Will the Nats be the next team to flee across the river?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.

DP. Nothing screams low IQ like misreading a comment. The question was why do some people want DC to fail.

[Anonymous]

lol this thread is wrong

Learner group isn’t moving Nats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

DC used to be full of black people. It’s no longer a majority black city. Also, I don’t think anyone wants to see DC fail. I think most hope it will get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.

DP. Nothing screams low IQ like misreading a comment. The question was why do some people want DC to fail.

The only people responsible for DC’s failures are the ones that vote for the idiots they have in place; mayor and most of the city council. So it is an act of self destruction.

Those with common sense and the means to do so are fleeing.

[Anonymous]

I live in DC and would be more likely to take my kids to a Nats game in VA. Sitting in the stadium and hearing gunfire right outside the area were were sitting in was terrifying for all of us.

Not seeing any signs of DC reverting to the safety and quality of life it had under, say, Fenty. Same re: quality of DCPS. It's a shame and sad to watch the backsliding.

Here for 30 years, tied by work at the moment. Hope to move when get a new job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

Nothing screams low IQ like screaming racism any time someone criticizes local politicians.

DP. Nothing screams low IQ like misreading a comment. The question was why do some people want DC to fail.

The only people responsible for DC’s failures are the ones that vote for the idiots they have in place; mayor and most of the city council. So it is an act of self destruction.

Those with common sense and the means to do so are fleeing.

For your premise to be valid, electable candidates with differing views need to run. In 2023 there were few meaningful options. Allen was unopposed. Lisa Gore has stepped up in W4, will any of the keyboard warriors here follow in her footsteps? Running yourself or helping to identify other viable candidates? Even all the simplistic "recall!" fans don't seem to understand that piece, a vacuum will lead to more of the same without viable candidates with different views.

The issue of DC Superior Court and Court of Appeals judges who vote the way they would have preferred back in their public defender days is another huge issue as are the USAO and AG who fail to prosecute the majority of arrests of adults and juveniles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

“Driven interest” in communal living? 30 years ago I lived in a roach infested group house in DC. This is nothing new. What’s new is kids today paying $10 for coffee, 20 for a salad and $100/month for a cell phone. Be smarter and work harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

“Driven interest” in communal living? 30 years ago I lived in a roach infested group house in DC. This is nothing new. What’s new is kids today paying $10 for coffee, 20 for a salad and $100/month for a cell phone. Be smarter and work harder.

Yes, it's all true, 30 years ago, you didn't pay $100/month for a cell phone, because there weren't any. Also, 30 years ago, a $20 salad was a $9 salad, and a $10 coffee was a $4.50 coffee. And that roach-infested group house in DC you lived in now sells for $1 million+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

Yes, young people with entry level jobs, low salaries, and relatively little disposable income prefer city living.

The problem is those millennials who moved into the city in the early 2010s (when it was a lot safer) are now fleeing for the burbs — millennials in the middle of their careers with higher salaries and more disposable income. Today’s young people aren’t offsetting that lost wealth, and DC is only driving more and more wealth away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

People in their 20’s in their first entry level professional jobs aren’t earning sufficient income yet to make them a backbone of the income tax base. They’re renting, so they aren’t paying property taxes, they don’t have cars so they aren’t paying registration fees, getting tickets or paying fuel taxes. They aren’t spending money on their homes or filing remodeling or building permits. They have very little financial contribution to city govt beyond income taxes.

Agree that 20 somethings aren’t moving into suburbs or small town though. But 30-50 somethings moving into those places contribute a LOT more to local govt revenue intake than 20-somethings in urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread proves that none of you doom posters know what you're talking about. The MLB would NEVER allow the Os to move, please shut up.

Nats aren't leaving either. You all really wanna see DC fail, why is that.

Because it's full of black people

It is? 1986 called - they want you to get back in the DeLorean and fire up the flux capacitor to get home.

DC isn’t even half black anymore.

