DC Lost >15,000 Net Residents to Out-Migration in First 6 Months of 2020

[Anonymous]

If “vibrancy” means rising crime rates, then you know what you can do with vibrancy.

[Anonymous]

Something kind of big and disruptive happened but now it is over.

[Anonymous]

Wait, the 'raising chickens' post was for real? *face slap*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exclusionary zoning laws are preventing me from turning my single family home into a horse slaughterhouse. It's so unfair.

More commonly, it prevents people from raising chickens, although many still do illegally, as well as small ruminants. We need to end exclusionary residential zoning.

Why, in a dense urban area, do you need the right to raise chickens? They are kind of filthy, and can make an ungodly amount of noise. There's cheaper chicken and eggs at Safeway, and there's even a section called "free range" where you can pay more $$ to make your dead chicken happy.

I think these posters were being sarcastic

I’m the PP and I’m actually not being sarcastic. “exclusionary zoning” is about excluding everything that is considered undesirable, much of which is very closely tied to race. To focus only on single family housing completely misunderstands what exclusionary zoning was about. It’s all tied together and inseparable from one another. Zoning by its very nature is an act of exclusion. The arrival of zoning in the U.S. is inseparable from the historical context of Jim Crow.

Haar contends that a "ragtag grouping of idealists and special interest groups of the most diverse origins" looked to zoning as a tool for social reform as well as land use control. These social reformers believed that zoning offered a way not only to exclude incompatible uses from residential areas but also to slow the spread of slums into better neighborhoods.
…
Despite the obvious social implications of early zoning initiatives, however, the noblest intention of reformers like Marsh soon gave way to political pressures from those less inclined toward broad civic improvement. "What began as a means of improving the blighted physical environment in which people lived and worked," writes Yale Rabin, became "a mechanism for protecting property values and excluding the undesirables.

https://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--%20racialoriginsofzoning.pdf

These YIMBYs are therefore telling on themselves by talking about “neighbors welcome” when it’s clear they mean only neighbors with white collar jobs. If you say that you believe in vibrant communities, then what’s more vibrant than a community where people can sustain themselves economically? What’s more vibrant than communities like this in Baltimore where people can choose to turn their homes into storefront?


Pretty clear the YIMBYs carry the same Victorian classist attitudes which will continue to exclude people based on activities that can be easily linked to race. Because the restrictions on activities were intricately tied to the people. Exclusionary zoning today can be seen in things not just related to restricting the types of land uses but also behaviors, like occupancy limits and local nuisance ordinances, including restrictions on loud music, repairing vehicles in your driveway, bar-b-queing, etc.

To use the language of ending exclusionary zoning but only talking about single family housing misses the entire point.

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

Of course, the quality of daily life especially in our towns and cities would be better if more people simply followed the law and rules, instead of not giving a f@#&and breaking them - and then making excuses like discrimination, oppression, racism, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

Of course, the quality of daily life especially in our towns and cities would be better if more people simply followed the law and rules, instead of not giving a f@#&and breaking them - and then making excuses like discrimination, oppression, racism, etc.

+1

[Anonymous]

Many of my employees "moved" out of DC for the pandemic. They gave up their apartments so technically left the city. They just wanted to save money. The office opens up in September and all of those folks are moving back to the city. So DC lost and now it will gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of them moved to my Maryland suburb.

+1 home prices in my area were stagnant for a few years, then covid hit, and .. wow. up almost 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Ah! So that's why Houston, Texas which has no zoning is such a racially progressive place. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

Very few people in a position to do anything about it are proposing to "get rid of zoning" altogether in Ward 3; the idea is to change the zoning in Ward 3 so less of it is zoned only for single-family homes on large lots. Doing that would make it so that if you wanted to buy a home in Ward 3, you could maybe buy, say, a two-bedroom condo instead of a four-bedroom house, which is obviously going to be cheaper. But most of the people advocating for that sort of change also recognize that development can't only be upscale and market-rate, but rather that there needs to be enforced requirements for developers to build some actually affordable units as well.

I guess it's easier to make your straw man opponent seem unreasonable than it is to engage with that, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

I think you miss the point. Exclusive residential only zoning prevent people from running small shops out of their homes. It prevents people from using their backyards to grow produce to sell at the local market. And it prevents people from using their properties an incubators of start ups. All of the activities are considered undesirable. You can see how a mindset where people that have chickens and small vegetable gardens would be considered “undesirable” and you can imagine who those people were in 1910 America. This is the true nature of what exclusionary residential zoning is about. It’s about using facially neutral pretexts that focus on activities with the purpose to exclude “undesirable” people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".