Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down

[Anonymous]

ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

That's not an ADU, that's an addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

I think that it’s sort of disingenuous to assume that they don’t care about affordable housing, when the fact is that they just might not support what they think is a bad solution to a real problem. I mean, I don’t support arming teachers but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about children’s safety…I just think that it a silly solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

I think that it’s sort of disingenuous to assume that they don’t care about affordable housing, when the fact is that they just might not support what they think is a bad solution to a real problem. I mean, I don’t support arming teachers but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about children’s safety…I just think that it a silly solution.

That's true, and it's a good point. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this forum have also made clear that they don't care about increasing housing affordability, or at least, they don't want increased affordable housing anywhere near where they live.

At any rate, I agree with the PP that the libertarian impulses around a lot of YIMBY advocacy aren't great, and the crossover between libertarian YIMBYs and developer profit motives is pretty large. It winds up becoming a battle between whether you like improved policy for bad reasons or you want to keep current bad policy in the name of curbing developer profits...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

I think that it’s sort of disingenuous to assume that they don’t care about affordable housing, when the fact is that they just might not support what they think is a bad solution to a real problem. I mean, I don’t support arming teachers but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about children’s safety…I just think that it a silly solution.

That's true, and it's a good point. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this forum have also made clear that they don't care about increasing housing affordability, or at least, they don't want increased affordable housing anywhere near where they live.

At any rate, I agree with the PP that the libertarian impulses around a lot of YIMBY advocacy aren't great, and the crossover between libertarian YIMBYs and developer profit motives is pretty large. It winds up becoming a battle between whether you like improved policy for bad reasons or you want to keep current bad policy in the name of curbing developer profits...

Increasing housing affordability, and increasing affordable housing, are two different things.

There is a shortage of affordable housing. There is also just plain a shortage of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

I think that it’s sort of disingenuous to assume that they don’t care about affordable housing, when the fact is that they just might not support what they think is a bad solution to a real problem. I mean, I don’t support arming teachers but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about children’s safety…I just think that it a silly solution.

That's true, and it's a good point. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this forum have also made clear that they don't care about increasing housing affordability, or at least, they don't want increased affordable housing anywhere near where they live.

At any rate, I agree with the PP that the libertarian impulses around a lot of YIMBY advocacy aren't great, and the crossover between libertarian YIMBYs and developer profit motives is pretty large. It winds up becoming a battle between whether you like improved policy for bad reasons or you want to keep current bad policy in the name of curbing developer profits...

Current policy doesn’t curb profits. It makes them higher. Unfortunately a lot of policies YIMBYs (especially elected ones) have advocated around here just make developers richer but don’t lead to more supply or address the need for deep affordability. Too many left YIMBYs have passionately advocated for these terrible policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

That's not an ADU, that's an addition.

Nope. Not connected to the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

I think that it’s sort of disingenuous to assume that they don’t care about affordable housing, when the fact is that they just might not support what they think is a bad solution to a real problem. I mean, I don’t support arming teachers but that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about children’s safety…I just think that it a silly solution.

That's true, and it's a good point. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this forum have also made clear that they don't care about increasing housing affordability, or at least, they don't want increased affordable housing anywhere near where they live.

At any rate, I agree with the PP that the libertarian impulses around a lot of YIMBY advocacy aren't great, and the crossover between libertarian YIMBYs and developer profit motives is pretty large. It winds up becoming a battle between whether you like improved policy for bad reasons or you want to keep current bad policy in the name of curbing developer profits...

How dare those developers make profit. It's crazy that those evil developers are ... making... average profit margins compared to other industries?

Wait...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

That's not an ADU, that's an addition.

Nope. Not connected to the house.

Yeah, that is a question for me. Unless people are forced to rent the ADU it is just an office space for people with UMC incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

That's not an ADU, that's an addition.

Nope. Not connected to the house.

Yeah, that is a question for me. Unless people are forced to rent the ADU it is just an office space for people with UMC incomes.

In looking at the incentives and waivers (in permitting, land use) offered in other areas of the country, this seems like a great way to build a nice three car garage with an “ADU” above it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

One point of ADUs is to add additional housing to existing lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.