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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I am the "bad faith" poster. I would be happy with hundreds of affordable units, and I don't think that would change the neighborhood, much less change it for the worse.[/quote]
So thanks for confirm your quota of housing for poor people in your neighborhood. Just can’t have too many to alter the neighborhood character. [/quote]

I would be happy with thousands. You are the one implying a quote. I put no such restrictions on it.[/quote]
You said that a few hundred would not change the character of a neighborhood. Since you believe there is a threshold for changing character of neighborhoods, how many would that be? What’s the number?[/quote]

Well, let's see. Each ANC holds roughly 2,000 people, so let's assume Tenleytown and Friendship Heights currently have about 3,000 people, rounding up for the sake of argument. I'm a different PP, and I'd be fine with adding more than 1,000 new affordable units in the neighborhood -- which would, assuming most of them are built to suit families, approximately double the current population. I think it'd probably be hard to fit many more units than that into the area, but it would be space, not the existence of more residents or their income levels, that would be my main worry about adding more than that.[/quote]
The Tenleytown primary area had an estimated population of about 4000 when Planning did a SWOT analysis back in 2012. It’s undoubtedly higher now, but that’s a good number.

Currently Ward 3 has a poverty rate of 9%. By your own account you want to take the poverty rate of Tenleytown above 27%, which is 50% higher than the citywide poverty rate of 18% and according to you, this is unambiguously good and will not change the character of the neighborhood. [/quote]

This is more bad-faith argument, since you initially started asking for upper bounds and are now taking them as minimums or goals. But yes, I think it'd be just fine. (Another poster here is also correct that not every single household that qualifies for affordable housing makes below poverty-level incomes, so your numbers are even more bogus than my ANC-based guess was, but that's beside the point.) I've lived in mixed-income neighborhoods before I lived in Tenleytown, so the idea that -- gasp! -- 1 in 4 of the people who live near me might be poor isn't really as horrifying to me as you seem to think it would be.

What's the point you're trying to make, exactly? First you implied people advocating for more affordable housing and density in Tenleytown weren't asking for enough. Now you're suggesting we want too much. If you just oppose adding any affordable housing to this neighborhood, you can just say so; you certainly fit in well with a large number of our neighbors, and at any rate, this forum is anonymous and nothing that gets posted here manifests itself into policy. [/quote]
The point is that turning a low poverty neighborhood into a high poverty neighborhood is a pretty significant and important change and I think there is merit to having an open discussion about that rather than you folks trying to play both sides, demanding policy changes to favor higher density and more affordable housing while also claiming that it’s not a big deal. [/quote]

Uh, how is that playing both sides? Neighborhoods can be denser, have more affordable housing, and [i]also[/i] those changes not be a big deal.[/quote]

The problem is that the Urbanist Cult and DC Smart Growth Industry use "affordable housing" as a pretext and a smokescreen for a far-reaching, more laissez faire approach to zoning, planning and historic preservation.  Their goal is a substantial increase in market rate density, particularly in areas that developers see as offering the highest potential profit opportunities.  The paltry number of resulting IZ ("Inclusive zoning) units - which are not even truly "affordable" -- are grandly cited by the Smart Growth Urbanists to justify upFLUMming and up zoning on a massive scale.  When the hollowness of DC's IZ program are pointed out, together with DC regulators' lax interest in even holding developers to their IZ promises, the Urbanists fall back on a lame trickle down theory that Build, Baby, Build! across DC will result in affordable housing.  Trickle down was discredited as a general economic theory by the end of the Reagan years, and its application to housing markets, which are highly segmented and localized, is even more dubious.  The only thing that is more outrageous than citing warmed over Reaganomics to justify their laissez faire development agenda is when DC Smart Growth, Inc. hires Trumpy GOP operatives to shamelessly pretend that it's all about brining more affordable housing to the District.  [/quote]

Yes, you keep saying this. Some of us actually believe in the idea of adding more affordable housing though! You seem to be very sure that no one actually wants more density except "the Smart Growth Industry" or real estate developers. I'm not interested in adding affordable units through IZ or faux-affordability thresholds, and in fact, I would prefer that affordable housing and greater density came to my neighborhood without developers being involved at all, but I recognize that it's unlikely that we're going to be building public housing in Tenleytown anytime soon. [/quote]

DC could build affordable housing on land it actually owns, to avoid the high cost of acquiring property, particularly the high price premium in Ward 3.  Several housing advocates have suggested using a portion of the UDC site, which is transit accessible, for example the former swing space site used during Murch and Eaton renovations.  In response, the DC government basically said to get lost.  Bowser isn't really interested that much in providing real affordable housing, but she'll talk platitudes about affordable housing if it helps her cheerleader act for the private agendas of her big developer friends and contributors.[/quote]
The fact that the only thing they have planned for RFK are some sport fields and low rise commercial office buildings says a lot about Bowsers commitment to affordable housing. Even with flood zone constraints, the opportunities are limitless and they have chosen not to exercise any of them. [/quote]
Not to mention that all the folks screaming about density and upzoning just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the opportunities at RFK speaks volumes for what that movement is 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