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

[Anonymous]

Developers are driving this and sad little people in black t-shirts and scraggly beards are being used like little puppet-bots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developers are driving this and sad little people in black t-shirts and scraggly beards are being used like little puppet-bots.

You should consider picking up a hobby.

[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: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.

There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

[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:

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.

There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

How could there be evidence since we haven’t abolished zoning?

We can make an inference from the patchy development in close-in counties. And how long would it take for the at preserve in Montgomery County to be covered in SFH if the county abolished zoning there?

I support upzoning close in and near transit. Abolishing zoning across the board is nutty and will produce outcomes you claim you want to avoid.

[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:

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.

There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

You've never met the people in charge of cleveland park zoning have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

You've never met the people in charge of cleveland park zoning have you?

DC alone has approved more than 10,000 units. The developers can build them whenever they want. The arguments about these projects are over. Not sure how many are in Cleveland Park, but there are some in Ward 3 and close to transit. Just 2-3 stops from Cleveland Park. Land is very expensive in Cleveland Park, so I’m sure developers won’t build unless they’re sure they can get top dollar. If you won’t be happy unless you live there, you’re going to need a higher paying job. That area is never going to be broadly affordable to a family making AMI.

[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:

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.

There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

Are you joking? Seriously?

https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/

The vast majority of land in most cities is zoned for only single family homes, or homes with huge setbacks. It is illegal to build apartments or duplexes.

I hope you are joking, because this is basic knoweldge.

[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:

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.

There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

Are you joking? Seriously?

https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/

The vast majority of land in most cities is zoned for only single family homes, or homes with huge setbacks. It is illegal to build apartments or duplexes.

I hope you are joking, because this is basic knoweldge.

Now tell me how many unbuilt multifamily units Montgomery county has approved. How can you blame zoning for lack of multifamily when developers are sitting on tens of thousands of unbuilt units? If developers wanted to build more multifamily, they would.

If there weren’t demand for single family, no one would build it. Likewise, no one is going to build multifamily just because zoning changes in single family neighborhoods. If you’re serious about these issues, you should pay closer attention.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe that this thread still continues. Some advice I can spare, you can either better yourself so you can afford the life you want or you can wallow in grievance the rest of your life. It’s up to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

You've never met the people in charge of cleveland park zoning have you?

DC alone has approved more than 10,000 units. The developers can build them whenever they want. The arguments about these projects are over. Not sure how many are in Cleveland Park, but there are some in Ward 3 and close to transit. Just 2-3 stops from Cleveland Park. Land is very expensive in Cleveland Park, so I’m sure developers won’t build unless they’re sure they can get top dollar. If you won’t be happy unless you live there, you’re going to need a higher paying job. That area is never going to be broadly affordable to a family making AMI.

So ignorant. Almost funny. We live in a city of 700,000 people. 10,000 units is a drop in the bucket. Try again.

For the past 15 years DC has not built enough housing to keep up with job and population growth. Fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

0 evidence? Please, take a look at 1950-2021. Take 5 minutes to read up on the history of zoning and get back to us when you know a damn thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is 0 evidence that zoning reform will result in sprawl. In fact, zoning restrictions is what has given us miles and miles of single family homes. SFHs are the primary cause of sprawl. It's illegal to build apartments or duplexes in many parts of the country. Try again.

Market preference gave us miles and miles of single family homes. If there were more demand for apartments at higher income levels, we would have more apartments. There are no legal impediments to growing the apartment stock by tens of thousands of units tomorrow.

0 evidence? Please, take a look at 1950-2021. Take 5 minutes to read up on the history of zoning and get back to us when you know a damn thing
Houston, TX. No zoning. SFH sprawl as far as the eye can see.

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting how much the last decade was the era of resentment. Obviously there was Trump and the MAGA crowd. But we equally, as we see in this very thread, the YIMBY/urbanist people are also strongly driven by resentment. If you wallow in that resentment, I can guarantee that you will never get you the lifestyle that you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting how much the last decade was the era of resentment. Obviously there was Trump and the MAGA crowd. But we equally, as we see in this very thread, the YIMBY/urbanist people are also strongly driven by resentment. If you wallow in that resentment, I can guarantee that you will never get you the lifestyle that you want.

You've posted this sentiment several times in this thread without a whit of evidence to support your claim. Why do you think that people who think that people should be allowed to build duplexes on their property are driven by resentment?