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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Ward 3 just needs a law saying anyone is free to build whatever housing they want on their property in Ward 3.

If people want to build triplexes and rent two units, they should be free to do so. If someone wants to live in a triplex in Ward 3, they should be free to do so.

Right now zoning law prevents that. Reform zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 just needs a law saying anyone is free to build whatever housing they want on their property in Ward 3.

If people want to build triplexes and rent two units, they should be free to do so. If someone wants to live in a triplex in Ward 3, they should be free to do so.

Right now zoning law prevents that. Reform zoning.

It's not "if people want to".. it's "if developers want to". My neighbor is not going to tear down their SFH and have an adorable barn raising and build a triplex. They will sell it to a developer who will do that. And this will happen over and over with the 'zoning reform' you propose. Language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 just needs a law saying anyone is free to build whatever housing they want on their property in Ward 3.

If people want to build triplexes and rent two units, they should be free to do so. If someone wants to live in a triplex in Ward 3, they should be free to do so.

Right now zoning law prevents that. Reform zoning.

Zoning protects property values. SFH zoning is baked into the price of the home. Nobody interested in building equity wants to live next to a low rent building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

Really, you just re-read a 59-page thread in 10 minutes?

Three posts above yours, a PP said "If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market." Read more closely next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

Really, you just re-read a 59-page thread in 10 minutes?

Three posts above yours, a PP said "If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market." Read more closely next time.

No, I reread the quoted thread. In any event, asserting that "if you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market" is both factually supported and does not imply that only land use restrictions reduce housing affordability, nor does it imply that affordability will only be achieved by removing restrictive zoning.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps you just need to take a refresher on logic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

Really, you just re-read a 59-page thread in 10 minutes?

Three posts above yours, a PP said "If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market." Read more closely next time.

No, I reread the quoted thread. In any event, asserting that "if you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market" is both factually supported and does not imply that only land use restrictions reduce housing affordability, nor does it imply that affordability will only be achieved by removing restrictive zoning.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps you just need to take a refresher on logic?

I think you're the one who needs the logic refresher. PP's statement clear intent was to establish abolishing zoning as a condition to having market rate housing. Most housing is market rate (as that term is used in substantially all land use applications) and we have zoning. PP's assertion is clearly false.

I actually agree that zoning should be eased significantly, but abolishing it will result in sprawl because developers will build on the cheapest land (which is generally the furthest out) to minimize cost and maximize profit. That's one of the reasons we ended up where we are.

You are terribly ineffective in pressing your case but very good at proving horseshoe theory.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to live in city run by libertarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

Really, you just re-read a 59-page thread in 10 minutes?

Three posts above yours, a PP said "If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market." Read more closely next time.

No, I reread the quoted thread. In any event, asserting that "if you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market" is both factually supported and does not imply that only land use restrictions reduce housing affordability, nor does it imply that affordability will only be achieved by removing restrictive zoning.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps you just need to take a refresher on logic?

I think you're the one who needs the logic refresher. PP's statement clear intent was to establish abolishing zoning as a condition to having market rate housing. Most housing is market rate (as that term is used in substantially all land use applications) and we have zoning. PP's assertion is clearly false.

I actually agree that zoning should be eased significantly, but abolishing it will result in sprawl because developers will build on the cheapest land (which is generally the furthest out) to minimize cost and maximize profit. That's one of the reasons we ended up where we are.

You are terribly ineffective in pressing your case but very good at proving horseshoe theory.

Um, no. Cheap land is cheap because nobody wants to live there champ. Developers aren't building houses in the middle of Iowa for a reason. There is no profit out there.

Wow.

[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:What is market-rate development? It seems we have market-rate development now.

Market rate development means: anyone is free to build the housing they want on their residential property and neither zoning boards nor historical commissions nor abutters nor NIMBYs get a veto.

Free to build the housing you want if you own the land. That’s what we need.

(I am a homeowner and am not a developer. Also, socially shun that trumper. Unbelievable to me he has anyone in DC that will talk to him after working for Trump. Some people have crappy values and no morals.)

Market rate means pricing a unit at whatever the market will bear, in contrast to affordable, which has price caps and income restrictions.

NO. Zoning is a market restriction. If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market.

It is zoning that turns each homeowner into a little dictator that can veto new housing around them, limiting the freedom of their neighbors.

Sorry, that’s just not how the term of art is generally used. Your position/interpretation is extreme.

You should also look into how zoning actually works. Homeowners aren’t polled. They may express opinions. In many places, those opinions are ignored (not that they have much value or should be given much weight).

DP. Maybe that's now what you mean by land use restrictions when you're talking about zoning with your husband, but in economic literature, zoning is a specific type of land use restriction.

The existence of land use restrictions does not mean an absence of market rate housing. Whether something is market rate depends on how something is priced, not how the land is regulated. See, for example, every residential land use application filed to local planning authorities. Credible economists and land use bureaucrats do not use the term as narrowly as you do, so when you see the term used that way, it’s a sign that what you’re reading isn’t worth very much. The view that land use regulation precludes market rate housing is an extremist view.

I just re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming this. Land use restrictions, however, by design limit the production of housing, which impacts affordability.

Really, you just re-read a 59-page thread in 10 minutes?

Three posts above yours, a PP said "If you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market." Read more closely next time.

No, I reread the quoted thread. In any event, asserting that "if you want market-rate units you need to repeal zoning restrictions that make it illegal to build, thus constraining the market" is both factually supported and does not imply that only land use restrictions reduce housing affordability, nor does it imply that affordability will only be achieved by removing restrictive zoning.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps you just need to take a refresher on logic?

I think you're the one who needs the logic refresher. PP's statement clear intent was to establish abolishing zoning as a condition to having market rate housing. Most housing is market rate (as that term is used in substantially all land use applications) and we have zoning. PP's assertion is clearly false.

I actually agree that zoning should be eased significantly, but abolishing it will result in sprawl because developers will build on the cheapest land (which is generally the furthest out) to minimize cost and maximize profit. That's one of the reasons we ended up where we are.

You are terribly ineffective in pressing your case but very good at proving horseshoe theory.

Um, no. Cheap land is cheap because nobody wants to live there champ. Developers aren't building houses in the middle of Iowa for a reason. There is no profit out there.

Wow.

Is land cheaper in Clarksburg or Bethesda? Leesburg or Tysons? Really, please read more. The development pattern that happened in this area was predicted by planners in the 1960s.

Wow.