Reply to "We don't really have housing options." Other cities have proactive land policies

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to ""We don't really have housing options." Other cities have proactive land policies–DC needs them too."

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]The problem with having no density, like Atlanta, Miami, LA, is TRAFFIC DISASTER.

That's why DC's traffic is terrible - we've expanded OUT of DC. We just can't move out past Loudon and keep building more sprawl housing. Unless you want everyone who's not rich or old to have hateful, numbing commutes.

And the DC is filled with smart talented people, which makes other smart talented people want to move here.  So the answer can't be "no more people in DC".  Let's do what the Europeans do, adopting their best ideas. Before they beat us as America's economy sinks into the mud because we've destroyed our world-leading talent economy.  (That's already happening in Silicon Valley and Seattle – because we have crappy land use policies, jobs are moving to Vancouver and other parts of Canada.)[/quote]

What is missing here is that DC itself has fewer residents than in the 1950s, that many of the new jobs are in the suburbs not DC, and that, while DMV has grown tremendously, DC itself has only marginally so.  And that will not change.  DC itself attracts certain industries.  The underlying assumption above is that all of the new jobs are in DC or could be in DC.  Latter is simply not true.  The entire Internet revolution in NoVa had literally nothing to do with DC.  And the growing biotech companies in MoCo similarly have nothing to do with DC.  And that will not change. The entire premises behind the spread to Loudoun, etc, is that everybody is working in DC.  Simply, not true.  [/quote]

DC has fewer residents than in the 50s because 1) DC has all but outlawed boarding houses, 2) tons of high-density residential areas were cleared out for building 395/695, office buildings, etc, and 3) broader family composition trends have led to the average household being smaller in 2020 than in 1950. The confluence of these trends leads to the situation today; even though DC has a smaller population than in 1950, it's having a harder time accommodating them.

(And by the way, it's foolish to think that the development of NoVa's technology scene and MoCo's biotech scene happened in a vacuum. It's happened in no small part because of the proximity to the federal government)[/quote]

They grew up around parts of the federal government that are not headquartered in DC.[/quote]
It’s the same with RTP but no one would make such a weird argument about RTP. [/quote]

RTP is also turning into a suburban 4-lane highway hellscape with traffic and sprawling development.  Difference is that RTP doesn’t have a huge city.  Chapel Hill and Durham are each the size of Frederick, if not smaller.

So the housing solutions are different.  RTP needs mixed use communities that are walkable inside, and they have some of these.  DC really needs to upzone because the places to build housing in the 10-mile diameter center city are just used up.

[/quote]
I think you’ve missed the point. RTP is not dependent on a city, as you note, but neither is the tech or biotech hubs in Fairfax and MoCo. There are entire economies happening and lives lived with zero connection to DC or any city. And while the Federal government may have been the impetus for these things due to co-location, these economies can and do exist completely outside the government. Cities are not essential.[/quote]

What is becoming clearer and clearer here is that a group of DC residents thinks that the entire DMV population lives or works in DC or wants to live or work in DC.  Simply false.  If everyone actually did some thinking, they would realize that DC residents, particularly professionals, tend to be those you expect to live in DC, namely lobbyists, lawyers, journalists, political consultants, etc.  Obviously, exceptions exist.  If you hang out in the outer suburbs, those types are extremely rare.

[/quote]

So you think DC should be entirely high HHI earners???  Like SF? That's not my vision for the city. What about teachers, civil servants, restaurant workers, artists ... Also there are currently large swathes of low-income DC residents. Where do you think they should go? Or should DC be exclusively either public housing and the 1%, nothing in the middle?[/quote]

If Bowser wants to retain cops, teachers, firefighters, and the middle class, she and the council should lower personal income tax rates so that they are no longer among the highest in the country.[/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