DC Lost >15,000 Net Residents to Out-Migration in First 6 Months of 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

This just shows how little you have examined the issue. The impetus to move out of the city for “sanitary” purposes has a strong racial components. Racially restrictive covenants came as a bundle that included public health and all of these things. In fact, the most common racially restrictive covenant explicitly tied race to public health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

No doubt some people believe that, however foolishly. But others, quite cynically, use this argument in DC to manipulate public opinion to secure windfall profit opportunities for their developer and RE investor clients to through regulatory up-zoning. A prime example of this is the Ward 3 Vision director and Smart Growth shill who owns the firm that was the lead pollster for the Trump campaign. While asserting that SFH zoning and historic preservation in DC somehow perpetuate racism, at the same time the firm was message-testing Trump's dog whistle campaign pledge to "save the suburbs" from the construction of affordable housing. This is shameless, even by today's diminished political standards, but that's the DC Smart Growth lobby for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

This just shows how little you have examined the issue. The impetus to move out of the city for “sanitary” purposes has a strong racial components. Racially restrictive covenants came as a bundle that included public health and all of these things. In fact, the most common racially restrictive covenant explicitly tied race to public health.

If only we had more chickens everything would be okay.

[Anonymous]

The Janney School has chickens but now they want to take the chicken coop area to build a housing development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of my employees "moved" out of DC for the pandemic. They gave up their apartments so technically left the city. They just wanted to save money. The office opens up in September and all of those folks are moving back to the city. So DC lost and now it will gain.

That is interesting. The Civilian Labor Force (includes both employed and unemployed) data is not as optimistic. It shows that it recovered substantially from the depths of the pandemic, but it has been trending back down since December. I am not sure what kind of story this fits, particularly considering that college students and some workers should have been returning this spring. But this is not showing up in the data. September/October will be critical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

This just shows how little you have examined the issue. The impetus to move out of the city for “sanitary” purposes has a strong racial components. Racially restrictive covenants came as a bundle that included public health and all of these things. In fact, the most common racially restrictive covenant explicitly tied race to public health.

If only we had more chickens everything would be okay.

Absolutely. I am very serious. We need more chickens. We need more vegetable gardens. We need more neighborhood seamstresses. We need more neighborhood hair salons. We need more car repair shops.

The reason why we have the current mess is because of these restrictions designed to exclude people by their source of income. We need to allow the market to determine the best and most efficient land use. That’s the only way that we can both address the legacy of racism and provide the foundation for a land use that provides opportunities for everyone to prosper.

[Anonymous]

I am very serious. We need more chickens. We need more vegetable gardens. We need more neighborhood seamstresses. We need more neighborhood hair salons. We need more car repair shops.

While I'm not sure about more chicken coops in District neighborhoods, you are correct on much of the above. The problems is that we have had a lot of those. Seamstress and tailor shops. Small barbershops. Garages for car repair. Shoe repair places. But what happens in DC is that the Smart Growth forces get an area up zoned, property owners raise rents and these uses are driven out. Neighborhood serving businesses are replaced by upscale mixed-use generica. Sure, you can get an artesian cider or avocado toast of the trendiest exercise gear, but the places one depends on have gone out of business or moved to the burbs. Even Johnsons is no more. The solution, though is not to drive out these small shops through up-Flumming and up zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

This just shows how little you have examined the issue. The impetus to move out of the city for “sanitary” purposes has a strong racial components. Racially restrictive covenants came as a bundle that included public health and all of these things. In fact, the most common racially restrictive covenant explicitly tied race to public health.

If only we had more chickens everything would be okay.

Absolutely. I am very serious. We need more chickens. We need more vegetable gardens. We need more neighborhood seamstresses. We need more neighborhood hair salons. We need more car repair shops.

The reason why we have the current mess is because of these restrictions designed to exclude people by their source of income. We need to allow the market to determine the best and most efficient land use. That’s the only way that we can both address the legacy of racism and provide the foundation for a land use that provides opportunities for everyone to prosper.

