Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay this has devolved into a debate over development.
The topic at hand is "Is Greater Greater Washington a news source"
That's easy. No. It's a blog written from a pro-developer perspective. Read the Post or a real news source.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Developers don't care about affordable housing.
Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)
Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.
I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)
You obviously don't have kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Developers don't care about affordable housing.
Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)
Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.
I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)
Anonymous wrote:Okay this has devolved into a debate over development.
The topic at hand is "Is Greater Greater Washington a news source"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Developers don't care about affordable housing.
Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)
Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Developers don't care about affordable housing.
Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
This is developers' new spin, and it's just a bunch of double talk. Increasing density will only make the city more expensive and less livable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Developers don't care about affordable housing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.
Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.
Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.