Reply to MoCo Council Vote Today

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo Council Vote Today"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.[/quote]

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.[/quote]

So you oppose SFH up 270. How does that make you different from people who oppose small apartment buildings in Chevy Chase? You both want to ban some housing because you don’t like it. [/quote]

You don't get out much. Development up 270 continues. But it isn't good for anyone to have sprawl be the only path to additional housing.[/quote]

It’s not the only path to additional housing and I think you know this. More housing has been built down county than upcounty in recent years. But it’s mostly rentals. The biggest mismatch in supply and demand is actually homes available for purchase. That mismatch has driven prices up in all market segments because it’s forced people to rent longer than they have in the past. [/quote]

The population will continue to grow. We can create more housing, but we can't create more space. Not at ground level, at least. Higher density development in desirable areas benefits more people-- both to the increased number of people that can live in those areas and to others, through the reducing infrastructure and environmental impacts of sprawl.[/quote]

You’re dodging. What is your solution to increasing home ownership? A large majority of renters would rather own and that’s what they want government to fix. I don’t care if it’s horizontal or vertical. You prefer vertical. How do you incentivize developers to deliver more condos? Right now they would rather be landlords and keep as many people renting as possible. [/quote]

Homeownership is massively subsidized via fixed rate mortgages. The idea that is should be a pathway to generational wealth is absurd and is basically a ponzi scheme.

Renting isn't, and shouldn't, be viewed as a negative from the start. Families rent a lot in many other countries and it's perfectly fine.[/quote]

Homeownership is an accessible way for the middle class to build financial stability. The homeownership rate in the US is globally in the middle range and there are around 50 countries that have higher homeownership rates. The high-density development policies you support effectively trap middle income and below households into a permanent renter status which will prevent them from accumulating wealth for their families. It’s usually more profitable and efficient for developers to sell multifamily developments to private equity funds than to sell units to individual buyers. [/quote]

Please talk to any financial advisor. Renting and putting money into average index stocks will bear tremendous value.

Homeownership is only more valuable when you artificially restrict the building of homes, which inflates the value.

Please tell me how homes can continue to rise in value more than inflation and go on forever? Please tell me how that makes sense.

Homes cannot be both an investment and affordable. NIMBYs think the investment side is free and doesn't incur a cost on society. It does - on renters and the poor. But NIMBY homeowners don't care about those people.[/quote]

OK, dude. I guess that’s why the big developers own houses.

I don’t think of my house as an asset. I think of it as a place to live. One side benefit of owning is that I’m still paying 2010 prices for my house instead of having the rent go up every year. That means I’m investing a lot more in index funds (and REITs too!) than I could if I were still renting. I literally spend about 15 percent of my monthly income on PITI.

Literally no one is better off having to spend 33 percent of their income on housing for life. Owning is tight for the first few years but eventually you can inflate your way out of the payment and life is good.

Also, my house has kept appreciating even as 100s of houses and a few hundred apartments have been built within walking distance. [/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