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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life. [/quote]
This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.[/quote]

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs. [/quote]

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago. [/quote]

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out.  The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land.  The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land.  Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc. [/quote]

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs.  Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas. [/quote]
Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way. [/quote]

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.[/quote]
The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics