Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

DP, but the builders already laugh all the way to the bank, so sounds like the status quo to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

The left didn't make accessory dwellings a D vs. R thing -- in virtually every city that's even considering them, Republicans barely exist as a political force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

It's really cute that you think Republicans have a logically consistent set of principles.

[Anonymous]

This is like saying apartment buildings don’t improve housing costs because an apartment building is worth more than a SFH. Just absolutely a silly thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

It's really cute that you think Republicans have a logically consistent set of principles.

Exactly. Republicans have no principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

It's really cute that you think Republicans have a logically consistent set of principles.

Exactly. Republicans have no principles.

I think that you are making assumptions about the political parties of the people making certain posts. Of course, it’s nice to see that it’s devolved into personal attacks, the lack of content in the posts is telling.

Seems like everyone is a libertarian these days when it comes to property rights…I’m sure that there won’t be any unintended consequences there. I hope everyone likes it when owners start selling out to become slumlords and make their front yards into parking lots. It’s going to be glorious with people crying about their carfree communities!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

It's really cute that you think Republicans have a logically consistent set of principles.

Exactly. Republicans have no principles.

I think that you are making assumptions about the political parties of the people making certain posts. Of course, it’s nice to see that it’s devolved into personal attacks, the lack of content in the posts is telling.

Seems like everyone is a libertarian these days when it comes to property rights…I’m sure that there won’t be any unintended consequences there. I hope everyone likes it when owners start selling out to become slumlords and make their front yards into parking lots. It’s going to be glorious with people crying about their carfree communities!

It's very helpful of the PP to tell us what (or whom) we're supposed to be afraid of. Renters, for one thing. Apparently renters are scary. And cars are also scary! And front yards are for mowing and yelling at people to keep off of, not for keeping cars on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.

How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.

I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.

1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family

There is a #3.

Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.

So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.

And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.

It's not your deciion either.

I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.

Nothing will change, AND the builders will laugh themselves to the bank? How will that work? Where will the money come from that they laugh themselves to the bank with?

Correct. Boomers sell half acre lots, developers squeeze what they can onto it. Rich people buy the new build and the poor still get screwed. Have you even looked at Mn?

The problem is the left got so involved with making this a D vs R thing that they wont let go even though they are wrong.

So Republicans oppose private-property rights?

It's really cute that you think Republicans have a logically consistent set of principles.

Exactly. Republicans have no principles.

I think that you are making assumptions about the political parties of the people making certain posts. Of course, it’s nice to see that it’s devolved into personal attacks, the lack of content in the posts is telling.

Seems like everyone is a libertarian these days when it comes to property rights…I’m sure that there won’t be any unintended consequences there. I hope everyone likes it when owners start selling out to become slumlords and make their front yards into parking lots. It’s going to be glorious with people crying about their carfree communities!

So it's either "everything that's currently zoned for single family homes only stays that way forever" or "slumlords and parking lots," eh? ADUs, especially if (as people have suggested on this thread) the property owners have to live in one of the properties on the lot, seem like a good way to end up in a middle ground: Single family homes with smaller, cheaper, apartments tucked into the lot. Personally, my yard doesn't have room for an ADU, so that change wouldn't benefit me, but I have no objection at all if my neighbors want to build one and go from two people in their house to (gasp!) three or four people living in two buildings on the same lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like saying apartment buildings don’t improve housing costs because an apartment building is worth more than a SFH. Just absolutely a silly thing to say.

Housing cost discussions always conflate a lot of things, among them houses available for rent vs. houses available for purchase. We have a severe shortage of units available for purchase in this area. The shortage of units available for rent is a more isolated problem, mostly focused on units affordable for low income households. The meager growth we’ve seen in housing supply has been almost entirely in the rental segment.

Your argument is silly because it fails to make this distinction. Apartment buildings improve rental affordability but do nearly nothing for purchase affordability. Likewise, ADUs help rental affordability (if we get enough of them) but actually hurt purchase affordability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like saying apartment buildings don’t improve housing costs because an apartment building is worth more than a SFH. Just absolutely a silly thing to say.

Housing cost discussions always conflate a lot of things, among them houses available for rent vs. houses available for purchase. We have a severe shortage of units available for purchase in this area. The shortage of units available for rent is a more isolated problem, mostly focused on units affordable for low income households. The meager growth we’ve seen in housing supply has been almost entirely in the rental segment.

Your argument is silly because it fails to make this distinction. Apartment buildings improve rental affordability but do nearly nothing for purchase affordability. Likewise, ADUs help rental affordability (if we get enough of them) but actually hurt purchase affordability.

DP. So change "apartment building" to "condo building".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is like saying apartment buildings don’t improve housing costs because an apartment building is worth more than a SFH. Just absolutely a silly thing to say.

Housing cost discussions always conflate a lot of things, among them houses available for rent vs. houses available for purchase. We have a severe shortage of units available for purchase in this area. The shortage of units available for rent is a more isolated problem, mostly focused on units affordable for low income households. The meager growth we’ve seen in housing supply has been almost entirely in the rental segment.

Your argument is silly because it fails to make this distinction. Apartment buildings improve rental affordability but do nearly nothing for purchase affordability. Likewise, ADUs help rental affordability (if we get enough of them) but actually hurt purchase affordability.

DP. So change "apartment building" to "condo building".

That would be great but unfortunately public policy encourages literal rent seeking and building codes have been watered down so much that only some buildings constructed as rentals are built to condo spec.

[Anonymous]

Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.