"We don't really have housing options." Other cities have proactive land policies–DC needs them too.

[Anonymous]

Bump. I guess no one wants to address the elephant in the room?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. I do not understand anyone whose position is not "DC needs tons more housing, including a lot more subsidized and affordable options." Like it's a shortsighted, indefensible position. The city literally will not function if we can't find a way to do this. Who do you think is going to wait tables and tend bar at the nightlife you enjoy? Who will teach you kids? Who will clean your teeth at the dentist? Pick up your trash? What about civil engineers who work in the public sector? Do you think all the people who do these jobs are conveniently married to a Big Law attorney? No. This city only operates with its working and middle class intact, and they need a place to live.

We need more housing. We need more family housing, specifically. That doesn't have to mean SFHs, and in fact that's the least efficient way to do this. You can keep your SFH, it's fine. But there are lots of housing arrangements that are used all over the world to accommodate families that take up less space while still being functional. Courtyard buildings, for instance. I'd happily live in a courtyard building with my family! I don't mind living in an apartment. But where would I find one? I cannot -- DC doesn't build these. It doesn't build 3 bedroom apartments, actually. It's almost impossible to find them, even though if you had them, it would become a viable option for lots of families. We wanted to buy a 3 bedroom condo a few years back and we could not find one for less than 500k. And that was a few years back -- now it would probably be more like 700k.

I don't understand the opposition. No one wants to take your house. We want to make sure people have places to live. Do you really want the entire working and middle class population of the city to be commuting in from exurbs? Because by the way, close in suburbs, including PG county are increasingly out of reach for us as well.

The truth is, if DC doesn't figure out housing, families like mine (which includes two public servants doing work you need us to do, FYI) won't move to the burbs. We'll just move. To another city. With cheaper housing. The end. You'll miss us a lot more than you think.

You should question your assumptions. DC only needs a certain type of housing. If it had produced that type of housing over the last decade it would be fine. Fortunately there is an opportunity to produce that type of housing at RFK. You should be the first to support it and yet you arguing for something different which would only have negligible impact and over a long period if time.

Even your bible agrees that the impact is negligible. “ This kind of piecemeal density does add to DC’s housing stock, but not nearly as much as multifamily housing construction.”
https://ggwash.org/view/81599/what-the-middle-finger-building-tells-us-about-dcs-housing-construction-debate

In the meantime, a whole new neighborhood with thousands of new housing of all types that people want and need could be produced within the next 3 years and you are not even interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think any property owner should be able to build whatever fits on his property and doesn't spew noise or pollution.

Would this mean many in-town SFHs get turned into duplexes or fourplexes?

Probably.

Get over it.

Exclusionary Zoning is anti-minority, pro-sprawl, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-economy. It should be outlawed just like housing discrimination, pollution, and other antisocial behaviours.

If you want to live in a libertarian state, I would suggest you move to Somalia.

The reason we have zoning is exactly because property owners built and housed people in squalid conditions to maximize their passive income (“rentier capitalism”). Your goal is to reinvent the squalid conditions of 19th and early 20th century slums.

Just so you're aware, there's a lot of daylight between allowing people to build accessory dwelling units on their property and Somalia.

I guess the difference is that you want to control what people can and cannot do on their property. Got it. Thanks.

I don't know if you're being ironic or something, but that is your position. You want to dictate that people cannot build duplexes on their SFH property. You want to dictate that people cannot build accessory dwelling units on their property. You want to dictate that multifamily housing shouldn't be build in Ward 3.

Your position is that you want to allow people to build what they want but only if it meets the criteria that you want. Our positions are the same. We just disagree on the criteria. You just want to replace your judgment with others judgment.

No, you're still wrong. If you want to keep your SFH in Ward 3, that's fine! But I reject your desire to exercise dominion over what other people choose to do with their properties.

But you didn’t say that. You specifically said that noise and pollution should not be allowed. Therefore, you do not want to give people the ability to exercise dominion over their property.

I'm not the same poster who said that. But, to be fair to the poster who did say that, there's a lot of daylight between allowing property owners to build duplexes and allowing property owners to build smelting plants. Do you not see that?

There is actually not a lot of daylight. It is a difference of opinion about how to regulate land use. To dress it up as a property rights issue, as I point out, is incorrect.

