What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Confession: have not read all 40 pages

However, I believe the NIMBYS are 100% myopic. You cannot just build housing without supporting the rest of the infrastructure. Yes you'll need more space for cars, because despite what the NIMBYS think, building fewer parking spots at the new, more dense developmente does not equal fewer cars. You also need more schools, police, fire, libraries and Parks. Real parks, not the pocket parks the Montgomery County Planning Department likes. and I'm sure some other things.

Agree, but think you mean YIMBYS not NIMBYS? NIMBYs agree with the above. --NIMBY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

DC side stays sleepy, doesn't generate additional taxes and increased the housing deficit in the region, while the Maryland side has vibrancy, better shops and restaurants and a larger tax base.

Thanks Hans!

DC side is in an historic district.

“Vibrancy” is code for intensive market rate development.

[Anonymous]

Vibrancy is code for not having tumbleweeds going down the middle of the commercial area at 7:00 in the evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

DC side stays sleepy, doesn't generate additional taxes and increased the housing deficit in the region, while the Maryland side has vibrancy, better shops and restaurants and a larger tax base.

Thanks Hans!

I think you need a lesson in geography.

[Anonymous]

The only thing keeping Takoma Park MD businesses open are the new residents that came from the new development is Takoma DC. Prior to that, barely anything in Takoma Park MD could stay open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confession: have not read all 40 pages

However, I believe the NIMBYS are 100% myopic. You cannot just build housing without supporting the rest of the infrastructure. Yes you'll need more space for cars, because despite what the NIMBYS think, building fewer parking spots at the new, more dense developmente does not equal fewer cars. You also need more schools, police, fire, libraries and Parks. Real parks, not the pocket parks the Montgomery County Planning Department likes. and I'm sure some other things.

Agree, but think you mean YIMBYS not NIMBYS? NIMBYs agree with the above. --NIMBY

It’s certainly not the NIMBYS that made impact fees zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

DC side stays sleepy, doesn't generate additional taxes and increased the housing deficit in the region, while the Maryland side has vibrancy, better shops and restaurants and a larger tax base.

Thanks Hans!

Huh? The most substantial new development has been south of Eastern Ave, in DC. Takoma Park in MD can't even get a two-story building to replace a surface parking lot less than two miles from a Metro station done. Closer to the metro station, there are a lot of single family homes on lots that are prime candidates for upzoning, but Hans Riemer has blocked an upzoning bill from getting a hearing in his committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

+1 I have to agree that PP has breathtakingly simplistic thinking around "we need more housing"

+2. The outcome in Chicago was entirely predictable. They removed one source of artificial scarcity (zoning) without addressing another source of artificial scarcity (supply suppression). Land values appreciated because the development potential increased but no one built anything because they benefit from high prices.

The housing market is not operating efficiently because we don't have perfect competition. We have an oligopoly (a limited number of developers operating). The market structure favors keeping prices across existing holdings high absent an incentive to build more and allow prices to fall, especially for existing units, which vastly outnumber the units added in any one developer's portfolio in a given year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

+1 I have to agree that PP has breathtakingly simplistic thinking around "we need more housing"

+2. The outcome in Chicago was entirely predictable. They removed one source of artificial scarcity (zoning) without addressing another source of artificial scarcity (supply suppression). Land values appreciated because the development potential increased but no one built anything because they benefit from high prices.

The housing market is not operating efficiently because we don't have perfect competition. We have an oligopoly (a limited number of developers operating). The market structure favors keeping prices across existing holdings high absent an incentive to build more and allow prices to fall, especially for existing units, which vastly outnumber the units added in any one developer's portfolio in a given year.

Basically the government gave these land owners economic rent in the form of exclusive up zoning. It would not surprise me if developers used the enhanced land value based on the development rights as collateral to borrow against for other projects or acquisitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

+1 I have to agree that PP has breathtakingly simplistic thinking around "we need more housing"

+2. The outcome in Chicago was entirely predictable. They removed one source of artificial scarcity (zoning) without addressing another source of artificial scarcity (supply suppression). Land values appreciated because the development potential increased but no one built anything because they benefit from high prices.

The housing market is not operating efficiently because we don't have perfect competition. We have an oligopoly (a limited number of developers operating). The market structure favors keeping prices across existing holdings high absent an incentive to build more and allow prices to fall, especially for existing units, which vastly outnumber the units added in any one developer's portfolio in a given year.

