We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

I had the same issue in NYC where I wanted to buy a condo on Fifth Avenue but couldn't afford it. I regularly complained about the lack of affordable housing overlooking Central Park. Get a life. True progressives want to raise the bottom not tear down the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

I had the same issue in NYC where I wanted to buy a condo on Fifth Avenue but couldn't afford it. I regularly complained about the lack of affordable housing overlooking Central Park. Get a life. True progressives want to raise the bottom not tear down the top.

Raising the bottom can be accomplished by increasing the supply of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Sure, you get to do that. However, my advice (which you did not ask for) is to look for arguments other than "I want only rich people to live in my neighborhood," because that's unlikely to be politically successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Sure, you get to do that. However, my advice (which you did not ask for) is to look for arguments other than "I want only rich people to live in my neighborhood," because that's unlikely to be politically successful.

That wouldn’t be an argument I would use because it’s not something I think. If you want to gift my next-door neighbor’s house that is currently up for sale to a poor family, I will welcome that family with open arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

I truly don’t think you need to get this upset about not being able to afford a home in Ward 3. It’s not the end of the world. If you’d give other areas of the city a chance, I suspect you’d find that they’re not as terrible as you think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Sure, you get to do that. However, my advice (which you did not ask for) is to look for arguments other than "I want only rich people to live in my neighborhood," because that's unlikely to be politically successful.

That wouldn’t be an argument I would use because it’s not something I think. If you want to gift my next-door neighbor’s house that is currently up for sale to a poor family, I will welcome that family with open arms.

"It's not true that I don't want a cat. If you give me a cat that is a dog, I will welcome that cat with open arms."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

I truly don’t think you need to get this upset about not being able to afford a home in Ward 3. It’s not the end of the world. If you’d give other areas of the city a chance, I suspect you’d find that they’re not as terrible as you think they are.

DP. What's with the constant projection that this is solely about not being able to afford to be a homeowner in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

I truly don’t think you need to get this upset about not being able to afford a home in Ward 3. It’s not the end of the world. If you’d give other areas of the city a chance, I suspect you’d find that they’re not as terrible as you think they are.

DP. What's with the constant projection that this is solely about not being able to afford to be a homeowner in Ward 3?

Where else do upzoning advocates want to upzone? I’d say the same thing for those neighborhoods too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

I truly don’t think you need to get this upset about not being able to afford a home in Ward 3. It’s not the end of the world. If you’d give other areas of the city a chance, I suspect you’d find that they’re not as terrible as you think they are.

DP. What's with the constant projection that this is solely about not being able to afford to be a homeowner in Ward 3?

Where else do upzoning advocates want to upzone? I’d say the same thing for those neighborhoods too.

Well, this is from the hated GGW, from someone at least one PP has mentioned by name as disliking, and it advocates upFLUMing everywhere in the city.

https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

I wish I could only say that the irony of: "I bought in this neighborhood and I want it to be exactly the same as it was then, always and forever. I deserve this, this is my right. To accomplish this I advocate completely changing poorer neighborhoods, pushing longtime residents out and doing exactly what I don't want done to my neighborhood." is lost on these people, but the sad fact is that it's not. They know exactly what they are advocating for, they just don't care because it's not happening to them. They are the worst kind of selfish, heartless sociopaths, and the world would be better off without them.

I truly don’t think you need to get this upset about not being able to afford a home in Ward 3. It’s not the end of the world. If you’d give other areas of the city a chance, I suspect you’d find that they’re not as terrible as you think they are.

DP. What's with the constant projection that this is solely about not being able to afford to be a homeowner in Ward 3?

Where else do upzoning advocates want to upzone? I’d say the same thing for those neighborhoods too.

Well, this is from the hated GGW, from someone at least one PP has mentioned by name as disliking, and it advocates upFLUMing everywhere in the city.

https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you don't like the area you live in, and that's why you doubt the sincerity of people who say they want to add housing in it? Or, you do like the area you live in, but you don't want other people to live in it unless they have a lot of money?

I love the neighborhood I live in and I want more people to live here. It's a great mixed income neighborhood now but I know that any development will be for people with a lot of money. I think we should upzone every place that's close to transit though, and I find it curious the YIMBYs aren't interested in upzoning all neighborhoods, just the fancy ones. That very neatly aligns with developers' goals.

Developers would be perfectly happy to redevelop poorer neighborhoods, since it would make acquiring land and buildings to develop much cheaper (and allow them to sell for more upside down the line).