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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

Ward 3 has already met, if not exceeded, the mayor’s stated 2025 goal for adding more housing units in Ward 3. 1500 of these new housing units are under construction in dense developments on just two blocks along Wisconsin Ave alone. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?

You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.

I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.

*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*

These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.

Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.

You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.

Did you even bother reading any of the articles? Which ones were not peer-reviewed?

And yes, all papers address the central topic that land-use restrictions increase the price of housing. Please try reading them.

You don’t even know what peer review is, couldn’t even describe how it works and the different types and are just an all around low IQ person.

Wow, I really touched a nerve! Since you're obviously a very stable genius, telling me which papers were not subject to peer review should be trivial. So which ones weren't?

Debate Club Guy is the most tiresome person on this website. Only one of the links is published in an actual journal, therefore only one is published in a “peer reviewed journal” that you recommended I read. QED.

This is why you are low IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

Wow, so wrong. I guess dupont or georgetown built a bunch of high rises right? Because they have been gentrified for years.

Oh, wait, they haven't. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

You seem to not have a firm grasp on DC migration patterns over the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

You seem to not have a firm grasp on DC migration patterns over the past few years.

Forgot to add population growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?

You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.

I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.

*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*

These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.

Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.

You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.

Did you even bother reading any of the articles? Which ones were not peer-reviewed?

And yes, all papers address the central topic that land-use restrictions increase the price of housing. Please try reading them.

You don’t even know what peer review is, couldn’t even describe how it works and the different types and are just an all around low IQ person.

Wow, I really touched a nerve! Since you're obviously a very stable genius, telling me which papers were not subject to peer review should be trivial. So which ones weren't?

Debate Club Guy is the most tiresome person on this website. Only one of the links is published in an actual journal, therefore only one is published in a “peer reviewed journal” that you recommended I read. QED.

This is why you are low IQ.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse to try to win an Internet argument, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just in way over your head and have no idea how to get yourself out of this.

The first link is from The American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, a peer-reviewed journal.
The second link is from the Journal of Economic Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal.
The third link is from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Economic Policy Review, a peer-reviewed journal.
The fourth link is from Econometrica, a peer-reviewed journal.
The fifth link is from the Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, comprised of a series of peer-reviewed articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

Your own argument is so weak that you have to misstate the arguments that others make even to make your same tired, racism claims. Your subsidy-seeking developer heroes are all seeking 15 percent returns on their projects or they won’t build. What effect do you think that has on supply and affordability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

Your own argument is so weak that you have to misstate the arguments that others make even to make your same tired, racism claims. Your subsidy-seeking developer heroes are all seeking 15 percent returns on their projects or they won’t build. What effect do you think that has on supply and affordability?

Nothing like a good "you're racist" attack! I bet you're fun at parties. So Woke. lol. Hint: downzoning was racist in the 60s. Look it up. Jesus, it's like you idiots aren't even trying.

Champ, most "developers" aren't getting 15%. And even if they are, last time I checked, profit was legal in this country. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

Your own argument is so weak that you have to misstate the arguments that others make even to make your same tired, racism claims. Your subsidy-seeking developer heroes are all seeking 15 percent returns on their projects or they won’t build. What effect do you think that has on supply and affordability?

Nothing like a good "you're racist" attack! I bet you're fun at parties. So Woke. lol. Hint: downzoning was racist in the 60s. Look it up. Jesus, it's like you idiots aren't even trying.

Champ, most "developers" aren't getting 15%. And even if they are, last time I checked, profit was legal in this country. Try again.

Very Trumpian Smart Growth view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

Ward 3 has already exceeded the mayor’s 2025 net new housing goal 4 years early, when you look at units already under construction, ready to break ground and fully approved. This canard that Ward 3 has no density is a complete fabrication, tovarich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love the NIMBYs here. Based on all your logic, we should ban all new housing construction?

I wonder where all the new people/jobs and migration will go.

Oh, they won't have places to live and will outbid others?

What is that called again?

lol

Your own argument is so weak that you have to misstate the arguments that others make even to make your same tired, racism claims. Your subsidy-seeking developer heroes are all seeking 15 percent returns on their projects or they won’t build. What effect do you think that has on supply and affordability?

Nothing like a good "you're racist" attack! I bet you're fun at parties. So Woke. lol. Hint: downzoning was racist in the 60s. Look it up. Jesus, it's like you idiots aren't even trying.

Champ, most "developers" aren't getting 15%. And even if they are, last time I checked, profit was legal in this country. Try again.

Right? GGW’s racism accusations are so exhausting.

You should tell your friend Hans Riemer about developers settling for less than 15 percent. He’s handing out millions in subsidies so developers can make 15 percent. He said they wouldn’t build without making 15 percent. Make whatever you want and build whatever you want but don’t ask for subsidies unless you’re providing affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

Ward 3 has already exceeded the mayor’s 2025 net new housing goal 4 years early, when you look at units already under construction, ready to break ground and fully approved. This canard that Ward 3 has no density is a complete fabrication, tovarich.

Great! I think we still have plenty of room for even more new housing, and especially actually affordable housing, in Ward 3, where I also live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?

"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.

But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.

"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.

That's why I favor doing it in Ward 3.

Ward 3 has already exceeded the mayor’s 2025 net new housing goal 4 years early, when you look at units already under construction, ready to break ground and fully approved. This canard that Ward 3 has no density is a complete fabrication, tovarich.

Great! I think we still have plenty of room for even more new housing, and especially actually affordable housing, in Ward 3, where I also live.

Absolutely. Several of the Ward 3 ANCs are being asked to support DC’s purchase of the Wardman Marriott site for affordable housing. This could be a once in a generation game-changer.