The government has always been here. So why was the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80, 90s COL here so affordable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Target and Wal-Mart both have more employees than Amazon and have a larger physical presence than Amazon and they are headquartered in the south and in the Midwest.

Both of those have storefronts? And Walmart especially has been implicated in the complete destruction of small town groceries and businesses which can't compete against their pricing.

Leaving entire communities without local retail and necessitating driving dozens of miles to the closest exit with one. In effect, driving their own towns and communities to destruction simply by removing tax revenue from the base.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/small-towns-devastated-after-wal-mart-stores-inc-decimates-mom-and-pop-shops-then-packs-up-and-leaves-they-ruined-our-lives

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happened-when-walmart-left

I am not a fan of either but they are both quite large and they both have their headquarters in supposed DEAD FLY OVER parts of the country.

Hmmm...of companies on the Fortune 500 list, here are some in the top 100 - United Health, Best Buy, CHS, 3M, and Target are in Minnesota, Berkshire Hathaway (#3) is in Nebraska, General Motors (10) and Ford, DuPont, and Dow Chemical are in Michigan, Exxon Mobil (#2), Valero, Tesoro, Conoco Phillips, Energy Transfer Equity, Phillips 66, American Airlines HQ, Sysco, and AT&T are in Texas, Cardinal Health (20), Proctor and Gamble (34), Marathon Petroleum, Nationwide, and Kroger are in Ohio, Express Scripts (22) is in Missouri, Bank of America, Honeywell, and Lowe's are in North Carolina, UPS, Coca-Cola, and Home Depot are in Georgia, Anthem is in Indiana, State Farm and Deere are in small town Illinois, Johnson Controls is in Wisconsin, HCA Healthcare and FedEx in Tennessee, Avnet in Arizona, Tyson Foods in Arkansas, World Fuel Services and Publix in Florida, Humana is in Kentucky...

I, too, thought these parts of the country were DEAD!!! Amazing revelation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Defense spending post 9/11. End of thread.

I heard that too.

You not remotely close.

I bought in Clarendon right out of college with my brother. We had roommates to help pay the mortgage in 1998.
Arlington already had their plans made (unbeknownst to us) for their urban redesign.
9/11 crushed sales.

Literally eminent domain was claimed immediately on yards/parks and Patriot missile and golf ball dome were put in. For like 2 years.

I would blame the dmv on one thing.

Thomas Jefferson high school.

It raised fcps and every county around it as a beacon.

That was planned in the 80’s.

Good bit before 9/11.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe no one has mentioned Citizens united and all that fat lobbying money!

But I think the main cause is the defense contractor money (starting in the &0s with Reagan but accelerating post-9/11), and then also the dual-income-bid-up-trap.

[Anonymous]

Foreign money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks Obama.

You mean Bush?

Wrong. The most amount of neighborhoods gentrified under Obama, not Bush. Housing prices went up.

[Anonymous]

With the first dot com boom, salaries for lawyers exploded in the early 2000s. You can say that for lots of places, but DC is a city of lawyers. New attorneys fees went up so fast (I got 4 raises and doubled my income in 2001), that it was reported that new associates made more money than Supreme Court justices and members of congress, so of course the government pay scale went up too. At the same time, easy credit, more income as new non-government jobs from AOL and other employers, and a general sense that more borrowing was okay really jumped rental and buying prices. Also, the DC home buyer $10000 tax credit caused everything in DC to immediate jump in price by that amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huge shift in people living in suburbs to people living in cities or more urban areas. This happened across the country.

This. DC has benefited big time from being on the Acela corridor and having halfway decent transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Target and Wal-Mart both have more employees than Amazon and have a larger physical presence than Amazon and they are headquartered in the south and in the Midwest.

Both of those have storefronts? And Walmart especially has been implicated in the complete destruction of small town groceries and businesses which can't compete against their pricing.

Leaving entire communities without local retail and necessitating driving dozens of miles to the closest exit with one. In effect, driving their own towns and communities to destruction simply by removing tax revenue from the base.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/small-towns-devastated-after-wal-mart-stores-inc-decimates-mom-and-pop-shops-then-packs-up-and-leaves-they-ruined-our-lives

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happened-when-walmart-left

Walmart doesn't go into every small town in America. In general they don't open stores in actual small towns (sub 8, sub 10k people). Because they're not big enough to support a Walmart. So most small towns actually don't have a Walmart.

And Walmart has no effect on mall closing and middle class storefront retail closing. Look at the threads on Georgetown. Was that due to Walmart? There's empty storefronts in New York too. Was that due to Walmart?

I spent a lot of time in small towns and many of those mom and pop retailers were pretty crappy. Expensive and limited selection. I'm not a fan of Walmart because it's crappy, but customers vote with their dollars and who are you to judge them and stop them? To save a handful of crappy local retailers? Are you also crying for the branded storefronts in malls that are also closing because everyone's shopping online now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Atlanta lost out on HQ2 for the same reason all the other cities lost out, because Jeff Bezos always intended it to be in DC and was milking the other cities for sensitive economic data for free and to also see if he could get freebies that he could use to force NOVA to give him something similar.


Is there any actual proof of this?