[Anonymous]

What, no? They have a new-ish stadium and a great part of town. Capital One Center is ANCIENT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

People in their 20’s in their first entry level professional jobs aren’t earning sufficient income yet to make them a backbone of the income tax base. They’re renting, so they aren’t paying property taxes, they don’t have cars so they aren’t paying registration fees, getting tickets or paying fuel taxes. They aren’t spending money on their homes or filing remodeling or building permits. They have very little financial contribution to city govt beyond income taxes.

Agree that 20 somethings aren’t moving into suburbs or small town though. But 30-50 somethings moving into those places contribute a LOT more to local govt revenue intake than 20-somethings in urban areas.

30-50 somethings moving into those places are a net loss for local government revenue, if they have kids in public school. Cars are also a net loss for local government revenue.

And remember that renters pay property tax through their rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone here actually been to Navy Yard recently?

I don't think the Nats are likely to leave unless the crime makes a serious turn and the area starts bleeding retail, which has not happened. The abrupt closure of the Lululemon indicates that location had other issues, unrelated to crime -- it is not typical for a chain store like that to leave after a single crime incident. Chains generally have a formula to help the evaluate locations and I would bet that after the recent incident, they looked at overall sales and other factors and decided it didn't make sense anymore.

There continues to be a ton of new development in the area. I work in real estate and recently toured two huge new buildings down there, one mostly completed and another still under construction. High end units with views of the river and incredible amenities. While there we walked around and there are so many new places even since the last time I was there. The retail near the stadium is mostly full with mid and high end retail and restaurants. Even in midwinter with baseball out of season, coffee shops and restaurants were busy. The established apartment buildings in the neighborhood are at high capacity, and when you look at what is vacant in them, it's mostly the very high end units that are very hard to lease anyway (like penthouses with views that lease for upwards of 6k a month). The parks were busy even with bad weather, with people out with dogs and exercising.

I get there are crime issues, but unless there is a major exodus of tenants, I can't imagine the Nationals thinking they can do better elsewhere. That neighborhood was nothing 10 years ago. It grew up around the stadium and now it's one of the most lively neighborhoods in the city in terms of the retail/restaurant scene. Only the Wharf beats it on this front and the Wharf is still much smaller (and also has crime issues).

I think in the next 5 years we're going to see a concerted effort by development groups to force the city to address the issues with crime and infrastructure. We just need a receptive and competent mayor (Bowser is receptive but incompetent, she needs to go). The council honestly doesn't matter much -- they are relatively toothless and I actually think many of them will lose their jobs in the next election because they are also, mostly, terrible at politics.

Things aren't as dire as people act like they are. Absolutely some stuff has to change. Getting a new mayor will be huge. 15 years is a long time and I really doubt things will look worse at that point than they do now, especially in Navy Yard. There's too much money invested, and too much potential upside. This city is full of rich people and overall trends are toward people moving into cities, not out.

You have an extremely dated view of the back to the city movement that was driven by the bulge in millennials. The growth in urban areas peaked in the early 2010s.

No, the trend continues to be for the young to move to cities, and priorities for young people include walkability and lively nightlife (including sports). The primary drawback of city living for young people is affordability, but this has driven interest in micro apartments and communal living.

The idea that 24 year olds are eagerly moving to small towns, rural areas, or quiet suburbs is just wrong. That's an old person's skewed perception based on their own shifting priorities-- YOU got older and moved to the suburbs or exurbs, so now you think this is what everyone wants.

People in their 20’s in their first entry level professional jobs aren’t earning sufficient income yet to make them a backbone of the income tax base. They’re renting, so they aren’t paying property taxes, they don’t have cars so they aren’t paying registration fees, getting tickets or paying fuel taxes. They aren’t spending money on their homes or filing remodeling or building permits. They have very little financial contribution to city govt beyond income taxes.

Agree that 20 somethings aren’t moving into suburbs or small town though. But 30-50 somethings moving into those places contribute a LOT more to local govt revenue intake than 20-somethings in urban areas.

30-50 somethings moving into those places are a net loss for local government revenue, if they have kids in public school. Cars are also a net loss for local government revenue.

And remember that renters pay property tax through their rent.

Need to get rid of this fallacy that renters somehow pay property taxes through their rent. When you factor in the allowable depreciation and income tax deduction on rental units, they are tax negative to local governments. Sorry.