Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

OP here. Still waiting for someone to answer this question.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you apparently oppose adding housing to DC.

No one is answering because the arguments that adding to the housing supply will result in affordable housing are completely bogus.

Why do you oppose adding to the housing supply in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

OP here. Still waiting for someone to answer this question.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you apparently oppose adding housing to DC.

No one is answering because the arguments that adding to the housing supply will result in affordable housing are completely bogus.

Why do you oppose adding to the housing supply in DC?

Changing the topic, huh? Because someone calls you on your bogus arguments? Why don't you explain to us how, if we only raised the building height restrictions, we'd have all this affordable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

OP here. Still waiting for someone to answer this question.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you apparently oppose adding housing to DC.

No one is answering because the arguments that adding to the housing supply will result in affordable housing are completely bogus.

Why do you oppose adding to the housing supply in DC?

Changing the topic, huh? Because someone calls you on your bogus arguments? Why don't you explain to us how, if we only raised the building height restrictions, we'd have all this affordable housing?

The point of adding to the housing supply is adding to the housing supply. Why do you oppose this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not quite what they say. They say it will lead to *affordable* housing in the District. They say it endlessly, but no one can seem to explain how that will work.

Please cite some examples.

Google it. It's fundamental to the mayor's housing plans, and it makes no sense. Here's her from October:

“I’m discouraging any developer that has the opportunity to build more units so that we can have more affordable housing, to be scared away from the process,” Bowser said. “These units have been held up for too long, and we can’t continue to hear residents across our entire city be concerned about affordability without doing everything that we can to get more units.”

Ah. In that context, presumably it means that the development project will include some affordable units. That's how it will work.

Generally the way it works is the mayor gives the developers a blank check to do whatever they want, the developers give her lots of campaign contributions and everyone agrees to throw in a couple affordable housing units as a fig leaf so everyone can pretend this is really all about making housing affordable.

Actually that's not how it works at all.

Affordable housing units aren't "thrown-in" they are required.

A mayor in the pocket of developers would be eliminating the IZ requirements not strengthening them which is what the Mayor has done though of course just to highlight your ignorance of how things work it is actually the DC Council that passes the laws but this proposal to strengthen the IZ law came from the Office of Planning which is an executive branch agency that reports to the Mayor!

Mayor Bozo-Bowser hasn’t touched IZ requirements and if you talk with OP staff they will tell you that there is no political will to increase requirements because of developer push back. That’s why large developments, even PUDs, are averaging about 8 percent IZ.

Google is your friend:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/20828951/zoning-change-could-give-district-2600-more-affordable-housing-units

The mayor in fact did engineer a change in the IZ rules back in 2016 that made the units available to people making 25% less than the previous standard, a change that will in fact cost developers money.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of any of your uninformed screeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

OP here. Still waiting for someone to answer this question.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you apparently oppose adding housing to DC.

No one is answering because the arguments that adding to the housing supply will result in affordable housing are completely bogus.

Why do you oppose adding to the housing supply in DC?

Changing the topic, huh? Because someone calls you on your bogus arguments? Why don't you explain to us how, if we only raised the building height restrictions, we'd have all this affordable housing?

The point of adding to the housing supply is adding to the housing supply. Why do you oppose this?

It’s interesting that the District’s CFO estimates far less population growth in DC than the wild-eyed assumptions of the Office of Planning. I would trust the CFO office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not quite what they say. They say it will lead to *affordable* housing in the District. They say it endlessly, but no one can seem to explain how that will work.

Please cite some examples.

Google it. It's fundamental to the mayor's housing plans, and it makes no sense. Here's her from October:

“I’m discouraging any developer that has the opportunity to build more units so that we can have more affordable housing, to be scared away from the process,” Bowser said. “These units have been held up for too long, and we can’t continue to hear residents across our entire city be concerned about affordability without doing everything that we can to get more units.”

Ah. In that context, presumably it means that the development project will include some affordable units. That's how it will work.

Generally the way it works is the mayor gives the developers a blank check to do whatever they want, the developers give her lots of campaign contributions and everyone agrees to throw in a couple affordable housing units as a fig leaf so everyone can pretend this is really all about making housing affordable.

Actually that's not how it works at all.

Affordable housing units aren't "thrown-in" they are required.

A mayor in the pocket of developers would be eliminating the IZ requirements not strengthening them which is what the Mayor has done though of course just to highlight your ignorance of how things work it is actually the DC Council that passes the laws but this proposal to strengthen the IZ law came from the Office of Planning which is an executive branch agency that reports to the Mayor!

