We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

Absolutely. You won't even have to. You can sell your SFH to a.developer who will do that for you, and move to a huge house in great falls. Your former neighbors will wake up to a new apartment busing next door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

Absolutely. You won't even have to. You can sell your SFH to a.developer who will do that for you, and move to a huge house in great falls. Your former neighbors will wake up to a new apartment busing next door.

DC has fewer residents than it did in 1950. There is no housing crisis. There simply is a lack of imagination here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

Absolutely. You won't even have to. You can sell your SFH to a.developer who will do that for you, and move to a huge house in great falls. Your former neighbors will wake up to a new apartment busing next door.

DC has fewer residents than it did in 1950. There is no housing crisis. There simply is a lack of imagination here.

That is because the average household was 3x bigger than it is today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

Absolutely. You won't even have to. You can sell your SFH to a.developer who will do that for you, and move to a huge house in great falls. Your former neighbors will wake up to a new apartment busing next door.

DC has fewer residents than it did in 1950. There is no housing crisis. There simply is a lack of imagination here.

That is because the average household was 3x bigger than it is today.

So many units have been built since then, as well as townhomes divided into sub units - there should be MORE than enough housing for small households.

[Anonymous]

That doesn't belay the main point. There were many more family members and multi-generations under a single roof in 1950 than today. You may have a former brownstone that is now 3 condo units that houses 3 people. Back then, it would have housed 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

It isn't that the smart growth advocates want the housing for themselves. Most of them live in million + homes. They want affordable housing for their communities because they believe in 1) more density supporting the local retail 2) economic and racial diversity and 3) environmental benefits of having more people live in a compact urban center rather than plowing up more fields for single family homes.

Are you opposed to those three things?

Nobody

Of course rich people living in $1M homes don't want more SFHs. They don't care what everyone else is left with, especially the poors.

They want more diverse people in their neighborhood, which based on your response, or lack thereof, you are opposed to. And they are fine with people living in SFH, but it is unsustainable to have all of the acres of land just be SFH. So you are basically opposed to the three elements I posted. Fair enough.

I oppose all 3 elements. Not interested in more density. Already support local retail, but local retail is not returning as it was decades ago. Not interested in a compact urban center. What makes DC great is the SFH neighborhoods.

Nobody is saying knock down condos to build SFHOMES. However, some people are saying knock down SFH to build condos.

Who is saying that? People are simply arguing for property owners to have the option to build more homes. Someone would be knocking down their own home—by choice—to build condos. No one is forcing anyone to increase density.

I would 100% knock down my rowhouse in NoMa, build a condo up to height max, then move to a huge house in Great Falls.

Absolutely. You won't even have to. You can sell your SFH to a.developer who will do that for you, and move to a huge house in great falls. Your former neighbors will wake up to a new apartment busing next door.

DC has fewer residents than it did in 1950. There is no housing crisis. There simply is a lack of imagination here.

That is because the average household was 3x bigger than it is today.

So many units have been built since then, as well as townhomes divided into sub units - there should be MORE than enough housing for small households.

Except that boarding houses are now illegal, the temporary WWII housing was torn down, large swaths of SW and SE were razed to make way for 395/695/295, and cultural attitudes towards three generations all living under the same roof have shifted. Hence, a housing shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were 15.

Man, if I had a nickel for every NIMBY who resorted to namecalling because they knew their arguments didn't hold water...

[Anonymous]

I don’t get why people think putting duplexes in is going to result in affordable homes. Do they think a lot that now holds a $1 million house will be torn down and replaced by two houses worth $500k? That’s not actually how the real estate market works. Why would someone tear down’a house for no financial gai n? Some will be made into duplexes and my guess is that each of those two new homes will be sold for about $1.5 -$2.5 million. (Please review DuPont circle condo projects in former SFHs in DuPont Circle) and other SFHs will be torn down and replaced by larger, fancier SFH that will sell for $2-3 million. It’s just a really dumb assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why people think putting duplexes in is going to result in affordable homes. Do they think a lot that now holds a $1 million house will be torn down and replaced by two houses worth $500k? That’s not actually how the real estate market works. Why would someone tear down’a house for no financial gai n? Some will be made into duplexes and my guess is that each of those two new homes will be sold for about $1.5 -$2.5 million. (Please review DuPont circle condo projects in former SFHs in DuPont Circle) and other SFHs will be torn down and replaced by larger, fancier SFH that will sell for $2-3 million. It’s just a really dumb assumption.

