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

[Anonymous]

People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because they only build roads and don't invest in transit. We have transit here, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

What a sick burn.

I think the PP’s point was that this isn’t about affordable housing. It’s a cash grab and should be evaluated in that light. I still think we should upzone but we probably need to make some other adjustments as well.

Also, hint: your apartment or house only exists because zoning protected the developer’s profit margin. Reducing certainty in the market introduces more downside risk, which could lead investors to seek higher returns to cover the additional risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

What a sick burn.

I think the PP’s point was that this isn’t about affordable housing. It’s a cash grab and should be evaluated in that light. I still think we should upzone but we probably need to make some other adjustments as well.

Also, hint: your apartment or house only exists because zoning protected the developer’s profit margin. Reducing certainty in the market introduces more downside risk, which could lead investors to seek higher returns to cover the additional risk.

Who is making the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.

[Anonymous]

“Who ismaking the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.”

If this isn’t about affordable housing - why upzone at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Who ismaking the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.”

If this isn’t about affordable housing - why upzone at all?

You urbanists love gaslighting. The argument about affordable has been made repeatedly up thread, and people have been called racists for opposing duplexes because duplexes lead to affordable housing.

Zoning protects profit margins by limiting supply. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Who ismaking the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.”

If this isn’t about affordable housing - why upzone at all?

DC should upzone because there is a chronic mismatch between supply and demand. Do you think upzoning should be allowed only if it produces affordable housing? Do you use that criterion to evaluate all public policy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Who ismaking the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.”

If this isn’t about affordable housing - why upzone at all?

DC should upzone because there is a chronic mismatch between supply and demand. Do you think upzoning should be allowed only if it produces affordable housing? Do you use that criterion to evaluate all public policy?

The proper public policy response to affordable housing isn't just upzoning. It's also making it costly for developers to underutilize land. The latter will have a greater and more immediate effect on housing production than the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

What a sick burn.

I think the PP’s point was that this isn’t about affordable housing. It’s a cash grab and should be evaluated in that light. I still think we should upzone but we probably need to make some other adjustments as well.

Also, hint: your apartment or house only exists because zoning protected the developer’s profit margin. Reducing certainty in the market introduces more downside risk, which could lead investors to seek higher returns to cover the additional risk.

Nah, just wrong. Restrictive zoning forces costs and time that only big companies and afford to deal with. Small family homebuilders have no chance in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

What a sick burn.

I think the PP’s point was that this isn’t about affordable housing. It’s a cash grab and should be evaluated in that light. I still think we should upzone but we probably need to make some other adjustments as well.

Also, hint: your apartment or house only exists because zoning protected the developer’s profit margin. Reducing certainty in the market introduces more downside risk, which could lead investors to seek higher returns to cover the additional risk.

Nah, just wrong. Restrictive zoning forces costs and time that only big companies and afford to deal with. Small family homebuilders have no chance in DC.

Do you realize you agreed with PP even though your post started nah, just wrong? (unless you live in a house built by a small family homebuilder, which by your logic is impossible because they have no chance)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Who ismaking the claim that this is about affordable housing?

And zoning doesn't protect developer's profit margins. Restrictive zoning places an artificial cap on the value of the underlying land.”

If this isn’t about affordable housing - why upzone at all?

DC should upzone because there is a chronic mismatch between supply and demand. Do you think upzoning should be allowed only if it produces affordable housing? Do you use that criterion to evaluate all public policy?

The proper public policy response to affordable housing isn't just upzoning. It's also making it costly for developers to underutilize land. The latter will have a greater and more immediate effect on housing production than the former.

I'm with you on that one. Pair upzoning with a land value tax!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don’t want to build duplexes on their property. Developers want to change zoning laws to allow duplexes for huge profits.

Hint: a "developer" built the house you're in right now for a "profit".

What a sick burn.

I think the PP’s point was that this isn’t about affordable housing. It’s a cash grab and should be evaluated in that light. I still think we should upzone but we probably need to make some other adjustments as well.

Also, hint: your apartment or house only exists because zoning protected the developer’s profit margin. Reducing certainty in the market introduces more downside risk, which could lead investors to seek higher returns to cover the additional risk.

A cash grab huh? You know, we're actually a society that's built around making profits right? If the companies weren't in it for the money they'd be bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.

Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.