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: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.

1) DC tax burden is lower than MD or VA.
2) if you are making over $500,000 and the $30/mo in additional taxes is going to overburden you, then you are a horrible money manager. You will spend more on your moving truck and crew.

Sales Tax
DC 6%
MD 6%
VA 5.3%

Ppty Tax (per $100)
DC 0.85
MoCo from 1.08 to 1.64
PG 0.86
Arlington 1.013
Alex 1.13
Fairfax 1.03
LoCo 0.98

Need to factor in the annual car tax in Virginia - that is fairly significant.

And income tax

Personal property tax rates (VA is not the only one with a car tax) can be looked up as well as state/district income tax rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would demand that every single "developer" is in cahoots and a huge, thousand-person conspiracy.

Yeah, champ. That's it. These "evil" companies, who make money by building things (hint, different companies do the building and operating) are just sitting in their offices, doing nothing.

What are you smoking? Can I have some?

Nimby, homeowner, shills. This entire forum.

You seem to have a distorted, utopian GGW view of how this actually works, so let me see if I can help you understand it better. Start by asking yourself if any one of the for-profit developers in Seattle was happy that its new projects generated less than their expected returns or that their existing buildings suddenly became less profitable. Next, ask what happened after rents dropped. Deliveries slowed. This happens everywhere, including here. Finally, ask what happened to rentals at the low end of the market. Prices must have dropped there too because of filtering, right? Wrong. Rents at the low end of the market increased, even faster than inflation. So much for filtering and the trickle-down economics that GGW loves to push.

It's possible for developers to reach similar conclusions without conspiring. They all have similar profit motives and funding constraints, so it's not surprising that they make similar decisions. This isn't a volume business, and the local housing market is not functioning well because it's dominated by a small number of large suppliers who already have a lot of units in the market.

Some companies are vertically integrated and conceive projects, raise money for them, and operate them. Some even have their own construction companies. If by building you mean pouring concrete and placing beams, yes, construction companies are most often separate firms hired at arms length to build. But construction companies don't decide how many units are delivered and when. The developer makes those calls. I point this out only because your glib "what are you smoking" question makes me wonder whether you actually understand any of this with any degree of sophistication, champ.

If you don't believe that developers are limiting supply, then start reading planning and zoning applications. You'll see requests to delay projects (almost always granted) and requests to reduce units just before delivery because developers are concerned about absorption (always granted). That means they're concerned there won't be enough high-income households to rent their apartments. Developers have a completely different read of this market than you do.

Developers aren't working hard math problems, and the institutional investors backing their projects have a lot of people who are good at math. Developers are clearly targeting 100 to 120 percent AMI with their new projects. Estimate how much that population will grow, survey existing inventory, and decide whether there's an opportunity to build. The business model is to extract as much of residents' monthly income as they're willing to pay.

My complaint is that developers are not building enough given existing approvals and zoning, so I'm not sure how that makes me a NIMBY. I think developers should build every property to the limit and that the limits should be high. I want more walkable communities with many services nearby, which is impossible without denser development. I think we should be making development easier and making more land available for dense development. But I also recognize that's not sufficient, and unless we simultaneously address developers' increasing tendency to constrain supply and to maintain high rents, the benefits of upzoning will all accrue to developers in the form of profit instead of to communities in the form of more livable spaces.

Wow, you wrote a lot of stuff, that is all wrong! Only skimmed it, but it's the typical anti-GGW NIMBY nonsense. Waste of time, not sure why you wrote it lol. Please do some basic research here. There is a reason why rents went down during covid. Hmmm, supply and demand, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would demand that every single "developer" is in cahoots and a huge, thousand-person conspiracy.

Yeah, champ. That's it. These "evil" companies, who make money by building things (hint, different companies do the building and operating) are just sitting in their offices, doing nothing.

What are you smoking? Can I have some?

Nimby, homeowner, shills. This entire forum.

