DC Lost >15,000 Net Residents to Out-Migration in First 6 Months of 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at Census figures, you'll see that DC's population growth has been steadily shrinking for the past six or seven years. This is a long term trend that was obviously accelerated by the pandemic. The Wall Street Journal says the net number of people leaving DC in 2020 nearly doubled from the previous year. [b]Probably a big reason is that the schools here have been closed for so incredibly long. We are a complete outlier nationally in our willingness to keep kids out of the classroom, and parents are responding to that by leaving.

Talk about living in a bubble. DC has 700,000 residents. 49,000 of them are public school students, and 650,000 are not. For the overwhelming majority of DC residents, public schools are irrelevant.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold the myopia (or perhaps just the stupidity) of twentysomething white guys.

Yes, there's 50,000 kids in DCPS. There's also another 50,000 kids in charter schools. Also, are you aware those 100,000 kids have...parents? Let's say those 100,000 kids have approximately 200,0000 parents. Throw in the thousands of people who work for the schools in some fashion, and pretty quickly you're up to half the DC population with a keen interest in the school system.

My favorite part though is how you accuse other people of living in a bubble. Can't make this stuff up.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

I think you miss the point. Exclusive residential only zoning prevent people from running small shops out of their homes. It prevents people from using their backyards to grow produce to sell at the local market. And it prevents people from using their properties an incubators of start ups. All of the activities are considered undesirable. You can see how a mindset where people that have chickens and small vegetable gardens would be considered “undesirable” and you can imagine who those people were in 1910 America. This is the true nature of what exclusionary residential zoning is about. It’s about using facially neutral pretexts that focus on activities with the purpose to exclude “undesirable” people.

In 1910 America, that was the majority of people who had enough land on their lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

I think you miss the point. Exclusive residential only zoning prevent people from running small shops out of their homes. It prevents people from using their backyards to grow produce to sell at the local market. And it prevents people from using their properties an incubators of start ups. All of the activities are considered undesirable. You can see how a mindset where people that have chickens and small vegetable gardens would be considered “undesirable” and you can imagine who those people were in 1910 America. This is the true nature of what exclusionary residential zoning is about. It’s about using facially neutral pretexts that focus on activities with the purpose to exclude “undesirable” people.

In 1910 America, that was the majority of people who had enough land on their lot.

And in 1910 America, covenants were added to seed to prevent people from doing this in new housing developments. It’s called exclusionary zoning. Keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

I think you miss the point. Exclusive residential only zoning prevent people from running small shops out of their homes. It prevents people from using their backyards to grow produce to sell at the local market. And it prevents people from using their properties an incubators of start ups. All of the activities are considered undesirable. You can see how a mindset where people that have chickens and small vegetable gardens would be considered “undesirable” and you can imagine who those people were in 1910 America. This is the true nature of what exclusionary residential zoning is about. It’s about using facially neutral pretexts that focus on activities with the purpose to exclude “undesirable” people.

In 1910 America, that was the majority of people who had enough land on their lot.

And in 1910 America, covenants were added to seed to prevent people from doing this in new housing developments. It’s called exclusionary zoning. Keep up.

*deeds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So basically any quality of life regulations are racist? Like antilittering laws, excessive noise rules, historic review, etc? I guess if your idea of heaven is NYC in the seventies, then it makes sense. Or the crime and mayhem in Washington Square Park today. That’s messed up.

Yes. What you call “quality if life regulations” are the basis of racially exclusionary zoning. You might want to do some research before you speak.

Actually, I think the point is the regulations were used and abused by racists to promote their exclusionary agenda. Such regulations exist in major cities around the world and have little to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there are selfish people in the world who don't think twice about bothering their fellow neighbors unless there's a rule about it!

You don't know the history of zoning. The genesis of zoning occurred at the exact same time as Jim Crow. You cannot disassociate the concepts of excluding undesirable uses with excluding undesirable people. They were one in the same and come from the exact same place and impulse.

Please explain how getting rid of zoning in Ward 3, for example, so that developers can build more upscale, market-rate, dense mixed-use developments across neighborhoods exactly will lead to racial inclusion. It's a talking point oft repeated by Greater Greater Washington and BWard Three Vision, but never explained beyond vague references to trickle down economic theory.

Because, it does? Many research papers have proven so.

We've tried your way of doing things - not building enough housing. The result has been massive gentrification. Time to try something else, like build enough housing for new jobs being created.

Try again bud.