Reply to The Urbanist Cult

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The Urbanist Cult"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. [b]Urbanists oppose regulation.[/b] [/quote]

What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.[/quote]

So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.[/quote]

Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?[/quote]

It wasn’t many posts ago that urbanists were claiming everything was zoned for single family detached. But glad that’s been cleared about.

Your weak attempt at whataboutism conflates two classes of multifamily zoning: small-scale and large scale. Small scale exists in pockets but there should be more of it. Large scale is underutilized all the time, especially in recent projects. When a developer scales back a project by 25 percent after it was approved, doesn’t that have the same effect on supply and price as zoning? Why aren’t you trying to make that harder? Voluntarily delaying approved projects also has the same effect on supply and price. What is urbanism doing about that? Jurisdictions have approved tens of thousands more units than have been built. We could solve the developer-created housing project if those units were built. No other action needed for 10-20 years.

[b]If you care about increasing housing supply, you’ll make a plan to make sure every lot is built to best use. If you just care about padding profits for developers and other landowners, you’ll keep doing what you’re doing. Urbanists’ failure to address voluntary underutilization is very telling about where they stand.[/b][/quote]

An alternate explanation is that politically, it's a lot easier to upzone than to implement a land value tax, so that's what most people spend their time talking about.[/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