartment. They are exactly the kind of person people say they want "affordable housing" for. At least one of the prototypes - hard working, responsible,.service type job,.could not afford it otherwise, definitely appreciative and add to our city.

Exactly. And rent controlled housing exists today - it needs to be nurtured, preserved and even expanded. Ward 3 today has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the District, with access to good schools, etc for working class families. Yet when one brings up the importance of rent controlled housing with OP and their allies in the DC Smart Growth industry they get incredibly defensive. They only want to talk about more development and the (paltry) resulting number of IZ units (that aren’t really affordable). It’s like “affordable housing” is just a pretext for them, to build more dense upmarket mixed use in high profit areas of DC.

YOu are either trying to mislead or you are uninformed. Rent control units do almost nothing to deliver affordable housing to low income renters. Rent control is NOT means-tested so anyone of any income can snag a rent contolled unit and hang on to it for an entire life (see NYC). I lived in rent contolled unit for 10 years in DC in a very nice area and my income was over 90k. my place was super cheap but I certainly didnt need rent control.

+1
I'm a landlord and rent control is very much a failed policy. If you can't afford to live in DC, just move to the burbs like everyone else. Rent control usually doesn't have much impact anyway, as a huge majority of housing isn't rent controlled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's "we"?

Climate change has been an actual, legitimate, self-evident Smart Growth factor for decades.

Legitimate question here. Now that we have electric cars, why hasn't "Smart Growth" changed or reconsidered anything?

Because electric cars are not a magical solution to all Smart Growth-related issues. They're more energy-efficient than internal combustion engines, and they don't produce tailpipe emissions, but that's it. Everything else is the same.

The consistent problem with “smart growth” people is that they have a lot of belief but little facts.

I did a little math and it turns out that for myself, driving an electric car to work has less GHG emissions than taking Metro.

WMATA reports 367,000 tons of CO2 emissions on 182,000,000 trips in 2019. That’s 4 pounds of CO2 per trip or 8 pounds of CO2 round trip.

EPA reports that a Tesla Model 3 has an efficiency of 0.259 kWh per mile. If I only charged from the grid, the current carbon intensity of the PJM Interconnection, which is the ISO that covers DC and Maryland regional ISO is 438g per kWh. Therefore a Tesla’s emissions would be 0.25 pounds per mile. My commute is 10 miles each way, so my round trip daily emissions would be 5 pounds.

If I drive a Tesla instead of taking Metro, I would reduce my carbon emissions by almost 40%. That’s crazy.

And this is why it’s important to have facts and data, instead of just making stuff up because it sounds good.

No, you won't, because you're not accounting for the lifecycle costs of the Tesla (among other things). That's like somebody saying that it costs them $3 to drive somewhere, because it takes a gallon of gas, and gas is $3/gallon. No, that's not the full cost.

Plus you still need roads to drive the Tesla on, and parking spaces to park the Tesla in, and all of the many other things that go with driving a car.

Are you stupid? What are the lifecycle costs of the Metrorail system? Calculate that first or shut up.

I'm no mathematician and I agree that the smartgrowth arguments are often facetious. However, would you need to divide the metro emissions by the number of people using the metro? it's like a big carpool. I am curious what the figures look like then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I know someone who lives in a rent controlled NW apartment. They are exactly the kind of person people say they want "affordable housing" for. At least one of the prototypes - hard working, responsible,.service type job,.could not afford it otherwise, definitely appreciative and add to our city.

Exactly. And rent controlled housing exists today - it needs to be nurtured, preserved and even expanded. Ward 3 today has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the District, with access to good schools, etc for working class families. Yet when one brings up the importance of rent controlled housing with OP and their allies in the DC Smart Growth industry they get incredibly defensive. They only want to talk about more development and the (paltry) resulting number of IZ units (that aren’t really affordable). It’s like “affordable housing” is just a pretext for them, to build more dense upmarket mixed use in high profit areas of DC.

YOu are either trying to mislead or you are uninformed. Rent control units do almost nothing to deliver affordable housing to low income renters. Rent control is NOT means-tested so anyone of any income can snag a rent contolled unit and hang on to it for an entire life (see NYC). I lived in rent contolled unit for 10 years in DC in a very nice area and my income was over 90k. my place was super cheap but I certainly didnt need rent control.

+1
I'm a landlord and rent control is very much a failed policy. If you can't afford to live in DC, just move to the burbs like everyone else. Rent control usually doesn't have much impact anyway, as a huge majority of housing isn't rent controlled.

I appreciate a landlord's perspective though there are many kinds of landlords so more specifics of what you see would be helpful. I look at rent control as part of a multi pronged approach. The city wants "affordable housing" and there are many levels of that from shelters (free housing) to homestead act (helping home owners keep their house) to rent control and lots more ways. There isn't going to be one ring that binds them all; rent control is just one piece of the pie. It seems like it generally works for low-middle income folks. Rent control apartments that I have seen aren;t fancy or family homes, so I don't see a lot of very wealthy people trying to sneak into them for a long period of time. What's not to like about some affordable, central housing for responsible people (your non profit folks, single teachers, receptionists etc.) and also making it possible for some of them to be part of the neighborhood. Certainly many do live "where it's cheaper" and commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not only are voucher program units exempt from rent control, but if a landlord accepts vouchers for a rent controlled unit, it effectively converts the unit to non-rent controlled status going forward. So it’s a nifty deal for certain landlords: higher rents and a permanent reduction in rent controlled units.

It's also a nifty deal for DC which ultimately is pro development, not pro rent control..it's awful to see them use vouchers to undermine existing rent control.

Yes, this is very clear unfortunately. Bowser’s Office of Planning tries to ignore rent controlled units and refuses to acknowledge that they are part of an affordable housing strategy for the District. Instead, their main focus is building ever more dense market rate housing, and they cite the relatively small number of IZ units that would result as “affordable.” It’s really just a pretext for Upzoning neighborhoods. Meanwhile the mayor and OP undermine and reduce the stock of rent controlled housing, the the most significant affordable housing component in expensive areas like Upper NW. They are undermining rent controlled housing through the voucher program and recent DC Comprehensive Plan amendments that incentivize the tear down or conversion of older buildings which contain much of the affordable housing stock. Consequently Bowser’s professed priority to create more affordable housing is definitely one step forward, three steps back.

I've never understood this - it's such a good solution for low income and low middle income workers . Why isn't the city sympathetic to them? They feel they should love in the boonies. City only cares about very rich and very poor? Rent control is wonderful for teachers, single parents etc.

Rent control constrains incumbent real estate investors, so they don't like it. The city is strongly oriented towards satisfying incumbent real estate investors.

I say there has to be balance. You need to promote growth and give people incentive to invest but also take care of your own people by making some housing affordable. As an investor, I see the requirements or bureaucracy of building an apartment building is so tough that investors don't want to touch it unless big profit margins are there.