Reply to Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?[/quote]

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer? [/quote]

If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street. [/quote]

But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.[/quote]

Proponents of MMH keep telling us that MMH will increase property values, which I believe. I also believe it will result in gentrification. So PO’s  argument that opponents of MMH are “pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.” DOESN’T make any sense. [/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