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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

[Anonymous]

*even though the PP said nobody is saying it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

Hey, it's almost as if they're not engaging in good faith! Your time is better spent trying to convince a brick wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

Because upzoning will enable more housing to be built than the status quo. Why is this so difficult for you to believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

Because upzoning will enable more housing to be built than the status quo. Why is this so difficult for you to believe?

But the status quo is lots of developers sitting on underdeveloped land on which they could be building new houses right now. No change in laws needed! If the true goal is more housing (not upzoning in specific areas like Ward 3), why not build those houses right now? Building those houses would also result in more housing, and the developers don’t even have to fight to change any pesky laws to do it.

Sadly, I don’t see much interest from GGW fans, developers, or upzoning advocates to do that, despite the fact that it would create lots more housing much faster and more effectively. Which leads me to believe that they are interested in something other than just creating more overall housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

Because upzoning will enable more housing to be built than the status quo. Why is this so difficult for you to believe?

But the status quo is lots of developers sitting on underdeveloped land on which they could be building new houses right now.

Citation needed.

If the true goal is more housing (not upzoning in specific areas like Ward 3), why not build those houses right now? Building those houses would also result in more housing, and the developers don’t even have to fight to change any pesky laws to do it.

Once again, you are misrepresenting their position, which, again, is not upzoning Ward 3 in particular, but all of DC.

Sadly, I don’t see much interest from GGW fans, developers, or upzoning advocates to do that, despite the fact that it would create lots more housing much faster and more effectively. Which leads me to believe that they are interested in something other than just creating more overall housing.

There's plenty of interest, GGW ran an article yesterday about how multifamily housing adds more to the supply of housing than do pop-ups and rowhouse subdivisions. They ran an article a month ago applauding DC on committing to building high-density residential along the U Street Corridor (Which, you'll note, is definitely not in Ward 3!).

Looking forward to you constructing another strawman and shifting the goalposts again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

So what's stopping them from doing that now? Or are they already doing that now? Please explain.

They are already doing that, yes. Have you ever been to places like Shaw, Petworth, Columbia Heights, H Street, Trinidad, Brentwood, Brookland, etc., etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

So what's stopping them from doing that now? Or are they already doing that now? Please explain.

They are already doing that, yes. Have you ever been to places like Shaw, Petworth, Columbia Heights, H Street, Trinidad, Brentwood, Brookland, etc., etc.?

Those are the "poorer neighborhoods"? It's 2021, not 1991.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

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

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

How is this relevant to the point that they are, in fact, calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city, not just Ward 3?

I don’t spend my time reading material from discredited sources. If you have an argument you want to make, why don’t you just make it yourself?

Let's recap.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?

I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

Because upzoning will enable more housing to be built than the status quo. Why is this so difficult for you to believe?

But the status quo is lots of developers sitting on underdeveloped land on which they could be building new houses right now. No change in laws needed! If the true goal is more housing (not upzoning in specific areas like Ward 3), why not build those houses right now? Building those houses would also result in more housing, and the developers don’t even have to fight to change any pesky laws to do it.

Sadly, I don’t see much interest from GGW fans, developers, or upzoning advocates to do that, despite the fact that it would create lots more housing much faster and more effectively. Which leads me to believe that they are interested in something other than just creating more overall housing.

I'd prefer that we build high-quality, low-income, publicly owned housing in Ward 3, to start, and that developers make no profits from it whatsoever. I realize that isn't remotely politically feasible right now. But absent that, upzoning areas right on major transportation corridors and Metro lines that are currently zoned only for large single-family houses seems like a good way to increase the diversity of housing options available in places like Ward 3. (Which is where I own an expensive single-family home, before you accuse me of being someone who just wishes I could afford to live here.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

So what's stopping them from doing that now? Or are they already doing that now? Please explain.

They are already doing that, yes. Have you ever been to places like Shaw, Petworth, Columbia Heights, H Street, Trinidad, Brentwood, Brookland, etc., etc.?

Those are the "poorer neighborhoods"? It's 2021, not 1991.

How do you think those neighborhoods got to be like they are now? Developers have been doing that all over the place. (And yes, Trinidad and Brentwood are definitely poorer than AU Park.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I will reiterate: I think calling for upzoning throughout the whole city is a disingenuous smokescreen to accomplish what developers really want, which is to upzone in areas like Ward 3. There is a ton of development that could take place right now at this very moment without any need for upzoning. Think of all the new homes that could add! Why focus on changing the laws (a process that will involve a lengthy, drawn-out fight and may not happen at all) if your real goal is simply to add housing? Developers can add housing right now; no upzoning needed.

A PP: How come they're not calling for upzoning/upFLUMing the whole city?
Me: They are. Look, here's a post on GGW saying just that.
You: I don't read GGW.
Me: Ok, but here's a post on GGW saying just that, even the PP said nobody is saying it.
You: I don't read GGW. Why don't you make your own argument?
Me: GGW is saying it.
You: I don't believe they're sincere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How do you think those neighborhoods got to be like they are now? Developers have been doing that all over the place. (And yes, Trinidad and Brentwood are definitely poorer than AU Park.)

"Poorer than AU Park" is not usually what people mean, when they talk about "poor neighborhoods."

Anyway, I don't understand the argument here. Developers are voluntarily developing in poor neighborhoods (defined as: poorer than AU Park), and so therefore additional housing in AU Park shouldn't be allowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do you think those neighborhoods got to be like they are now? Developers have been doing that all over the place. (And yes, Trinidad and Brentwood are definitely poorer than AU Park.)

"Poorer than AU Park" is not usually what people mean, when they talk about "poor neighborhoods."

Anyway, I don't understand the argument here. Developers are voluntarily developing in poor neighborhoods (defined as: poorer than AU Park), and so therefore additional housing in AU Park shouldn't be allowed?

No, more housing in AU Park SHOULD be allowed. One PP has been suggesting that developers are not doing anything elsewhere in the city and that the push to upzone Ward 3 is just a stalking horse for developers' desires to build there. In reality, developers have already been building all over the city, and one advantage of encouraging building in AU Park is that at least it doesn't entail any of the concerns about gentrification.