Reply to MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning"

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][quote=Anonymous]I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'.  Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants?  You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter.  I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords.  The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors. [/quote]

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built.  If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.[/quote]

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial?  Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build. [/quote]

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

[b]This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county[/b] that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next. [/quote]

:shock: [/quote]

What is so shocking about that?[/quote]

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.[/quote]

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came. [/quote]

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families. [/quote]

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families. [/quote]

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.[/quote]

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.[/quote]

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership 
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential. [/quote]

It sounds like you agree that townhomes and other higher-density homes are a good way to create more affordable housing.[/quote]

I agree that is an excellent way to prevent POC from establishing generational wealth and push them to be permanent renters. It’s great for Hedge funds, but it does not benefit hardworking middle class families trying to build a better future for their children. [/quote]

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.[/quote]

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in [b]home ownership by home type worse[/b]. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. [b]So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive[/b]. [/quote]

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership.  Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate.  It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas.  There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location.  Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap.  Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people?  Yes it does.  And that is very progressive. [/quote]

So ruining middle class and working class communities is better because then homes are dirt cheap and everyone can buy one? Yeah, that’s not progressive. That’s exploitative. [/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