Come now, you're really questioning that Bezos was serious about any other city? It was bleedin' obvious he was gung ho on DC from day one, with possibly a second headquarter in NYC.

So bleedin obvious in the real estate forum that there were no less than a dozen threads in 2018 stating there was NO WAY D.C. would be a HQ2 pick?

Yeah, no.

I firmly believed in D.C.'s candidacy but I also am not blind that most other cities thought they had a good chance and I think Atlanta has a great chance before their representatives blew it threatening a major corporation.

Err... there were many more threads saying he was definitely coming to DC..... all the clues heavily pointed towards DC due to existing investment, his cozying up to the Fed over IT services and billion dollar contracts, buying the Post and buying a fancy house here.

I think the real answer is that Bezos privately always had DC region as his first choice but was willing to look at other regions if they could bribe him enough. But they couldn't/didn't, so it was DC here we come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Population growth and supply and demand. MoCo alone has been adding 100,000 residents every decade, as has Fairfax. Where are they supposed to live? Not enough housing = prices go up.

This. Laws of supply and demand. More people => more demand => higher prices for homes.

Except for high paid lawyers and lobbyists, salaries have not changed that much in the last decade. It's just that there are more people holding (relatively) higher paying professional jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Population growth and supply and demand. MoCo alone has been adding 100,000 residents every decade, as has Fairfax. Where are they supposed to live? Not enough housing = prices go up.

This. Laws of supply and demand. More people => more demand => higher prices for homes.

Except for high paid lawyers and lobbyists, salaries have not changed that much in the last decade. It's just that there are more people holding (relatively) higher paying professional jobs.

"Between 2000 and 2016, the population in the Washington region increased from 4.86 million people to 6.13 million people. This change was the result of three factors: the natural increase (births minus deaths), net domestic migration, and net foreign migration. During this period, population gains occurred from the natural increase and net foreign migration while the region lost population from net domestic migration."

https://sfullerinstitute.gmu.edu/research/reports/migration-washington-region/

We're also predicted to add another million people in the next decade. Where are they going to live? "Inventory in the Washington region has been tight since the Recession." https://sfullerinstitute.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SFI_Upcoming_Housing_Market_0718.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Population growth and supply and demand. MoCo alone has been adding 100,000 residents every decade, as has Fairfax. Where are they supposed to live? Not enough housing = prices go up.

This. Laws of supply and demand. More people => more demand => higher prices for homes.

Except for high paid lawyers and lobbyists, salaries have not changed that much in the last decade. It's just that there are more people holding (relatively) higher paying professional jobs.

"Between 2000 and 2016, the population in the Washington region increased from 4.86 million people to 6.13 million people. This change was the result of three factors: the natural increase (births minus deaths), net domestic migration, and net foreign migration. During this period, population gains occurred from the natural increase and net foreign migration while the region lost population from net domestic migration."

https://sfullerinstitute.gmu.edu/research/reports/migration-washington-region/

We're also predicted to add another million people in the next decade. Where are they going to live? "Inventory in the Washington region has been tight since the Recession." https://sfullerinstitute.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SFI_Upcoming_Housing_Market_0718.pdf

This is exactly it. The population in DC is growing and they aren't making anymore land, and most of the close in housing has already been built up. In addition, DC has one of the highest levels of education anywhere in the country, which draws lots of employers who require a highly educated workforce, which draws more people to the area.

[Anonymous]

One way to make housing more affordable is to increase density. Change zoning laws so that we have more condos/townhouses/duplexes, etc. instead of SFHs. Of course this means we will need to address infrastructure too (roads, schools, etc). If I was a savvy real estate entrepreneur, I would look into buying SFH property and replace it with multi-family units. (vs. the mcmansions that developers are building instead). It might be easier in neighborhoods that don't have an active NIMBY mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One way to make housing more affordable is to increase density. Change zoning laws so that we have more condos/townhouses/duplexes, etc. instead of SFHs. Of course this means we will need to address infrastructure too (roads, schools, etc). If I was a savvy real estate entrepreneur, I would look into buying SFH property and replace it with multi-family units. (vs. the mcmansions that developers are building instead). It might be easier in neighborhoods that don't have an active NIMBY mentality.

100% this. It's such a shame that zoning restrictions mean that all the teardown activity in close-in suburbs goes into building huge houses instead of 2-unit or 4-unit dwellings. This would be such an easy way to increase density and help solve the affordability problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One way to make housing more affordable is to increase density. Change zoning laws so that we have more condos/townhouses/duplexes, etc. instead of SFHs. Of course this means we will need to address infrastructure too (roads, schools, etc). If I was a savvy real estate entrepreneur, I would look into buying SFH property and replace it with multi-family units. (vs. the mcmansions that developers are building instead). It might be easier in neighborhoods that don't have an active NIMBY mentality.

100% this. It's such a shame that zoning restrictions mean that all the teardown activity in close-in suburbs goes into building huge houses instead of 2-unit or 4-unit dwellings. This would be such an easy way to increase density and help solve the affordability problem.

A number of recent academic studies have questioned whether this is actually true. They both found that upzoning does more to increase the amount of luxury residences than anything else.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/05/housing-supply-home-prices-economic-inequality-cities/588997/

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01/zoning-reform-house-costs-urban-development-gentrification/581677/