"We don't really have housing options." Other cities have proactive land policies–DC needs them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of affordable housing in PG County. You can buy a three bedroom house within walking distance of the border with D.C. for $350,000.

In ten years, those houses in PG County will cost $1 million and the people today who are turning their noses up at the idea of living in PG County will complain about how there's no affordable housing in PG County.

There are already houses selling for $900k. Reminds me when I first moved here and people would turn their noses up any neighborhood east of 16th.

People who want to live in gentrified neighborhoods at pre-gentrification prices.

[Anonymous]

I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

[Anonymous]

This is such a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. I do not understand anyone whose position is not "DC needs tons more housing, including a lot more subsidized and affordable options." Like it's a shortsighted, indefensible position. The city literally will not function if we can't find a way to do this. Who do you think is going to wait tables and tend bar at the nightlife you enjoy? Who will teach you kids? Who will clean your teeth at the dentist? Pick up your trash? What about civil engineers who work in the public sector? Do you think all the people who do these jobs are conveniently married to a Big Law attorney? No. This city only operates with its working and middle class intact, and they need a place to live.

We need more housing. We need more family housing, specifically. That doesn't have to mean SFHs, and in fact that's the least efficient way to do this. You can keep your SFH, it's fine. But there are lots of housing arrangements that are used all over the world to accommodate families that take up less space while still being functional. Courtyard buildings, for instance. I'd happily live in a courtyard building with my family! I don't mind living in an apartment. But where would I find one? I cannot -- DC doesn't build these. It doesn't build 3 bedroom apartments, actually. It's almost impossible to find them, even though if you had them, it would become a viable option for lots of families. We wanted to buy a 3 bedroom condo a few years back and we could not find one for less than 500k. And that was a few years back -- now it would probably be more like 700k.

I don't understand the opposition. No one wants to take your house. We want to make sure people have places to live. Do you really want the entire working and middle class population of the city to be commuting in from exurbs? Because by the way, close in suburbs, including PG county are increasingly out of reach for us as well.

The truth is, if DC doesn't figure out housing, families like mine (which includes two public servants doing work you need us to do, FYI) won't move to the burbs. We'll just move. To another city. With cheaper housing. The end. You'll miss us a lot more than you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. I do not understand anyone whose position is not "DC needs tons more housing, including a lot more subsidized and affordable options." Like it's a shortsighted, indefensible position. The city literally will not function if we can't find a way to do this. Who do you think is going to wait tables and tend bar at the nightlife you enjoy? Who will teach you kids? Who will clean your teeth at the dentist? Pick up your trash? What about civil engineers who work in the public sector? Do you think all the people who do these jobs are conveniently married to a Big Law attorney? No. This city only operates with its working and middle class intact, and they need a place to live.

We need more housing. We need more family housing, specifically. That doesn't have to mean SFHs, and in fact that's the least efficient way to do this. You can keep your SFH, it's fine. But there are lots of housing arrangements that are used all over the world to accommodate families that take up less space while still being functional. Courtyard buildings, for instance. I'd happily live in a courtyard building with my family! I don't mind living in an apartment. But where would I find one? I cannot -- DC doesn't build these. It doesn't build 3 bedroom apartments, actually. It's almost impossible to find them, even though if you had them, it would become a viable option for lots of families. We wanted to buy a 3 bedroom condo a few years back and we could not find one for less than 500k. And that was a few years back -- now it would probably be more like 700k.

I don't understand the opposition. No one wants to take your house. We want to make sure people have places to live. Do you really want the entire working and middle class population of the city to be commuting in from exurbs? Because by the way, close in suburbs, including PG county are increasingly out of reach for us as well.

The truth is, if DC doesn't figure out housing, families like mine (which includes two public servants doing work you need us to do, FYI) won't move to the burbs. We'll just move. To another city. With cheaper housing. The end. You'll miss us a lot more than you think.

You should question your assumptions. DC only needs a certain type of housing. If it had produced that type of housing over the last decade it would be fine. Fortunately there is an opportunity to produce that type of housing at RFK. You should be the first to support it and yet you arguing for something different which would only have negligible impact and over a long period if time.

Even your bible agrees that the impact is negligible. “ This kind of piecemeal density does add to DC’s housing stock, but not nearly as much as multifamily housing construction.”
https://ggwash.org/view/81599/what-the-middle-finger-building-tells-us-about-dcs-housing-construction-debate

In the meantime, a whole new neighborhood with thousands of new housing of all types that people want and need could be produced within the next 3 years and you are not even interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of affordable housing in PG County. You can buy a three bedroom house within walking distance of the border with D.C. for $350,000.

In ten years, those houses in PG County will cost $1 million and the people today who are turning their noses up at the idea of living in PG County will complain about how there's no affordable housing in PG County.

There are already houses selling for $900k. Reminds me when I first moved here and people would turn their noses up any neighborhood east of 16th.

People who want to live in gentrified neighborhoods at pre-gentrification prices.

100% Back then it was the “brave” who moved to Logan Circle. Nowadays it looks like the kids just are not so brave and have gotten a bit lazy. Demand handouts instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

DC would have more diversified types of housing if the city did not spend the last decade letting developers build Studios and 1-bd apartments almost exclusively to the cheers of the people now complaining that there are not other housing types. Is that irony?

Cheering on developer profits is never good housing policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.