Marc Elrich doesn’t think there “is demand for market housing.” He’s never going to fix our housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thrive people are so tiresome. Those numbers came from market values (for recently sold SFH) and assessed values for land only in those neighborhoods, so the latter are low. But, again, where can you get an acre of land for $1 million? Stonebridge paid $31 million for less than acre on East West a few years ago. Some of us here invest in these projects, so the numbers are pretty close at hand.

Terrific. Now, where do the numbers come from for two-unit vs one-unit replacement buildings on properties where previously only one-unit replacement buildings were allowed? From nowhere, because currently there is no such thing in Montgomery County. Which is why you have to make them up.

I assume you’re talking about estimated sales prices now. You can get in the neighborhood by using $/SqFt for MF in the same area as a reference point and then adjust up or down based on whether you think your product will be more or less attractive to buyers than what already exists in the market. That’s exactly the process investors go through when they’re considering how to use land and whether to put a new product in the market. How else do you think it will work once areas are upzoned? Because once the law changes, those buildings still won’t exist. Investors will have to estimate until there are better comparable.

Exactly. You're making up numbers.

You’re the one who made up an acre for $1 million and 8 apartments for $400k each.

How do you think developers will decide what to build after the law changes? Or how a bank decides whether a loan is safe?

No, that's a different poster. How will developers and banks decide? They will all make their own best guesses, some with more tolerance of risk, some with less, and then we will wait to see what actually happens.

Right now, what you're doing is presenting your own personal best guess as 100% guaranteed certainty, and that's just foolish.

It’s not that close a call on the western side of the red line in my opinion so I can be very far off on the math and still be right on the outcome. The eastern side of the red line is a closer call but if I had a choice between investing on the east side and the west side, I would always choose west because it’s less risky and the returns have been about the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me Thrive is not about builders, it is about how to make Bethesda, CCDM, or Potomac less expansive. If a multifamily building starts to appear on one street, very few new buyer would want to purchase any single family home on the same street. Eventually, this street will lose its MC/UMC residents. Street by street and block by block, Single family neighborhoods disappear from MoCo in close in area. At the same time, the schools will be crowded.
MoCo hasn’t been able to attract high-paying business, but is able to attract MC/UMC families, which have one or two parents working in DC or Nova, due to good reputation of its public schools. If the single family neighborhoods disappear and schools are less attractive, MoCo will lose its tax base. The real estate market in Bethesda, CCMD, Potomac, North Bethesda, or even Rockvill will go down. Finally, everything will be equal.
This is the goal of Thrive.

Wow. So, Thrive is nothing more than a means to get after those rich folks. Reality is that they will simply leave. No harm to them, but harm to MC for sure. Thrive will actually harm MC families who want a SFH. MC needs a mixture of housing from high end to low income housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thrive people are so tiresome. Those numbers came from market values (for recently sold SFH) and assessed values for land only in those neighborhoods, so the latter are low. But, again, where can you get an acre of land for $1 million? Stonebridge paid $31 million for less than acre on East West a few years ago. Some of us here invest in these projects, so the numbers are pretty close at hand.

Terrific. Now, where do the numbers come from for two-unit vs one-unit replacement buildings on properties where previously only one-unit replacement buildings were allowed? From nowhere, because currently there is no such thing in Montgomery County. Which is why you have to make them up.

I assume you’re talking about estimated sales prices now. You can get in the neighborhood by using $/SqFt for MF in the same area as a reference point and then adjust up or down based on whether you think your product will be more or less attractive to buyers than what already exists in the market. That’s exactly the process investors go through when they’re considering how to use land and whether to put a new product in the market. How else do you think it will work once areas are upzoned? Because once the law changes, those buildings still won’t exist. Investors will have to estimate until there are better comparable.

Exactly. You're making up numbers.

You’re the one who made up an acre for $1 million and 8 apartments for $400k each.

How do you think developers will decide what to build after the law changes? Or how a bank decides whether a loan is safe?

No, that's a different poster. How will developers and banks decide? They will all make their own best guesses, some with more tolerance of risk, some with less, and then we will wait to see what actually happens.

Right now, what you're doing is presenting your own personal best guess as 100% guaranteed certainty, and that's just foolish.

DP. Why is it always a “different poster”. Why are pro-Thrive people always so dishonest and disingenuous? Not to mention just completely and purposefully ignorant of the world. As a PP said, “tiresome”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thrive people are so tiresome. Those numbers came from market values (for recently sold SFH) and assessed values for land only in those neighborhoods, so the latter are low. But, again, where can you get an acre of land for $1 million? Stonebridge paid $31 million for less than acre on East West a few years ago. Some of us here invest in these projects, so the numbers are pretty close at hand.

Terrific. Now, where do the numbers come from for two-unit vs one-unit replacement buildings on properties where previously only one-unit replacement buildings were allowed? From nowhere, because currently there is no such thing in Montgomery County. Which is why you have to make them up.