Basically the government gave these land owners economic rent in the form of exclusive up zoning. It would not surprise me if developers used the enhanced land value based on the development rights as collateral to borrow against for other projects or acquisitions.

That would be one way to do it, but they generally wouldn't be borrowing as the primary source of funding for major projects. Those are usually too expensive for banks to finance, so the developers get major investors (think pension funds and insurance companies) when they start building things.

The borrowing would be to buy land that they're also going to sit on, allowing them to crowd out competitors. The big get bigger and the rich get richer while housing becomes less attainable, while people like Hans Riemer get to pretend they're fighting for social justice. Great set up the developers have engineered.

[Anonymous]

Anytime you NIMBYs say building more housing doesn't work, please just read this article and be quiet. Thanks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you NIMBYs say building more housing doesn't work, please just read this article and be quiet. Thanks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

Yes, occasionally developers over forecast demand, and when there's a glut rents fall. No disputing that. Developers here have responded to falling rents by delaying new construction or warehousing units. It looks like they missed by a lot in Seattle.

Question for you: Of the 60,000 units that Montgomery County needs for new households by 2040, how many could be permitted tomorrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you NIMBYs say building more housing doesn't work, please just read this article and be quiet. Thanks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

Yes, occasionally developers over forecast demand, and when there's a glut rents fall. No disputing that. Developers here have responded to falling rents by delaying new construction or warehousing units. It looks like they missed by a lot in Seattle.

Question for you: Of the 60,000 units that Montgomery County needs for new households by 2040, how many could be permitted tomorrow?

DP. Where do you get that figure from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you NIMBYs say building more housing doesn't work, please just read this article and be quiet. Thanks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

Yes, occasionally developers over forecast demand, and when there's a glut rents fall. No disputing that. Developers here have responded to falling rents by delaying new construction or warehousing units. It looks like they missed by a lot in Seattle.

Question for you: Of the 60,000 units that Montgomery County needs for new households by 2040, how many could be permitted tomorrow?

DP. Where do you get that figure from?

It's in the Thrive Montgomery paper. I'll just tell you how many units could be permitted in Montgomery County tomorrow: More than 30,000. That's right. Despite everything you've heard about NIMBYs causing housing to be unaffordable, the county has already approved plans accounting for more than half of its housing needs for the next two decades. No zoning changes needed. The county could provide for the balance of the units based on existing zoning. That would be bad for the environment and costly, so I support upzoning near transit, but only if it's accompanied by other changes that disincentivize developers sitting on approved plans for years to correct for the market structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime you NIMBYs say building more housing doesn't work, please just read this article and be quiet. Thanks.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/01/apartment-rents-dropping-in-seattle-landlords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

Yes, occasionally developers over forecast demand, and when there's a glut rents fall. No disputing that. Developers here have responded to falling rents by delaying new construction or warehousing units. It looks like they missed by a lot in Seattle.

Question for you: Of the 60,000 units that Montgomery County needs for new households by 2040, how many could be permitted tomorrow?

DP. Where do you get that figure from?

It's in the Thrive Montgomery paper. I'll just tell you how many units could be permitted in Montgomery County tomorrow: More than 30,000. That's right. Despite everything you've heard about NIMBYs causing housing to be unaffordable, the county has already approved plans accounting for more than half of its housing needs for the next two decades. No zoning changes needed. The county could provide for the balance of the units based on existing zoning. That would be bad for the environment and costly, so I support upzoning near transit, but only if it's accompanied by other changes that disincentivize developers sitting on approved plans for years to correct for the market structure.

The “Thrive Montgomery” paper relies on the Planning Department’s 2019 “trends” report (using 2017 estimates and extrapolating) where it over estimated 2020 population by over 37,000 people. They were also completely wrong by a significant amount on their population growth rate estimate. They estimated that the county currently has a growth rate of 0.7% that would decline to 0.48% from 2035 to 2045.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MP_TrendsReport_final.pdf

However, in the Planning Department’s April 2021 report to the redistricting committee (which is where they need to be accurate because it affects their bosses), they noted that the current population growth rate decelerated consistently and rapidly over the last half decade was was 0.2% last year.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/BCC/redistricting/materials/DemographicsPresentation04282021.pdf

You could make the case that we need to build more housing to attract more people to keep our economy vibrant. But the estimates you are citing are inaccurate and it’s disappointing that the Plannimg Department would allow its credibility to be used like this. But then again maybe Mr. Anderson is hoping for a future in politics.