There's a ton of daylight, you're being deliberately obtuse. For neighborhoods with residential zoning, I believe that you may build residences as you see fit. You wish to exercise dominion over others and would prevent SFH property owners from building duplexes. I can see that you're entrenched in your opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Again, you concede that there should be limits to what people can and cannot do on their property. We differ in what that is. You want to change the status quo to fit your own prerogatives. You are not an advocate for property rights or freedom. You just want people to be able to do on their property what you want them to do and don’t want them to do what you don’t want. In that we are alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bump. I guess no one wants to address the elephant in the room?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. I do not understand anyone whose position is not "DC needs tons more housing, including a lot more subsidized and affordable options." Like it's a shortsighted, indefensible position. The city literally will not function if we can't find a way to do this. Who do you think is going to wait tables and tend bar at the nightlife you enjoy? Who will teach you kids? Who will clean your teeth at the dentist? Pick up your trash? What about civil engineers who work in the public sector? Do you think all the people who do these jobs are conveniently married to a Big Law attorney? No. This city only operates with its working and middle class intact, and they need a place to live.

We need more housing. We need more family housing, specifically. That doesn't have to mean SFHs, and in fact that's the least efficient way to do this. You can keep your SFH, it's fine. But there are lots of housing arrangements that are used all over the world to accommodate families that take up less space while still being functional. Courtyard buildings, for instance. I'd happily live in a courtyard building with my family! I don't mind living in an apartment. But where would I find one? I cannot -- DC doesn't build these. It doesn't build 3 bedroom apartments, actually. It's almost impossible to find them, even though if you had them, it would become a viable option for lots of families. We wanted to buy a 3 bedroom condo a few years back and we could not find one for less than 500k. And that was a few years back -- now it would probably be more like 700k.

I don't understand the opposition. No one wants to take your house. We want to make sure people have places to live. Do you really want the entire working and middle class population of the city to be commuting in from exurbs? Because by the way, close in suburbs, including PG county are increasingly out of reach for us as well.

The truth is, if DC doesn't figure out housing, families like mine (which includes two public servants doing work you need us to do, FYI) won't move to the burbs. We'll just move. To another city. With cheaper housing. The end. You'll miss us a lot more than you think.

You should question your assumptions. DC only needs a certain type of housing. If it had produced that type of housing over the last decade it would be fine. Fortunately there is an opportunity to produce that type of housing at RFK. You should be the first to support it and yet you arguing for something different which would only have negligible impact and over a long period if time.

Even your bible agrees that the impact is negligible. “ This kind of piecemeal density does add to DC’s housing stock, but not nearly as much as multifamily housing construction.”
https://ggwash.org/view/81599/what-the-middle-finger-building-tells-us-about-dcs-housing-construction-debate

In the meantime, a whole new neighborhood with thousands of new housing of all types that people want and need could be produced within the next 3 years and you are not even interested.

I am the original PP here and I honestly don't know what "elephant" your talking about, nor do I know what "bible" you refer to here. I would be extremely happy to see RFK developed with a bunch of new housing. I support almost any proposed new housing in DC.

I don't know what you think I'm arguing for, but what I'm arguing for is more affordable and subsidized housing. And that 100% includes multi-family housing, with an emphasis on multi-FAMILY. Most new apartments in DC are one and two bedrooms, priced for young professionals or DINKS. We do not have enough housing for families. We need more, a lot more, for working class and middle class families who are essential to the city's functioning but all but ignored when we actually construct new housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bump. I guess no one wants to address the elephant in the room?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation. I do not understand anyone whose position is not "DC needs tons more housing, including a lot more subsidized and affordable options." Like it's a shortsighted, indefensible position. The city literally will not function if we can't find a way to do this. Who do you think is going to wait tables and tend bar at the nightlife you enjoy? Who will teach you kids? Who will clean your teeth at the dentist? Pick up your trash? What about civil engineers who work in the public sector? Do you think all the people who do these jobs are conveniently married to a Big Law attorney? No. This city only operates with its working and middle class intact, and they need a place to live.

We need more housing. We need more family housing, specifically. That doesn't have to mean SFHs, and in fact that's the least efficient way to do this. You can keep your SFH, it's fine. But there are lots of housing arrangements that are used all over the world to accommodate families that take up less space while still being functional. Courtyard buildings, for instance. I'd happily live in a courtyard building with my family! I don't mind living in an apartment. But where would I find one? I cannot -- DC doesn't build these. It doesn't build 3 bedroom apartments, actually. It's almost impossible to find them, even though if you had them, it would become a viable option for lots of families. We wanted to buy a 3 bedroom condo a few years back and we could not find one for less than 500k. And that was a few years back -- now it would probably be more like 700k.

