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:

The Smart Growth industry, which constantly pushes the theme that DC needs more affordable housing, does not support converting the Marriott site for affordable units. The site is a potential good mine for market rate development, which is the Smart Growth real goal. “Affordable housing” is simply the political pretext to obtain their goal.

This is a patently false statement.

Which part?

All of it.

That’s a gross overstatement. The Smart Growth people are even moving away from saying “affordable housing” and saying “more attainable housing” instead because the affordable housing lie is no longer tenable. The developers whose water you’re carrying will take every concession you’re fighting for to margin if they’re left unchecked.

Nope.

All.Of.It.

https://ward3vision.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Ward3Vision-Affordable-Housing-Vision-2021.pdf

I think your second sentence had too many periods?

The word jumble you linked to is notably devoid of specifics. As far as I can tell, it's the same usual menu of giveaways for developers so they can pad their profits. It doesn't take a very a strong position on the Wardman site: "Each site (including the Wardman Park site) should be accompanied by a realistic conceptual development plan which should be evaluated from this standpoint as well as for its potential success and for its impact on the neighborhood in which it is located." (And affordable housing -- less than 65 percent AMI adjusted for household size -- there sounds fine to me, for what it's worth).

[Anonymous]

How can there be specifics without a particular parcel on the table? The Wardman is an idea right now, one the Mayor doesn't support. Get mad at the Mayor for not wanting to take advantage of the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can there be specifics without a particular parcel on the table? The Wardman is an idea right now, one the Mayor doesn't support. Get mad at the Mayor for not wanting to take advantage of the opportunity.

PPP: Here’s proof Smart Growth supports affordable housing at Wardman Park.
PP: It doesn’t actually say that.
You: How can it say that if there’s not a parcel on the table?

The linked document actually says nothing. It never defines affordable housing or missing middle, a term developers have used for $1.5 million townhouses.

It would be easy to be more specific about the Wardman property. You could say it should be at least 30 percent affordable for 65 percent AMI and below. But they don’t want to say that because they don’t want to box in the developer who would definitely want less.

[Anonymous]

It depends. Would it be a city owned property or is a private developer buying it?

That would shape how many units there could or should be, and what level of AMI could or should be achieved. Without that information, you can only look at the parameters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Smart Growth industry, which constantly pushes the theme that DC needs more affordable housing, does not support converting the Marriott site for affordable units. The site is a potential good mine for market rate development, which is the Smart Growth real goal. “Affordable housing” is simply the political pretext to obtain their goal.

This is a patently false statement.

Which part?

All of it.

That’s a gross overstatement. The Smart Growth people are even moving away from saying “affordable housing” and saying “more attainable housing” instead because the affordable housing lie is no longer tenable. The developers whose water you’re carrying will take every concession you’re fighting for to margin if they’re left unchecked.

Good. "Affordable housing" doesn't work. Nobody wants a government controlled slum apartment or sit on a waiting list for 20 years to get a place for half off.

Your solutions haven't worked. Time to try something else. Aka build more housing, like the research shows.

lol NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much of ward 3 is zoned for SFH's only.
If we allowed anyone who wanted to to build triplexes on any lot now zoned for SFH:
- Real estate prices would go way up.
- Costs of individual units would go way down.

It might take a few years for the 2nd to happen.

But we need more houses. Many more houses. It's the only way to make it cheaper to live here.

It’s never - ever going to be cheaper to live here. Never never never. You are a shill for developers.

[Anonymous]

DP - it may never be cheaper, but having more units will make it so more people can live here, rather than driving in from Ashburn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much of ward 3 is zoned for SFH's only.
If we allowed anyone who wanted to to build triplexes on any lot now zoned for SFH:
- Real estate prices would go way up.
- Costs of individual units would go way down.

It might take a few years for the 2nd to happen.

But we need more houses. Many more houses. It's the only way to make it cheaper to live here.

It’s never - ever going to be cheaper to live here. Never never never. You are a shill for developers.