You seem to have a distorted, utopian GGW view of how this actually works, so let me see if I can help you understand it better. Start by asking yourself if any one of the for-profit developers in Seattle was happy that its new projects generated less than their expected returns or that their existing buildings suddenly became less profitable. Next, ask what happened after rents dropped. Deliveries slowed. This happens everywhere, including here. Finally, ask what happened to rentals at the low end of the market. Prices must have dropped there too because of filtering, right? Wrong. Rents at the low end of the market increased, even faster than inflation. So much for filtering and the trickle-down economics that GGW loves to push.

It's possible for developers to reach similar conclusions without conspiring. They all have similar profit motives and funding constraints, so it's not surprising that they make similar decisions. This isn't a volume business, and the local housing market is not functioning well because it's dominated by a small number of large suppliers who already have a lot of units in the market.

Some companies are vertically integrated and conceive projects, raise money for them, and operate them. Some even have their own construction companies. If by building you mean pouring concrete and placing beams, yes, construction companies are most often separate firms hired at arms length to build. But construction companies don't decide how many units are delivered and when. The developer makes those calls. I point this out only because your glib "what are you smoking" question makes me wonder whether you actually understand any of this with any degree of sophistication, champ.

If you don't believe that developers are limiting supply, then start reading planning and zoning applications. You'll see requests to delay projects (almost always granted) and requests to reduce units just before delivery because developers are concerned about absorption (always granted). That means they're concerned there won't be enough high-income households to rent their apartments. Developers have a completely different read of this market than you do.

Developers aren't working hard math problems, and the institutional investors backing their projects have a lot of people who are good at math. Developers are clearly targeting 100 to 120 percent AMI with their new projects. Estimate how much that population will grow, survey existing inventory, and decide whether there's an opportunity to build. The business model is to extract as much of residents' monthly income as they're willing to pay.

My complaint is that developers are not building enough given existing approvals and zoning, so I'm not sure how that makes me a NIMBY. I think developers should build every property to the limit and that the limits should be high. I want more walkable communities with many services nearby, which is impossible without denser development. I think we should be making development easier and making more land available for dense development. But I also recognize that's not sufficient, and unless we simultaneously address developers' increasing tendency to constrain supply and to maintain high rents, the benefits of upzoning will all accrue to developers in the form of profit instead of to communities in the form of more livable spaces.

Wow, you wrote a lot of stuff, that is all wrong! Only skimmed it, but it's the typical anti-GGW NIMBY nonsense. Waste of time, not sure why you wrote it lol. Please do some basic research here. There is a reason why rents went down during covid. Hmmm, supply and demand, perhaps?

Pandemic: Demand fell. Supply stayed constant. So much for your GGW supply-side economics driving prices. Not a single part of that is wrong, champ. Again, please explain how it’s good for a developer with thousands of units already in the market to drive prices down. You can’t. Please explain why rents at the low end of the Seattle market increased while falling at the high end of the market if your theory of affordable housing works. You can’t. Your theory of housing is fatally flawed unless the only goal is maximizing profit.

[Anonymous]

Developers cannot just change approved plans on a whim, sorry champ.

[Anonymous]

First, do we have an agreement on what constitutes a "middle-income" home?

Here is a link to what used to be a typical a middle-income home - 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths - and quite similar to the one I grew up in during my early childhood. Dad was a college graduate and professional who commuted to DC from Silver Spring (and this was way before the Metro: think in terms of Mom driving him to the bus stop, and him having to make two transfers), and costs $425,000. It has a nice backyard for the kids to play. So....do we agree that this is a decent middle-income home, or do the high-earning "elites" on this forum look their nose down on it?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13200-May-Ct-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308032_zpid/?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First, do we have an agreement on what constitutes a "middle-income" home?

Here is a link to what used to be a typical a middle-income home - 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths - and quite similar to the one I grew up in during my early childhood. Dad was a college graduate and professional who commuted to DC from Silver Spring (and this was way before the Metro: think in terms of Mom driving him to the bus stop, and him having to make two transfers), and costs $425,000. It has a nice backyard for the kids to play. So....do we agree that this is a decent middle-income home, or do the high-earning "elites" on this forum look their nose down on it?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13200-May-Ct-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308032_zpid/?