I assume you’re talking about estimated sales prices now. You can get in the neighborhood by using $/SqFt for MF in the same area as a reference point and then adjust up or down based on whether you think your product will be more or less attractive to buyers than what already exists in the market. That’s exactly the process investors go through when they’re considering how to use land and whether to put a new product in the market. How else do you think it will work once areas are upzoned? Because once the law changes, those buildings still won’t exist. Investors will have to estimate until there are better comparable.

Exactly. You're making up numbers.

You’re the one who made up an acre for $1 million and 8 apartments for $400k each.

How do you think developers will decide what to build after the law changes? Or how a bank decides whether a loan is safe?

No, that's a different poster. How will developers and banks decide? They will all make their own best guesses, some with more tolerance of risk, some with less, and then we will wait to see what actually happens.

Right now, what you're doing is presenting your own personal best guess as 100% guaranteed certainty, and that's just foolish.

It’s not that close a call on the western side of the red line in my opinion so I can be very far off on the math and still be right on the outcome. The eastern side of the red line is a closer call but if I had a choice between investing on the east side and the west side, I would always choose west because it’s less risky and the returns have been about the same.

As you say, this is your opinion. If you don't want to invest in it, then don't. Nobody is going to force you to invest in anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me Thrive is not about builders, it is about how to make Bethesda, CCDM, or Potomac less expansive. If a multifamily building starts to appear on one street, very few new buyer would want to purchase any single family home on the same street. Eventually, this street will lose its MC/UMC residents. Street by street and block by block, Single family neighborhoods disappear from MoCo in close in area. At the same time, the schools will be crowded.
MoCo hasn’t been able to attract high-paying business, but is able to attract MC/UMC families, which have one or two parents working in DC or Nova, due to good reputation of its public schools. If the single family neighborhoods disappear and schools are less attractive, MoCo will lose its tax base. The real estate market in Bethesda, CCMD, Potomac, North Bethesda, or even Rockvill will go down. Finally, everything will be equal.
This is the goal of Thrive.

Wow. So, Thrive is nothing more than a means to get after those rich folks. Reality is that they will simply leave. No harm to them, but harm to MC for sure. Thrive will actually harm MC families who want a SFH. MC needs a mixture of housing from high end to low income housing.

Yup. It’s actually already happening a little bit.

The very rich people are leaving slowly and being replaced by people that are not as wealthy.

Just look at down payment % data for our region. For most of Bethesda it’s about 10% but for McLean and Great Falls, VA it’s around 40%.

People are stretching to buy into Bethesda. It will be interesting to see what happens in a year or two when a four-plex pops up in their street. People are going to get radicalized about protecting the value of their biggest and highly leveraged investment but unfortunately it will be too late. The ground work is being laid now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me Thrive is not about builders, it is about how to make Bethesda, CCDM, or Potomac less expansive. If a multifamily building starts to appear on one street, very few new buyer would want to purchase any single family home on the same street. Eventually, this street will lose its MC/UMC residents. Street by street and block by block, Single family neighborhoods disappear from MoCo in close in area. At the same time, the schools will be crowded.
MoCo hasn’t been able to attract high-paying business, but is able to attract MC/UMC families, which have one or two parents working in DC or Nova, due to good reputation of its public schools. If the single family neighborhoods disappear and schools are less attractive, MoCo will lose its tax base. The real estate market in Bethesda, CCMD, Potomac, North Bethesda, or even Rockvill will go down. Finally, everything will be equal.
This is the goal of Thrive.

Wow. So, Thrive is nothing more than a means to get after those rich folks. Reality is that they will simply leave. No harm to them, but harm to MC for sure. Thrive will actually harm MC families who want a SFH. MC needs a mixture of housing from high end to low income housing.

Yup. It’s actually already happening a little bit.

The very rich people are leaving slowly and being replaced by people that are not as wealthy.

Just look at down payment % data for our region. For most of Bethesda it’s about 10% but for McLean and Great Falls, VA it’s around 40%.

People are stretching to buy into Bethesda. It will be interesting to see what happens in a year or two when a four-plex pops up in their street. People are going to get radicalized about protecting the value of their biggest and highly leveraged investment but unfortunately it will be too late. The ground work is being laid now.

Interesting stat. DMV benefits from the subtle differences of many local municipalities. If you do not like County A, you can move to County B without leaving DMV and losing touch with family or friends. From MC, you can even move into DC or Howard, both which are more desirable in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thrive people are so tiresome. Those numbers came from market values (for recently sold SFH) and assessed values for land only in those neighborhoods, so the latter are low. But, again, where can you get an acre of land for $1 million? Stonebridge paid $31 million for less than acre on East West a few years ago. Some of us here invest in these projects, so the numbers are pretty close at hand.

