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]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]

There are many cities with cheaper housing stock that are not "dying rural areas."  I find it really bizarre that you think taxpayers should be required to subsidize housing (for let's face it, mostly immigrants - because they are the source of population growth) in areas that they themselves cannot afford to live.  It is a fundamental part of a market economy... the most desirable places will be the most expensive.  I don't get to live anywhere that I want, and neither should people who are simply being rewarded for being low income.  [/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