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]I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.[/quote]

Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.[/quote]
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion. [/quote]

It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.[/quote]

Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.

The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient. [/quote]

Dear lord, you keep citing this conspiracy theory that thousands of units are shovel ready. That just isn't true dude. Please cite one article or proof. I'll wait.

It makes 0 economic sense. Have you ever run a business?[/quote]

DC Development Report, 2020/2021 Edition, dude. The report was produced by the Washington DC Economic Partnership. Partners included the DC Office of Planning, the mayor's office, and large DC area companies.

See Page 55:
Near-term pipeline: 19,417 units
Long-term pipeline: 47,081 units

I don't have to guess why units aren't being delivered. It says why right in the report:

"Hyper-supply in the region is the most significant threat to healthy vacancy rates in the coming years, and the apartment market in the District is under even greater pressure due to outmigration to the suburbs." (Page 51)
"The multitude of deliveries and lack of absorption over the past year have worsened the crisis. With a rapidly increasing supply of units and renters seeking more affordable options during economic volatility, the District multifamily market will continue to be highly vulnerable to fluctuating demand and heightened competition in the short-term, but prospects remain positive over the long-term for the city." (Page 52)

The report goes on to say that whether the apartment market recovers from the current downturn is dependent in part on "Postponement of some of the multifamily construction pipeline in supply-burdened submarkets to avoid further weighing down the market." (Page 53)

"Supply-burdened submarkets" makes it sound like developers have a different definition of housing crisis than urbanists. But you should the report yourself, dude.

I never said the projects were shovel ready. I said there were projects that were approved but unbuilt. Free and clear of the NIMBY hurdles, both real and imagined. Zoning isn't what's preventing construction. Not building is a choice that developers are making, probably to maximize their investments in land and to protect their rents at existing buildings. I don't think the big developers are colluding (conspiracy was your word, not mine), but the economics of their businesses are all similar, so it's not surprising they would all reach similar conclusions.

So there's your proof. Montgomery County's development pipeline and extension/amendment applications tell the same story, but it's not packaged up as nicely.[/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