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live along GA Ave, there are a metric ton of hair salons, nail places, auto repair shops, tire stores, and bodegas. Nobody has excluded these places from being in business. The reason there aren't more seamstresses, hat shops, and kite stores is that there is no market for that stuff. Black or white, you can get durable goods and food from Amazon or Walmart. I think you're living in a fantasy if you think that poverty in DC is caused by residents not able to open their own chicken ranches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Some other things that happened at the same time of Jim Crow: an increased emphasis on public sanitation, the rise of streetcar suburbs that allowed workers to move farther from their industrial jobs, the microbial theory of disease, the rise of landscape architecture and public parks. All of these changes influenced the concept of zoning different uses into different geographic areas. But when your only lens is "racism" then I suppose everything is "racist".

This just shows how little you have examined the issue. The impetus to move out of the city for “sanitary” purposes has a strong racial components. Racially restrictive covenants came as a bundle that included public health and all of these things. In fact, the most common racially restrictive covenant explicitly tied race to public health.

If only we had more chickens everything would be okay.

Absolutely. I am very serious. We need more chickens. We need more vegetable gardens. We need more neighborhood seamstresses. We need more neighborhood hair salons. We need more car repair shops.

The reason why we have the current mess is because of these restrictions designed to exclude people by their source of income. We need to allow the market to determine the best and most efficient land use. That’s the only way that we can both address the legacy of racism and provide the foundation for a land use that provides opportunities for everyone to prosper.

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live along GA Ave, there are a metric ton of hair salons, nail places, auto repair shops, tire stores, and bodegas. Nobody has excluded these places from being in business. The reason there aren't more seamstresses, hat shops, and kite stores is that there is no market for that stuff. Black or white, you can get durable goods and food from Amazon or Walmart. I think you're living in a fantasy if you think that poverty in DC is caused by residents not able to open their own chicken ranches.

All of that stuff is only available in a designated commercial corridor that allows landlords to monopolize rents. Retailers have no chance to be truly successful and generate generational wealth if they cannot sell out of their own property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant.

Not PP but your take is equally bizarre. Almost 20% of the population is under 18. DCPS is not the only place kids go to school. Almost all charters follow DCPS closures. And all minors have parents and many cases grandparents that care for them. Talk about trying to be too clever by half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant
.

If one reads Greater Greater Washington, that certainly appears to be the case. Schools don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant.

Not PP but your take is equally bizarre. Almost 20% of the population is under 18. DCPS is not the only place kids go to school. Almost all charters follow DCPS closures. And all minors have parents and many cases grandparents that care for them. Talk about trying to be too clever by half.

Right — there are nearly 100,000 public school students. Charters are also public schools in DC. Those kids and their families care about public schools. Plus many others, including teachers, home owners, parents of young children, and other normal human beings. I assume that PP is not from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of my employees "moved" out of DC for the pandemic. They gave up their apartments so technically left the city. They just wanted to save money. The office opens up in September and all of those folks are moving back to the city. So DC lost and now it will gain.

That is interesting. The Civilian Labor Force (includes both employed and unemployed) data is not as optimistic. It shows that it recovered substantially from the depths of the pandemic, but it has been trending back down since December. I am not sure what kind of story this fits, particularly considering that college students and some workers should have been returning this spring. But this is not showing up in the data. September/October will be critical.

My org and many of those in my field are not requiring employees come back until the Fall. Spring was too soon. I wouldn't have expected the numbers to increase much during the spring. Look at the numbers in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the myopia (or perhaps just the stupidity) of twentysomething white guys.

Yes, there's 50,000 kids in DCPS. There's also another 50,000 kids in charter schools. Also, are you aware those 100,000 kids have...parents? Let's say those 100,000 kids have approximately 200,0000 parents. Throw in the thousands of people who work for the schools in some fashion, and pretty quickly you're up to half the DC population with a keen interest in the school system.

My favorite part though is how you accuse other people of living in a bubble. Can't make this stuff up.