Actually lots of evidence says you are wrong:

https://dcist.com/story/21/07/16/luxury-apartment-leasing-is-soaring-in-dc-as-the-pandemic-winds-down/

In D.C., the average effective rent (defined as actual rent minus concessions) for a new luxury apartment was $2,375 in the most recent quarter. That’s down from 2016, when it was $2,604. Across the metro region, the average is now $2,076, a slight decrease over this time last year. Rents are predictably lower within the region’s older Class B apartments, where average effective rents dropped slightly over the year, to $1,676 from $1,708.

And there is a lot of evidence that new housing takes the pressure off existing housing including keeping older buildings from being renovated and keeping their rents down as well.

Now it may be true that we are not going to build our way to cheap housing but basic economics still applies (even on Ordway Street) and more supply does temper inflation while improving the cities bottom line so more money can be spent on deeply affordable housing and other social programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP - it may never be cheaper, but having more units will make it so more people can live here, rather than driving in from Ashburn.

Unless they want a SFH. I could have chosen to live in a Dupont rowhouse but didn't want to, so I take the metro in from a little further out. The dirty secret about housing is that there are studios and 1- and 2-bedroom apartments available at a variety of prices in many neighborhoods around town, even ones that feed into highly regarded public schools. People choose not to live in those units because maybe they lack central A/C, or in-unit washer/driers, or they can get more space for the same price further out. One reason you don't get more three bedrooms or super luxury in new developments is that rent is higher than a mortgage, and the market for rentals at those price points isn't very big.

That said, we can and should provide more affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much of ward 3 is zoned for SFH's only.
If we allowed anyone who wanted to to build triplexes on any lot now zoned for SFH:
- Real estate prices would go way up.
- Costs of individual units would go way down.

It might take a few years for the 2nd to happen.

But we need more houses. Many more houses. It's the only way to make it cheaper to live here.

It’s never - ever going to be cheaper to live here. Never never never. You are a shill for developers.

Are you 12? Is that how you argue your points in real life? People who understand supply and demand are "shills"?

Jesus.

Seattle had an apartment boom 3 years ago and rent went down like 10%. Do your homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP - it may never be cheaper, but having more units will make it so more people can live here, rather than driving in from Ashburn.

Unless they want a SFH. I could have chosen to live in a Dupont rowhouse but didn't want to, so I take the metro in from a little further out. The dirty secret about housing is that there are studios and 1- and 2-bedroom apartments available at a variety of prices in many neighborhoods around town, even ones that feed into highly regarded public schools. People choose not to live in those units because maybe they lack central A/C, or in-unit washer/driers, or they can get more space for the same price further out. One reason you don't get more three bedrooms or super luxury in new developments is that rent is higher than a mortgage, and the market for rentals at those price points isn't very big.

That said, we can and should provide more affordable housing.

Who’s “we”? It’s not magic. It costs money and it increases crime which in turn costs more money to protect against, prosecute, incarcerate etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much of ward 3 is zoned for SFH's only.
If we allowed anyone who wanted to to build triplexes on any lot now zoned for SFH:
- Real estate prices would go way up.
- Costs of individual units would go way down.

It might take a few years for the 2nd to happen.

But we need more houses. Many more houses. It's the only way to make it cheaper to live here.

It’s never - ever going to be cheaper to live here. Never never never. You are a shill for developers.

Are you 12? Is that how you argue your points in real life? People who understand supply and demand are "shills"?

Jesus.

Seattle had an apartment boom 3 years ago and rent went down like 10%. Do your homework.

Developers in Seattle made a mistake. They oversupplied. Developers in this area seem to be more cautious and prefer a shortage to a glut. It seems developers understand supply and demand and its effect on pricing even better than you do.

[Anonymous]

“re you 12? Is that how you argue your points in real life? People who understand supply and demand are "shills"?

Jesus.

Seattle had an apartment boom 3 years ago and rent went down like 10%. Do your homework.“

Did the 10 percent decrease make Seattle housing affordable? Would a 10 percent decrease in dc make housing affordable?

Yes another poster said rents went down in dc in the last year. Oh, but they forgot to mention that the last year included a global pandemic when thousands of people in dc lost their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Nobody owes you a cheap apartment. Why don’t you argue for better wages?

[Anonymous]

You can have my single family house - im moving because the dc council voted to raise taxes again - maki g them the highest in the nation.