I don't understand the opposition. No one wants to take your house. We want to make sure people have places to live. Do you really want the entire working and middle class population of the city to be commuting in from exurbs? Because by the way, close in suburbs, including PG county are increasingly out of reach for us as well.

The truth is, if DC doesn't figure out housing, families like mine (which includes two public servants doing work you need us to do, FYI) won't move to the burbs. We'll just move. To another city. With cheaper housing. The end. You'll miss us a lot more than you think.

You should question your assumptions. DC only needs a certain type of housing. If it had produced that type of housing over the last decade it would be fine. Fortunately there is an opportunity to produce that type of housing at RFK. You should be the first to support it and yet you arguing for something different which would only have negligible impact and over a long period if time.

Even your bible agrees that the impact is negligible. “ This kind of piecemeal density does add to DC’s housing stock, but not nearly as much as multifamily housing construction.”
https://ggwash.org/view/81599/what-the-middle-finger-building-tells-us-about-dcs-housing-construction-debate

In the meantime, a whole new neighborhood with thousands of new housing of all types that people want and need could be produced within the next 3 years and you are not even interested.

I am the original PP here and I honestly don't know what "elephant" your talking about, nor do I know what "bible" you refer to here. I would be extremely happy to see RFK developed with a bunch of new housing. I support almost any proposed new housing in DC.

I don't know what you think I'm arguing for, but what I'm arguing for is more affordable and subsidized housing. And that 100% includes multi-family housing, with an emphasis on multi-FAMILY. Most new apartments in DC are one and two bedrooms, priced for young professionals or DINKS. We do not have enough housing for families. We need more, a lot more, for working class and middle class families who are essential to the city's functioning but all but ignored when we actually construct new housing.

The elephant in the room is that everything you’ve written is based on assumptions that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

How about this argument.

Two years ago the city of Minneapolis ended single family zoning city-wide.

Real estate prices in Minneapolis right now are growing 3 times as fast YoY than DC. 15.5% compared to 5.2%.
https://www.redfin.com/city/10943/MN/Minneapolis/housing-market
https://www.redfin.com/city/12839/DC/Washington-DC/housing-market

Please explain this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

Incredible. You know that if you move there you could change all that?

When I first moved to DC Logan Circle was a”food desert”. There were basically only a handful of supermarkets in the city proper and one of those was the famous Soviet Safeway. How sad is that you lack the will and imagination to make the change that you claim to believe in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

That's a lot of words to say "I don't want to live near Black people." But it's a typical attitude of the GGW crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

EOTR lacks the infrastructure and destinations that make the other parts more desirable. It is a food dessert. There are few grocery stores, fewer restaurants, and places just across the river do not deliver. The metro stops are few and far between. It is difficult to bike due to the topography and lack of bike lanes. And every time something nice is offered, the parameters get watered down until it is nothing that was promised. Example: Circle K on MLK Jr was to become mixed use shopping with a grocery store, something that is needed on that Main Street corridor. Now they are trying to put in health care offices. There are already 5-6 healthcare facilities in a three block radius.

So instead of advocating for the city to improve these areas you want to abandon them for the established nicer areas? Sounds like great “urbanism”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the most affordable cities I can think of are Vienna and Berlin. So affordable in fact, that neither cities nor countries are well below population replacement (taxes and quasi taxes and policies that they’re not forming families).

I’ll ask you and everyone else again, East of the Anacostia is very affordable. You can buy right now. So why don’t you and everyone else live there? I want to hear why.

They never answer directly, only with whataboutism. It's not just EOTR, there's College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale, etc. all great communities and still very affordable.

This is pretty rich considering that offering up EOTR as a counterargument to increasing density throughout the city is literally whataboutism.

Not an either or on development elsewhere.

It is a serious question. Why don’t YOU live East of the Anacostia? Tell us why. What is it? It has everything you claim you like. Including diversity.

Even without pointing out your disgusting hypocrisy, you figure that identifying actual problems would suggest what to fix first. If half the city is unlivable, why is that?

Classic urbanists answers though. Instead of making yourself better, you intend to make others and other places worse.

I live where I do because I value my ability to walk to work. I cannot do that in Anacostia.

I have no idea what you mean by instead of making myself better, I intend to make others and other places worst. Can you please elaborate?