Mayor Bozo-Bowser hasn’t touched IZ requirements and if you talk with OP staff they will tell you that there is no political will to increase requirements because of developer push back. That’s why large developments, even PUDs, are averaging about 8 percent IZ.

Google is your friend:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/housing-complex/blog/20828951/zoning-change-could-give-district-2600-more-affordable-housing-units

The mayor in fact did engineer a change in the IZ rules back in 2016 that made the units available to people making 25% less than the previous standard, a change that will in fact cost developers money.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of any of your uninformed screeds.

It’s still at 8 percent of new units. She the developers’ ho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

Right.

There is this weird part of the narrative from anti-development types that everything new that is getting built is coming at the expense of existing housing, in particular those magical rent control units.

Virtually all residential development in DC in the last 15 years, including in Ward 3, has happened on either surface parking lots or on sites that used to be occupied by older low rise commercial buildings.

The new development isn't happening on park land or on land that was previously occupied by single family homes.

The upzoning DC is proposing is so modest that there aren't going to be a lot of situations where it even makes sense to tear down a 5 story building to replace it with a 9 story one, particularly because when you start to get above 5-6 stories your building costs go way up because you get into steel and concrete structures which cost a lot more money to build but for building under 10 stories you may not recover the additional cost.

Poor people who are being pushed out is largely happening because 1)older rowhouses are being gutted, sub-divided and flipped and 2)a lot of older market rate buildings are being modernized and then the rents are being razed (DC has relatively few rent control units which is why it is so bizarre that argument is made repeatedly on here).

But constricting the supply of new housing, especially in highly desirable Ward 3, is more than anything else what creates the pressure to convert existing units to more profitable uses and that is what is squeezing out poor people.

[Anonymous]

Ward 3 has about 8000 rent controlled units but they are being lost all the time, and the city is looking the other way.

Cleveland Park is an example in Ward 3 of where 2-3 story buildings could be replaced through upzoning with 9 to 12 story structures, per the Office of Planning proposal. The queen gardens also was identified for substantial up-zoning.

[Anonymous]

McLean Gardens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

[Anonymous]

There's a compromise here.

Ban popups and popbacks everywhere in the city. Nothing gets homeowners angrier than the prospect of one going up next door, and the additional units created by popups and popbacks amount to a rounding error.

In exchange, make it easier to build large condo buildings on major thoroughfares. That will add far more units faster, and people there actually want more density because it helps local businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s interesting that the District’s CFO estimates far less population growth in DC than the wild-eyed assumptions of the Office of Planning. I would trust the CFO office.

You can't simultaneously argue that the population isn't going to grow AND that adding housing supply won't reduce the cost of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give rich people what they want, and there will be dregs for average people! In the far suburbs! Awesome.

The rich people in Ward 3, and similar places, want to stop development. Send the lesser folks somewhere else, as far away as possible.

It's the density people who want to push out poor people to make way for their million-dollar condos.

No, I am a density person in Ward 3, and what I want is (a) new buildings with affordable housing in them to replace empty lots, (b) zoning that allows for apartment buildings and other multi-family housing throughout the ward instead of just big single-family homes, and (c) taller buildings in general to allow for more housing in the area. I want more poor people to be able to move TO the neighborhood.

None of this stuff will actually result in lower housing prices. That's the whole point of this thread.

No, actually, buildings with units designated for affordable housing will lower housing prices. As will different kinds of housing (like, for instance, smaller apartments that a family could live in instead of only $1 million SFHs). As will an increase in supply, generally. No one has offered any evidence that a broad, deliberate policy to increase housing and specifically target housing affordability would not reduce housing prices. There's just been a lot of assertions that, for instance, building condos will make the area more desirable and therefore more expensive.

But if you knocked down my house tomorrow and replaced it with a six-unit building full of two-bedroom condos, every single one of them would sell for less money than my house would if sold as a single family four-bedroom house. That is to say: Housing prices would be reduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

OP here. Still waiting for someone to answer this question.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you apparently oppose adding housing to DC.

No one is answering because the arguments that adding to the housing supply will result in affordable housing are completely bogus.

Why do you oppose adding to the housing supply in DC?

Changing the topic, huh? Because someone calls you on your bogus arguments? Why don't you explain to us how, if we only raised the building height restrictions, we'd have all this affordable housing?

This is mostly a straw man you're arguing against. Almost no one is actually suggesting that ONLY raising the building height restrictions -- and making no other policy changes or changes to how existing policies are enforced or followed -- would lead to more affordable housing. So yes, it's true, no one is answering your question, mostly because no one agrees with the viewpoint you're so excited to prove wrong.