Or, here's another one, in the same general area. This is how all the middle-class kids I grew up with lived:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3930-Wendy-Ln-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308239_zpid/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers cannot just change approved plans on a whim, sorry champ.

As PP pointed out, they need to go back to the approved for permission. I can’t recall an instance in which an approver has denied a request to delay, shrink, or convert to shorter-term housing. It’s happened frequently in the past three years. If your goal is really more housing, I don’t understand why you’re only blaming zoning and NIMBYs. Developers could build more units right now with no more approvals needed. If your goal is just helping developers inflate their profits, then your attempts to deflect blame for skyrocketing housing prices make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, do we have an agreement on what constitutes a "middle-income" home?

Here is a link to what used to be a typical a middle-income home - 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths - and quite similar to the one I grew up in during my early childhood. Dad was a college graduate and professional who commuted to DC from Silver Spring (and this was way before the Metro: think in terms of Mom driving him to the bus stop, and him having to make two transfers), and costs $425,000. It has a nice backyard for the kids to play. So....do we agree that this is a decent middle-income home, or do the high-earning "elites" on this forum look their nose down on it?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13200-May-Ct-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308032_zpid/?

Or, here's another one, in the same general area. This is how all the middle-class kids I grew up with lived:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3930-Wendy-Ln-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308239_zpid/

Either of those are typically $650,000 in my suburban Virginia neighborhood. That's middle class right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, do we have an agreement on what constitutes a "middle-income" home?

Here is a link to what used to be a typical a middle-income home - 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths - and quite similar to the one I grew up in during my early childhood. Dad was a college graduate and professional who commuted to DC from Silver Spring (and this was way before the Metro: think in terms of Mom driving him to the bus stop, and him having to make two transfers), and costs $425,000. It has a nice backyard for the kids to play. So....do we agree that this is a decent middle-income home, or do the high-earning "elites" on this forum look their nose down on it?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13200-May-Ct-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308032_zpid/?

Or, here's another one, in the same general area. This is how all the middle-class kids I grew up with lived:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3930-Wendy-Ln-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308239_zpid/

Either of those are typically $650,000 in my suburban Virginia neighborhood. That's middle class right?

Nope, $650,000 is fairly affluent. And that's what they go for in my suburban Virginia neighborhood, too, so I know all about it.

But the point was the posters have been complaining that there isn't enough middle-income housing, and I was showing that there ARE middle-income houses in the area. It's just that middle-income people might have to move to Silver Spring where the houses can be had for $400,000. I see some of them in areas of Rockville, as well - the 1950s style ranchers and split-levels. What's so bad about having to move to where you can afford a house?

[Anonymous]

There are homes but the problem is everyone wants a house in a popular or desired area. I live in Clarksburg and inventory is stupendously low. There are also not many new homes popping up because of cost of materials. Germantown and Gaithersburg have plenty of available homes but the schools/safety/desirability come into play. I am really trying hard not to be tempted to sell my TH as I could make a small fortune. I am in the process of signing another lease term with the renter. I have real estate agents ask if I am thinking of selling the SFH in the area of Clarksburg I live in at least once a month. They canvass a lot of the neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First, do we have an agreement on what constitutes a "middle-income" home?

Here is a link to what used to be a typical a middle-income home - 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths - and quite similar to the one I grew up in during my early childhood. Dad was a college graduate and professional who commuted to DC from Silver Spring (and this was way before the Metro: think in terms of Mom driving him to the bus stop, and him having to make two transfers), and costs $425,000. It has a nice backyard for the kids to play. So....do we agree that this is a decent middle-income home, or do the high-earning "elites" on this forum look their nose down on it?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13200-May-Ct-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308032_zpid/?

