Will anyone notice that the DC Council is considering tax increases, again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

In Northeast DC, near me, they are built on land once used for sports fields by religious orders, former highway ramps, converted industrial areas, and yes, empty land. While a few houses have been razed in our neighborhood, in most cases there are developments built on land that was previously under-developed. Additionally, pop ups are added.

Some examples of in-fill like I've described:
https://nextstopriggspark.com/2025/06/24/boys-town-redevelopment-pre-large-tract-review-update/
https://www.eya.com/development/capabilities/chancellors-row
https://www.eya.com/townhomes/washington-dc/reservoir-district

I can give you five more similar developments in Northeast DC that did not involve tearing any houses down, but instead consisted of in-fill where the area was under-developed. I can name five more empty lots ready for similar development.

I mean, do you even believe this? You think that in a major city, in one of the most densely populated cities in the Western hemisphere, where housing is scarce and land is worth a fortune, that somehow there was all this land that somehow everyone overlooked and that's why you're not part of the problem? What other fairy tales do you tell yourself?

Attacking white people as the "problem". Get off this forum. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

In Northeast DC, near me, they are built on land once used for sports fields by religious orders, former highway ramps, converted industrial areas, and yes, empty land. While a few houses have been razed in our neighborhood, in most cases there are developments built on land that was previously under-developed. Additionally, pop ups are added.

Some examples of in-fill like I've described:
https://nextstopriggspark.com/2025/06/24/boys-town-redevelopment-pre-large-tract-review-update/
https://www.eya.com/development/capabilities/chancellors-row
https://www.eya.com/townhomes/washington-dc/reservoir-district

I can give you five more similar developments in Northeast DC that did not involve tearing any houses down, but instead consisted of in-fill where the area was under-developed. I can name five more empty lots ready for similar development.

I mean, do you even believe this? You think that in a major city, in one of the most densely populated cities in the Western hemisphere, where housing is scarce and land is worth a fortune, that somehow there was all this land that somehow everyone overlooked and that's why you're not part of the problem? What other fairy tales do you tell yourself?

Attacking white people as the "problem". Get off this forum. Disgusting.

Now you're going to tell us about "white genocide," aren't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

In Northeast DC, near me, they are built on land once used for sports fields by religious orders, former highway ramps, converted industrial areas, and yes, empty land. While a few houses have been razed in our neighborhood, in most cases there are developments built on land that was previously under-developed. Additionally, pop ups are added.

Some examples of in-fill like I've described:
https://nextstopriggspark.com/2025/06/24/boys-town-redevelopment-pre-large-tract-review-update/
https://www.eya.com/development/capabilities/chancellors-row
https://www.eya.com/townhomes/washington-dc/reservoir-district

I can give you five more similar developments in Northeast DC that did not involve tearing any houses down, but instead consisted of in-fill where the area was under-developed. I can name five more empty lots ready for similar development.

I mean, do you even believe this? You think that in a major city, in one of the most densely populated cities in the Western hemisphere, where housing is scarce and land is worth a fortune, that somehow there was all this land that somehow everyone overlooked and that's why you're not part of the problem? What other fairy tales do you tell yourself?

The question is, why don't you believe this? Do you actually live in Washington, DC? Do you ever go to Northeast or Southeast?

Sweetie, I've lived in DC for 40 years.

Well, I was born here fifty years ago, so, I guess by that measure, I win, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

In Northeast DC, near me, they are built on land once used for sports fields by religious orders, former highway ramps, converted industrial areas, and yes, empty land. While a few houses have been razed in our neighborhood, in most cases there are developments built on land that was previously under-developed. Additionally, pop ups are added.

Some examples of in-fill like I've described:
https://nextstopriggspark.com/2025/06/24/boys-town-redevelopment-pre-large-tract-review-update/
https://www.eya.com/development/capabilities/chancellors-row
https://www.eya.com/townhomes/washington-dc/reservoir-district

I can give you five more similar developments in Northeast DC that did not involve tearing any houses down, but instead consisted of in-fill where the area was under-developed. I can name five more empty lots ready for similar development.

I mean, do you even believe this? You think that in a major city, in one of the most densely populated cities in the Western hemisphere, where housing is scarce and land is worth a fortune, that somehow there was all this land that somehow everyone overlooked and that's why you're not part of the problem? What other fairy tales do you tell yourself?

Attacking white people as the "problem". Get off this forum. Disgusting.

Now you're going to tell us about "white genocide," aren't you?

I'm not that poster, but you are indeed kind of a one note poster. If all you've got to say is that white people are "the problem" that does seem a little racist, no? At least switch up your message a little or add some facts or details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's also demonstrably false. There are over 125k blacks on welfare in the city. 2 of every five black residents are either unable or unwilling to look after themselves. Essentially 1% of the whites in DC have this affliction.

Cite your statistics or stop spewing this garbage. What do you mean by welfare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

The whole point of “increasing density” is getting rid of single family homes. That’s why the city is getting so white.

Huh? DC was whiter than it is now for most of its existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

The whole point of “increasing density” is getting rid of single family homes. That’s why the city is getting so white.