Exactly. The YIMBYs just like deflecting blame from their developer heroes who could be building more housing but aren’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were 15.

Man, if I had a nickel for every NIMBY who resorted to namecalling because they knew their arguments didn't hold water...

I think you meant to say YIMBY? Funny — supporting tax cuts for the rich is what YIMBYs are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were 15.

Man, if I had a nickel for every NIMBY who resorted to namecalling because they knew their arguments didn't hold water...

I think you meant to say YIMBY? Funny — supporting tax cuts for the rich is what YIMBYs are doing.

Nope, I definitely meant to call you, a person who decided to sling mud because they knew their arguments were intellectually bankrupt, a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don’t understand people who say there is no affordable housing in a city that is one top ten markets in the richest country in the world. Go get a job that pays more or commute like the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. What makes you so special? Go big or go home. That’s life in the city.

For the record, people who used this post to castigate liberals. I'm a liberal. Very, very liberal. What I angers me, is the "smart growth" folks is their insistence that they get affordable housing in Ward 3. There are a lot of less expensive places to live in this city. But you want to live with the other rich white people. Ward 8. PG County, parts of MoCo, have less expensive housing. Buy a condo. DO you know how many families of four are living in a 650 square foot apartments in NYC with hour long commutes on a loud smelly trains? you all need to grow up.

You are not nearly as liberal (in either the capital-L Liberal or small-l classical liberal senses of the word) as you think you are if you support restrictive zoning requirements.

Before I slam you for misrepresenting my views, perhaps you should explain what EXACTLY you mean by restrictive zoning requirements.

Thank you for your graciousness!

Restrictive zoning requirements are a little bit like Potter's definition of pornography, so I'll grant you that it can be a little squishy around the edges. But, one obvious example is SFH zoning with large lot coverage requirements.

Just three points I’d like to make here.

1. You don’t get to define my politics based on the absurdly narrow issue of real estate zoning in Ward 3 of Washington DC.
2. I strongly believe the push for more density is an argument driven by capitalist developers who are looking for more high priced real estate to sell - the cost land and construction effectively blocks affordable housing in this Ward.
3. Large lot coverages preserve green space. Those of us who choose to live in cities deserve greenery too.

1. I didn't define your politics, your stance did. This issue is a direct application of your politics. If someone professed to be "very, very liberal" and then proceeded to support tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting the social safety net, you would rightfully cast aspersions.
2. You're free to believe this just as you're free to believe that the sky is green, but it has no basis in reality.
3. DC has plenty of green space for you to enjoy - the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, the Arboretum, Glover Archbold park, just to name a few - so please don't act as though DC is lacking and building a duplex where there once stood a SFH is robbing precious green space.

Sorry, I didn’t realize you were 15.

Man, if I had a nickel for every NIMBY who resorted to namecalling because they knew their arguments didn't hold water...

I think you meant to say YIMBY? Funny — supporting tax cuts for the rich is what YIMBYs are doing.

Nope, I definitely meant to call you, a person who decided to sling mud because they knew their arguments were intellectually bankrupt, a NIMBY.

Joke's on you because I'm neither a NIMBY nor a YIMBY.

The NIMBYs are irrational. More density near my house made my property value go down isn't a real thing.

The YIMBYs' understanding of markets seems to be based solely on a the C+ (that's a courtesy A- if you are a millennial) they got in economics 101 even though they were hungover every morning.

NIMBYs will get what they want even if the YIMBYs get all of the policies they want because the government is only limiting housing deliveries in theory, not in practice.