The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to a rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Thank you for a detailed response.

The level of YIMBY denial about things like this is terrifying. Have they tricked themselves into believing these things or are they just this dishonest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

The government could subsidize payments to those HOAs or even just cap HOA fees. I am sure that will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

My point is that a big part of this MM campaign was dishonest. I’m not making a value statement about renting vs buying, but don’t mislead people and tell them this will provide ownership opportunities when that is mostly false. Many of the advocates were claiming this zoning change would help with this and it is a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

But Arlington, at least, sold this as affordable homeownership opportunities. When I showed our financial projections for condo fees in a 6 unit building to a member of the Arlington County Board, she told me that “I had to believe and good things would happen.” Well I do believe we will be keeping the buildings for passive income until we sell them to investors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

But Arlington, at least, sold this as affordable homeownership opportunities. When I showed our financial projections for condo fees in a 6 unit building to a member of the Arlington County Board, she told me that “I had to believe and good things would happen.” Well I do believe we will be keeping the buildings for passive income until we sell them to investors.

Dd Arlington say "None of this housing will be rental housing?" I doubt it. Keeping in mind that all kinds of housing can be rental housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

My point is that a big part of this MM campaign was dishonest. I’m not making a value statement about renting vs buying, but don’t mislead people and tell them this will provide ownership opportunities when that is mostly false. Many of the advocates were claiming this zoning change would help with this and it is a lie.

It's a lie? Really? 100% will be for rent, and you know that for a fact? Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

YIMBY's just do what you want. Get allies voted into office an enact whatever you want to do. Don’t waste your time pretending you want to win people over, you don't care what others thinks, as obvious by your responses here. No point in keeping up pretense of discussion and compromise. On the other side, anti-Yimby's will fight for what they want, try to elect people on their side, and do not need to provide explanations to you. This type of civility doesn't exist anymore, everyone needs to recognize reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

My point is that a big part of this MM campaign was dishonest. I’m not making a value statement about renting vs buying, but don’t mislead people and tell them this will provide ownership opportunities when that is mostly false. Many of the advocates were claiming this zoning change would help with this and it is a lie.

It's a lie? Really? 100% will be for rent, and you know that for a fact? Huh.

If you are so smart and have an explanation for every note of opposition, every single one, just enact what you want and don't try to explain it to the rest of us. You don't care what we think anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

My point is that a big part of this MM campaign was dishonest. I’m not making a value statement about renting vs buying, but don’t mislead people and tell them this will provide ownership opportunities when that is mostly false. Many of the advocates were claiming this zoning change would help with this and it is a lie.

It's a lie? Really? 100% will be for rent, and you know that for a fact? Huh.

If you are so smart and have an explanation for every note of opposition, every single one, just enact what you want and don't try to explain it to the rest of us. You don't care what we think anyway.

Me? I don't have the power to enact anything. I am just a regular resident and longtime homeowner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

YIMBY's just do what you want. Get allies voted into office an enact whatever you want to do. Don’t waste your time pretending you want to win people over, you don't care what others thinks, as obvious by your responses here. No point in keeping up pretense of discussion and compromise. On the other side, anti-Yimby's will fight for what they want, try to elect people on their side, and do not need to provide explanations to you. This type of civility doesn't exist anymore, everyone needs to recognize reality.

I mean, they're doing that, right? Rather successfully.

Everyone is anonymous here. I don't know whom you are talking to with the "your responses here" thing, and neither do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

YIMBY's just do what you want. Get allies voted into office an enact whatever you want to do. Don’t waste your time pretending you want to win people over, you don't care what others thinks, as obvious by your responses here. No point in keeping up pretense of discussion and compromise. On the other side, anti-Yimby's will fight for what they want, try to elect people on their side, and do not need to provide explanations to you. This type of civility doesn't exist anymore, everyone needs to recognize reality.

I mean, they're doing that, right? Rather successfully.

Everyone is anonymous here. I don't know whom you are talking to with the "your responses here" thing, and neither do you.

If my post applies to you it does if it doesn't it doesn't. So yes, I know who I am talking to actually. Post are Anonymous, doesn't mean they do not contain words and sentences and content. There YIMBY's go again, calling people stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

YIMBY's just do what you want. Get allies voted into office an enact whatever you want to do. Don’t waste your time pretending you want to win people over, you don't care what others thinks, as obvious by your responses here. No point in keeping up pretense of discussion and compromise. On the other side, anti-Yimby's will fight for what they want, try to elect people on their side, and do not need to provide explanations to you. This type of civility doesn't exist anymore, everyone needs to recognize reality.

I mean, they're doing that, right? Rather successfully.

Everyone is anonymous here. I don't know whom you are talking to with the "your responses here" thing, and neither do you.

If my post applies to you it does if it doesn't it doesn't. So yes, I know who I am talking to actually. Post are Anonymous, doesn't mean they do not contain words and sentences and content. There YIMBY's go again, calling people stupid.

Eh. No, you don't. But if you want to believe you do, nobody can stop you.