Terrific. Now, where do the numbers come from for two-unit vs one-unit replacement buildings on properties where previously only one-unit replacement buildings were allowed? From nowhere, because currently there is no such thing in Montgomery County. Which is why you have to make them up.

I assume you’re talking about estimated sales prices now. You can get in the neighborhood by using $/SqFt for MF in the same area as a reference point and then adjust up or down based on whether you think your product will be more or less attractive to buyers than what already exists in the market. That’s exactly the process investors go through when they’re considering how to use land and whether to put a new product in the market. How else do you think it will work once areas are upzoned? Because once the law changes, those buildings still won’t exist. Investors will have to estimate until there are better comparable.

Exactly. You're making up numbers.

You’re the one who made up an acre for $1 million and 8 apartments for $400k each.

How do you think developers will decide what to build after the law changes? Or how a bank decides whether a loan is safe?

No, that's a different poster. How will developers and banks decide? They will all make their own best guesses, some with more tolerance of risk, some with less, and then we will wait to see what actually happens.

Right now, what you're doing is presenting your own personal best guess as 100% guaranteed certainty, and that's just foolish.

It’s not that close a call on the western side of the red line in my opinion so I can be very far off on the math and still be right on the outcome. The eastern side of the red line is a closer call but if I had a choice between investing on the east side and the west side, I would always choose west because it’s less risky and the returns have been about the same.

As you say, this is your opinion. If you don't want to invest in it, then don't. Nobody is going to force you to invest in anything.

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thrive people are so tiresome. Those numbers came from market values (for recently sold SFH) and assessed values for land only in those neighborhoods, so the latter are low. But, again, where can you get an acre of land for $1 million? Stonebridge paid $31 million for less than acre on East West a few years ago. Some of us here invest in these projects, so the numbers are pretty close at hand.

Terrific. Now, where do the numbers come from for two-unit vs one-unit replacement buildings on properties where previously only one-unit replacement buildings were allowed? From nowhere, because currently there is no such thing in Montgomery County. Which is why you have to make them up.

I assume you’re talking about estimated sales prices now. You can get in the neighborhood by using $/SqFt for MF in the same area as a reference point and then adjust up or down based on whether you think your product will be more or less attractive to buyers than what already exists in the market. That’s exactly the process investors go through when they’re considering how to use land and whether to put a new product in the market. How else do you think it will work once areas are upzoned? Because once the law changes, those buildings still won’t exist. Investors will have to estimate until there are better comparable.

Exactly. You're making up numbers.

You’re the one who made up an acre for $1 million and 8 apartments for $400k each.

How do you think developers will decide what to build after the law changes? Or how a bank decides whether a loan is safe?

No, that's a different poster. How will developers and banks decide? They will all make their own best guesses, some with more tolerance of risk, some with less, and then we will wait to see what actually happens.

Right now, what you're doing is presenting your own personal best guess as 100% guaranteed certainty, and that's just foolish.

It’s not that close a call on the western side of the red line in my opinion so I can be very far off on the math and still be right on the outcome. The eastern side of the red line is a closer call but if I had a choice between investing on the east side and the west side, I would always choose west because it’s less risky and the returns have been about the same.

As you say, this is your opinion. If you don't want to invest in it, then don't. Nobody is going to force you to invest in anything.

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

Why would you be happy. You eliminate what many consider to be the American dream of a sfh in a suburban community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you be happy. You eliminate what many consider to be the American dream of a sfh in a suburban community.

Generally, the people who define the American dream as owning a one-unit detached house with a yard, in a suburb, are Realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

What's your plan b if it does? Crystal balls aren't a basis for good policy-making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

What's your plan b if it does? Crystal balls aren't a basis for good policy-making.

I hope it does. I'm in favor of more density but I think the outcomes Thrive advocates claim are unlikely based on the state of the market.

What is it like to be so certain your policy is the only way even when you lack to creativity/critical thinking skills to put together a forecast even remotely based in reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

What's your plan b if it does? Crystal balls aren't a basis for good policy-making.

I hope it does. I'm in favor of more density but I think the outcomes Thrive advocates claim are unlikely based on the state of the market.

What is it like to be so certain your policy is the only way even when you lack to creativity/critical thinking skills to put together a forecast even remotely based in reality?

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying that it's duplexes or bust. There are multiple strategies, some market-based, some not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

What's your plan b if it does? Crystal balls aren't a basis for good policy-making.

I hope it does. I'm in favor of more density but I think the outcomes Thrive advocates claim are unlikely based on the state of the market.

What is it like to be so certain your policy is the only way even when you lack to creativity/critical thinking skills to put together a forecast even remotely based in reality?

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying that it's duplexes or bust. There are multiple strategies, some market-based, some not.

DP but what are these multiple strategies? I’m still waiting for ground breaking at Westbard and the Strathmore metro.