What's wrong with development/developers

[Anonymous]

I'm Not being snarky when I ask this question, I'm literally serious what's wrong with developers and development. Why does this board have an issue with the two. Are all of you in NIMBYs and only want some or a certain kind of growth?

[Anonymous]

Developers by nature are no better or worse than any other industry. The issue (I am assuming MoCo) is money in politics and corporate welfare.

Developers have HUGE influence in local elections, and even candidates taking public financing take a lot of contributions from development executives and their lawyers. Candidates take their money, and when elected, they pay them back with tax breaks (like this recent bill) and automatic rubber stamps to any development plan regardless of impact. I’m not saying I’m against development - we need housing, of course, and business resources, but too often the developers get to write their own rules by bankrolling councilmembers.

[Anonymous]

I'm not anti-development, but it developers don't, and have no incentive, to consider long-term effects of their development. For instance, I do appreciate the redevelopment of the wharf area, but has anyone stopped to consider what will happen to those new apartments 30 years from now?

As far as those developers that gut row-homes, most of them end up choosing the most basic Home Depot generic and cheap crap they can get their hands on. We are actually buying a newly developed row-home in a couple of weeks, and from what I could tell, it looked like the developer chose mid-range materials and finishes, but it's hard to know for certain.

[Anonymous]

Developers are a convenient scapegoat for society's ills because two otherwise disparate groups tend to despise them: 1) established, rich, and generally white people, and 2) low-income minorities.

Established homeowners are (rightfully) going to be nervous about anything that significantly changes their neighborhoods, particularly if they think it will negatively impact property values. Sometimes this is well-intention; they bought a house in a neighborhood with a certain feel, and they want it to continue. And sometimes that's thinly-veiled racism; namely, that the look-and-feel they seek is a neighborhood without poor/brown people. Developers are the easy thing to target because they're often the ones seeking to change these neighborhoods.

Low-income minorities, on the other hand, are concerned that developers will bring gentrification that will ultimately force them out of their homes. Many/most of renters, so they won't even see the benefit of increased property values as the neighborhood gentrifies. The though, which isn't entirely wrong, is that developers are benefiting while poor minorities suffer.

[Anonymous]

The developers in DC seem to cloak their plans in feel good mantras (housing for all!) and try to use that to push initiatives through without providing specifics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The developers in DC seem to cloak their plans in feel good mantras (housing for all!) and try to use that to push initiatives through without providing specifics.

Umm developers in fact do build housing, in most cases new additional housing.

What initiatives are "developers" pushing that don't include specifics? I'm having a hard time even understanding what kind of initiative wouldn't have specifics.

[Anonymous]

I live in a Wardman. While historic, it wouldn’t be here without a developer. Very few homes in any dense area are owner-built. There’s nothing sacred about the older single-family homes, condos, and apartments.

To the extent that developers are an issue it’s because they have a profit motive (like any other business). As is the case with most businesses, regulated capitalism is the answer. That way developers can still earn a profit while being required to fund infrastructure improvements, affordable housing, and community amenities.

Some people exaggerate the harms of developers. For example, the Save MacMillan crowd will charge that the developer is corrupt because there wasn’t an RFP for the land. Well, DC’s land disposition system isn’t RFP-based, though it is a public and competitive process. Other people believe that new construction induces demand, bringing in the harms of gentrification. In fact, new construction in DC lowered rental prices in DC by more than 1 percent. Also, under built cities with high demand have been the places where property values have soared the most.

[Anonymous]

The goal is to make DC like San Francisco. Homeless encampments and human feces everywhere because, GASP, it would be terrible to allow housing to be constructed!

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with developers? They build the buildings where you live and work!
What’s wrong with pharmaceutical companies? They make medicines that save lives!
What’s wrong with Big Tech? You use google and smartphones!
What’s wrong with Hollywood? You watch movies!
What’s wrong with Wall Street? You have a 401(k)!

The problem is MONEY IN POLITICS.