Or, here's another one, in the same general area. This is how all the middle-class kids I grew up with lived:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3930-Wendy-Ln-Silver-Spring-MD-20906/37308239_zpid/

Either of those are typically $650,000 in my suburban Virginia neighborhood. That's middle class right?

These are actually for sale at a lower price in a neighborhood with great schools and well within reach for someone making 70 percent of AMI.

[Anonymous]

Residential development is an industry with no barriers to entry. It is incredibly competitive, pro-cyclical, speculative and the returns on capital _over time_ and _in aggregate_ are worse than the stock market. Of course, some developers do incredibly well, and many developers do well over short (5-8 year) time horizons. And of course many go BK when housing markets slow. For example, in the pandemic, in general if rent rolls fell 7%, most developers were not able to cover their carrying costs.

But developing “in fill” (that is, in a city vs the endless exurbs) is unbelievably painful and time consuming. What keeps any profit margin in the industry at all is that most people do not have the stamina and willingness to fight nonstop with all the “stakeholders” who hold a pocket veto on development.

Tokyo is the model we should be following (easier said than done, since Tokyo just keeps expanding out further and further). We should make it easy to build more housing. Clearly there is enough demand to absorb 2x the housing the city currently has.

The path to “affordable” housing is to build more housing full stop. When my family moved to DC 60 years ago for mid-level govt work, they could afford to live just about anywhere in the city and close in suburbs… b/c the population was quite small, and (mostly the suburbs) had built out a lot of housing in proportion to the population.

In those 55 years, the population has exploded but the close-in housing stock has not nearly kept pace.

Hear hear to the first post on this thread: build more housing! Make it easy to do so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Residential development is an industry with no barriers to entry. It is incredibly competitive, pro-cyclical, speculative and the returns on capital _over time_ and _in aggregate_ are worse than the stock market. Of course, some developers do incredibly well, and many developers do well over short (5-8 year) time horizons. And of course many go BK when housing markets slow. For example, in the pandemic, in general if rent rolls fell 7%, most developers were not able to cover their carrying costs.

But developing “in fill” (that is, in a city vs the endless exurbs) is unbelievably painful and time consuming. What keeps any profit margin in the industry at all is that most people do not have the stamina and willingness to fight nonstop with all the “stakeholders” who hold a pocket veto on development.

Tokyo is the model we should be following (easier said than done, since Tokyo just keeps expanding out further and further). We should make it easy to build more housing. Clearly there is enough demand to absorb 2x the housing the city currently has.

The path to “affordable” housing is to build more housing full stop. When my family moved to DC 60 years ago for mid-level govt work, they could afford to live just about anywhere in the city and close in suburbs… b/c the population was quite small, and (mostly the suburbs) had built out a lot of housing in proportion to the population.

In those 55 years, the population has exploded but the close-in housing stock has not nearly kept pace.

Hear hear to the first post on this thread: build more housing! Make it easy to do so!

TIL that Tokyo, which is on nearly every list of the world's most expensive housing markets, is the model we should be following for more affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers cannot just change approved plans on a whim, sorry champ.

As PP pointed out, they need to go back to the approved for permission. I can’t recall an instance in which an approver has denied a request to delay, shrink, or convert to shorter-term housing. It’s happened frequently in the past three years. If your goal is really more housing, I don’t understand why you’re only blaming zoning and NIMBYs. Developers could build more units right now with no more approvals needed. If your goal is just helping developers inflate their profits, then your attempts to deflect blame for skyrocketing housing prices make sense.

They are building like crazy all over my area of SW and Navy Yard. But it seems to be targeted at either upscale (12 million dollar condos at the Wharf) or young professionals but very little seems to be geared toward middle income families. In the 15 years I've been here it's always the same pattern, lots of young 20 and 30 somethings, maybe some families with young children, but the second their kids get older, most of them bail for the suburbs. Granted a big part of that is lack of faith in DC schools. Some of the charters have managed to stem the tide but if families are bailing then there aren't as many invested in making change.

[Anonymous]

Guess what. Middle income families do not want to live next to rich families and vice versa. Do not ignore human nature.