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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.[/quote]

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.[/quote]

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.[/quote]

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?[/quote]
NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy. [/quote]

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.[/quote]

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government.  And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.[/quote]

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors. [/quote]

Perhaps instead of letting those areas die and cramming everyone into the smallest space possible, we should create policies that allow the less populated areas to thrive.[/quote]

What policies would those be?[/quote]

For decades, our leaders have chosen economic policies that disfavor small towns and cities (e.g., NAFTA), but it doesn’t have to be that way. We could implement all sorts of policies that instead promote the reinvigoration of areas that have suffered as a result of past and existing policies. That makes more sense to me than trying to get as many people as possible into our densest cities and leaving the rest of the country for dead. [/quote]

This is a myth I frequently see. NAFTA didn't hollow out industry in this country - there were significantly more manufacturing jobs in the United States in the years following NAFTA. Those specific jobs evaporated following increased roboticization and automation in the early 2000s, not because of free trade with Mexico.

Cities and states already make investments in trying to make over their downtowns and riverfronts to make them more friendly and attractive, and already offer significant tax incentives for companies to relocate headquarters or open up new factories, but that does not and cannot fundamentally change a city's economy. It's advantageous for companies to co-locate near other companies. In large and highly-educated cities, companies gain access to a larger and deeper talent pool, and it's significantly easier to entice a qualified candidate to move to Washington DC than it is to Scranton. That's why Washington's economy is so dynamic, and is an engine for opportunity and advancement in a way that Scranton will never be, no matter how many tax subsidies Scranton dangles in front of companies to locate there, no matter how many investments Scranton makes in its K-12 education system, no matter how much they beautify their downtown.

But maybe I lack imagination. You say there are all sorts of policies. What are they? Be specific. [/quote]

I see a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in your comment. Almost every economic policy and piece of legislation our leaders implement benefits one group or another and creates incentives for some businesses or others. Politicians can simply choose different priorities in terms of who they want to benefit.

I think you’re likely wrong that people won’t move to smaller cities. If I could get anywhere close to my current salary in a smaller Midwestern city, I’d move in a heartbeat. The cost of living difference would be enormous. I’d have a much larger house, bigger yard, less stress, safer community, easier commute, more savings, etc. I know plenty of people who feel similarly. [/quote]

There's plenty of academic research on the myriad benefits to companies of locating in large cities. Here are some jumping off points for you:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1128361
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA8442
https://www.nber.org/papers/w4313
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574008004800063

If it's true that politicians can simply choose different priorities in who they want to benefit, then it should be trivial for you to provide some examples that would transform rural and small towns into engines of opportunity. What are they?

And sure, if companies in lower cost of living cities paid more, they would be attractive to a certain set of people. But that's the problem: they don't pay more. They don't pay more because the local labor market is less competitive. There are fewer employers competing for talent for a given position and skillset. And, if they did pay more, then housing would be bid up such that they would no longer be low cost of living cities.[/quote]

The real issue is that we are sorting ourselves by talent.  Talent wants to hang out with other talent.  There is more talent in big cities, which is why NY/LA/SF/DC have been doing well over the last few decades.  Obviously, there are exceptions.  But, for example, UVA could file its entire freshman class from NoVa if it could.   But it doesn't for obvious legitimate political reasons.  In general, small towns are of less interest to many (not all) talented folks.  Small college towns seem to do better than other small towns for similar reasons.  Why would a highly educated person want to live in a deep red state, which tend to be less educated on average.  Again, there are exceptions.

[/quote]

You are overestimating how many people just love living in cities like DC. I’m considered top talent in my profession, and I’d move. So would lots of other people I know. You’re also underestimating the caliber of people in “flyover country.” There are actually tons of smart and talented folks there; they just made different choices and have different priorities than you. [/quote]

Sorry, the data and numbers speak for themselves.  And I am aware of plenty of stories consistent with that perspective.  Take Amazon.  Amazon did not make its decisions in favor of NoVa and NYC without spending years looking at data.   But, again, there are exceptions.   But the cities have been driving the US economy for decades.  [/quote]

???[/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