They LOBBY federal, state, and local politicians to give them tax breaks, deregulation and essentially write their own rules. That’s what’s wrong with them. And real estate developers is to local politics as Wall Street is to national politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal is to make DC like San Francisco. Homeless encampments and human feces everywhere because, GASP, it would be terrible to allow housing to be constructed!

Which is why you need developers and an aggressive affordable housing program, so you DON'T turn into San Francisco. Sadly, the NIMBYs tie everything up so projects are reduced in size or get delayed to the point the get cancelled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with developers? They build the buildings where you live and work!
What’s wrong with pharmaceutical companies? They make medicines that save lives!
What’s wrong with Big Tech? You use google and smartphones!
What’s wrong with Hollywood? You watch movies!
What’s wrong with Wall Street? You have a 401(k)!

The problem is MONEY IN POLITICS.

They LOBBY federal, state, and local politicians to give them tax breaks, deregulation and essentially write their own rules. That’s what’s wrong with them. And real estate developers is to local politics as Wall Street is to national politics.

Of course money in politics is a problem everywhere impacting almost everything that is or should be regulated and though this accusation gets lobbed around a lot about developers buying their way to things in DC I don't really see a lot of evidence that this is true.

In DC at least development of multi-unit buildings at least is in fact quite difficult and highly regulated. DC's Inclusionary Zoning requirements apply to almost all new multi-unit buildings and though the program is far from perfect (and is up for its fourth round of tweaks in November) it is a real cost that is essentially impossible for a developer to get around.

And DC has among the most stringent green building standards in the country and I am not aware of any complaints or examples of developers getting around those requirements and partly as a consequence of this DC has the second most LEED certified buildings in the country and that is a measure against other states so that is really quite extraordinary.

The DC Council (and the Zoning Commission alike) take excruciatingly long times to approve both projects and changes to the law or regulations - it is not uncommon for individual projects to take 2-3 years to get approval with individual hearings often stretching over months and the 2015 Zoning re-write and the current Comp Plan re-write both stretched out over 5 years and all of these processes involve multiple costly public hearings.

And I am not even going to get started on the Historic Preservation Review Process which in DC can be applied to almost any property generally and specifically applies to a significant percentage of the city that is historically protected and can require another round of reviews and hearings.

And the National Capital Planning Commission also gets to review and submit comments on any project that touches on Federal Land.

Now one area where I think there are some legitimate complaints about developers is around flips and pop-ups & sub-divisions on existing single family homes. DCRA is not the nimblest agency and there are a lot of shady small-time developers trying to cut corners on the construction and permitting side of the equation and DCRA is an Executive Branch agency that is susceptible to pressure from the Mayor and the DC Council so it certainly would not surprise me if there are lots of instances of these developers who've tossed money around asking for help to weasel out of problems they've run into with DCRA.

But on balance it is simply not true that it is easy or inexpensive to build things in DC or that it is possible for developers to bribe their way around the many layers of requirements - in fact DC is probably one of the most difficult jurisdictions in the country in which to build something and at almost every step there is public input.

[Anonymous]

My DH is one, so I love them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not anti-development, but it developers don't, and have no incentive, to consider long-term effects of their development. For instance, I do appreciate the redevelopment of the wharf area, but has anyone stopped to consider what will happen to those new apartments 30 years from now?

Well, like most office buildings, hotels, and multi-unit housing, they’ll be coming up for renovation. Then they’ll have another 30 years left in their expected service life.

[Anonymous]

Corruption is the problem. It is all about the deal and lip service to the community. They have too much power through money as it is, so on the government power side, you need balance: the developers MUST NOT be on both sides of the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Corruption is the problem. It is all about the deal and lip service to the community. They have too much power through money as it is, so on the government power side, you need balance: the developers MUST NOT be on both sides of the equation.

OK so provide some examples of where this is true? Just because a politician supports more housing that doesn't mean they are pro-developers or corrupt - it could me that they are pro housing.