Huh? DC was whiter than it is now for most of its existence.

Yeah, they're not making a lot of sense. White people moving in doesn't particularly relate to the effort towards increased density. Also, given the number of row houses, there hasn't been nearly the propensity towards tearing down single family homes that Montgomery County has seen. Nor the changes in zoning that have been proposed there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, which single family homes were razed? Didn't happen in DC. I call outsider commentary.

do you think all those high end condo buildings were built on farm land? on empty fields?

In Northeast DC, near me, they are built on land once used for sports fields by religious orders, former highway ramps, converted industrial areas, and yes, empty land. While a few houses have been razed in our neighborhood, in most cases there are developments built on land that was previously under-developed. Additionally, pop ups are added.

Some examples of in-fill like I've described:
https://nextstopriggspark.com/2025/06/24/boys-town-redevelopment-pre-large-tract-review-update/
https://www.eya.com/development/capabilities/chancellors-row
https://www.eya.com/townhomes/washington-dc/reservoir-district

I can give you five more similar developments in Northeast DC that did not involve tearing any houses down, but instead consisted of in-fill where the area was under-developed. I can name five more empty lots ready for similar development.

I mean, do you even believe this? You think that in a major city, in one of the most densely populated cities in the Western hemisphere, where housing is scarce and land is worth a fortune, that somehow there was all this land that somehow everyone overlooked and that's why you're not part of the problem? What other fairy tales do you tell yourself?

Go look at Google Streetview images of NoMa and Navy Yard circa 2007.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom is falling out of commercial real estate. Taxes will eventually need to increase to make up the difference.

Not because we need to punish the rich.

Also, yes, if you earn 250K you are indeed rich. Sorry if it's not what you want to hear.

And, if you think administrative assistants (that's what we call them these days, not Secretaries) regularly make 125K, you're mistaken.

Ha! The only people who think this are young people with no families and no responsibilities. You try raising kids in this city on $250K. Our monthly daycare bill is more than our mortgage.

Just because you’ve chosen to live outside your means and have more kids than you can afford DOES NOT mean that you also are not “rich”. High income earners like you can mis-spend your money just as easily gas low income people. Spending all the money you earn doesn’t make you middle class or poor. It makes you a rich person with no financial responsibility.


You are STILL rich. And your taxes need to be raised so you will be paying your fair share. If that means you reduce frivolous spending elsewhere, then so be it.

You are the reason Trump won.

DP: Trump raised my taxes last time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also demonstrably false. There are over 125k blacks on welfare in the city. 2 of every five black residents are either unable or unwilling to look after themselves. Essentially 1% of the whites in DC have this affliction.

Cite your statistics or stop spewing this garbage. What do you mean by welfare?

Grok 4. SNAP. Do you find the 40% and 1% surprising? I thought both figures would be twice what they are. I was surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also demonstrably false. There are over 125k blacks on welfare in the city. 2 of every five black residents are either unable or unwilling to look after themselves. Essentially 1% of the whites in DC have this affliction.

Cite your statistics or stop spewing this garbage. What do you mean by welfare?

Grok 4. SNAP. Do you find the 40% and 1% surprising? I thought both figures would be twice what they are. I was surprised.

SNAP is food stamps. No one could live only on food stamps, which come out to about $200 per person. Welfare is TANF, which is a much smaller number. You're being misleading.

Everyone knows that DC has an unusually small number of impoverished white people because the vast majority of the middle class and poor white people left between the 1960s and 2000. In DC, most white people were wealthy or moved into the city, so you're selecting for the wealthiest and most capable white people when you look at white people in DC, which is not the case for the black population.

In general in the US 44.5% of food stamp benefits go to non-hispanic white families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also demonstrably false. There are over 125k blacks on welfare in the city. 2 of every five black residents are either unable or unwilling to look after themselves. Essentially 1% of the whites in DC have this affliction.

Cite your statistics or stop spewing this garbage. What do you mean by welfare?

Grok 4. SNAP. Do you find the 40% and 1% surprising? I thought both figures would be twice what they are. I was surprised.

SNAP is food stamps. No one could live only on food stamps, which come out to about $200 per person. Welfare is TANF, which is a much smaller number. You're being misleading.

Everyone knows that DC has an unusually small number of impoverished white people because the vast majority of the middle class and poor white people left between the 1960s and 2000. In DC, most white people were wealthy or moved into the city, so you're selecting for the wealthiest and most capable white people when you look at white people in DC, which is not the case for the black population.

In general in the US 44.5% of food stamp benefits go to non-hispanic white families.

Non Hispanic whites were 39.8% of SNAP recipients for 2020, while being 57.8% of the population. Blacks were 27.0% of SNAP, while being 12.4% of the population.

[Anonymous]

Lets look at TANF-- the difference between black and white in DC is even more dramatic. 97.5% of welfare recipients in DC are black. 2% are white.

[Anonymous]

White supremacist propaganda is pretty easy to spot. You're barking up the wrong tree here with your crap statistics and lack of reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lets look at TANF-- the difference between black and white in DC is even more dramatic. 97.5% of welfare recipients in DC are black. 2% are white.

That's because DC is 97% Black.