Greater Greater Washington as a news source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have news for you, GGW is also pushing their pro-developer agenda on Montgomery County where we have many overcrowded schools I believe the last count I saw was 100, and many of those are severely overcrowded. All we hear about from GGW is that we need more housing! Nothing about schools for all the students that will move to their new housing.

We do need more housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it seem like there is one person in this thread who writes for GGW and is relentlessly defending their agenda?

There are at least two, maybe more. And probably no more than one or two relentlessly attacking GGWash.

Remember where GGW gets in funding: from developers and a couple of zoning law firms. Special interest money. Many who work for GGW are paid staff. Others work for partner organizations like the Coalition for Smart Growth. Still others blog for free from their mothers’ basements, having drunk the Kool-Aid that massive upzoning of Chevy Chase DC or Palisades will somehow deliver them their dream of an affordable sleek new flat on U Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Remember where GGW gets in funding: from developers and a couple of zoning law firms. Special interest money. Many who work for GGW are paid staff. Others work for partner organizations like the Coalition for Smart Growth. Still others blog for free from their mothers’ basements, having drunk the Kool-Aid that massive upzoning of Chevy Chase DC or Palisades will somehow deliver them their dream of an affordable sleek new flat on U Street.

Nailed it.

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development. The big developers are controlling supply so that they can keep rents high. What developers are fighting for are lower fees, lower taxes, lower affordable housing requirements, and higher subsidies. They're wrapping all of this in a social justice message and will accuse you of being against poor people if you don't want to subsidize the hedge funds that are bankrolling new construction. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it seem like there is one person in this thread who writes for GGW and is relentlessly defending their agenda?

There are at least two, maybe more. And probably no more than one or two relentlessly attacking GGWash.

Remember where GGW gets in funding: from developers and a couple of zoning law firms. Special interest money. Many who work for GGW are paid staff. Others work for partner organizations like the Coalition for Smart Growth. Still others blog for free from their mothers’ basements, having drunk the Kool-Aid that massive upzoning of Chevy Chase DC or Palisades will somehow deliver them their dream of an affordable sleek new flat on U Street.

Most aren't. Most blog for free, not from their parents' basements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Remember where GGW gets in funding: from developers and a couple of zoning law firms. Special interest money. Many who work for GGW are paid staff. Others work for partner organizations like the Coalition for Smart Growth. Still others blog for free from their mothers’ basements, having drunk the Kool-Aid that massive upzoning of Chevy Chase DC or Palisades will somehow deliver them their dream of an affordable sleek new flat on U Street.

Nailed it.

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development. The big developers are controlling supply so that they can keep rents high. What developers are fighting for are lower fees, lower taxes, lower affordable housing requirements, and higher subsidies. They're wrapping all of this in a social justice message and will accuse you of being against poor people if you don't want to subsidize the hedge funds that are bankrolling new construction. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Exactly. And then Big Development engages hired guns like Trump’s pollster to message test and spin their aggressive agenda as somehow addressing equity, inclusion, affordability, and even climate change. Any cynical slogan or tactic is fair game if it will sell the dog food they’re serving.

[Anonymous]

The big developers are controlling supply so that they can keep rents high.

1..There are TOO MANY CRANES, THERE IS TOO MUCH CHANGE STOP IT NOW


2. Actually the developers are holding back construction by a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Absent that there would be MORE buildings built. (of course the sheer number of developers makes such a conspiracy difficult, and the fluidity of employment in the industry would lead one to expect some leaks making it to the media, but whatever)

Schrodinger's market structure.

[Anonymous]

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Developers want to make money.

If they build more committed AH units in exchange for more density, they make more money.

Plus more units impacts supply for everyone else.

Plus even committed AH buildings by the District are fought by NIMBYs ("I love AH, I'm progressive, but put it OVER THERE! Not Here.")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Developers want to make money.

If they build more committed AH units in exchange for more density, they make more money.

Plus more units impacts supply for everyone else.

Plus even committed AH buildings by the District are fought by NIMBYs ("I love AH, I'm progressive, but put it OVER THERE! Not Here.")

Do you want to know the average percentage of “inclusionary zoning” units in covered projects since the IZ law took effect? 8 percent. Bowser and Big Development talk a good game on affordable housing, but it’s practically an afterthought. And DC would have to up-zone and build market rate housing like crazy (that’s likely the real goal) for more than a marginal amount of IZ housing to trickle down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Developers want to make money.

If they build more committed AH units in exchange for more density, they make more money.

Plus more units impacts supply for everyone else.

Plus even committed AH buildings by the District are fought by NIMBYs ("I love AH, I'm progressive, but put it OVER THERE! Not Here.")

Does anyone know the percentage of IZ units built or under construction at the Wharf, which was District owned land where the DC government shaped the terms of reference ? Clearly the mayor must have made a strong commitment to affordable housing there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Developers want to make money.

If they build more committed AH units in exchange for more density, they make more money.

Plus more units impacts supply for everyone else.

Plus even committed AH buildings by the District are fought by NIMBYs ("I love AH, I'm progressive, but put it OVER THERE! Not Here.")

Does anyone know the percentage of IZ units built or under construction at the Wharf, which was District owned land where the DC government shaped the terms of reference ? Clearly the mayor must have made a strong commitment to affordable housing there.

https://www.wharfdc.com/building-our-community/providing-affordable-and-workforce-housing/

"And with more than 30 percent of affordable and workforce apartments"

In addition the Wharf provides new public spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2. Actually the developers are holding back construction by a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Absent that there would be MORE buildings built. (of course the sheer number of developers makes such a conspiracy difficult, and the fluidity of employment in the industry would lead one to expect some leaks making it to the media, but whatever)

It's not a conspiracy. It's each developer making similar judgments about the amount of housing the market can absorb at a given price point and given time. They control supply on a macro level by delaying projects and on a micro level by putting units on the market as short-term rentals. And there's not a large number of developers contributing to the region's housing inventory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it seem like there is one person in this thread who writes for GGW and is relentlessly defending their agenda?

Because that’s what developers” money pays for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Remember where GGW gets in funding: from developers and a couple of zoning law firms. Special interest money. Many who work for GGW are paid staff. Others work for partner organizations like the Coalition for Smart Growth. Still others blog for free from their mothers’ basements, having drunk the Kool-Aid that massive upzoning of Chevy Chase DC or Palisades will somehow deliver them their dream of an affordable sleek new flat on U Street.

Nailed it.

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development. The big developers are controlling supply so that they can keep rents high. What developers are fighting for are lower fees, lower taxes, lower affordable housing requirements, and higher subsidies. They're wrapping all of this in a social justice message and will accuse you of being against poor people if you don't want to subsidize the hedge funds that are bankrolling new construction. But the developers have no interest in providing housing for poor people.

Exactly. And then Big Development engages hired guns like Trump’s pollster to message test and spin their aggressive agenda as somehow addressing equity, inclusion, affordability, and even climate change. Any cynical slogan or tactic is fair game if it will sell the dog food they’re serving.

Which Ward is this?