Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

No, we’re in the situation we’re in now because builders have prioritized profit margins over volume and because governments, on the advice of YIMBYs, have designed policies around maximizing profit instead of maximizing housing production.

I wonder why builders in the past were so foolish as to not prioritize profit! That was silly of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Let’s start with high rise mixed use to replace every strip mall on a major road within a mile of a metro station. That’s a lot of intersections just in my neighborhood. A lot of these places are already zoned for such a use and just need site plans and permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Let’s start with high rise mixed use to replace every strip mall on a major road within a mile of a metro station. That’s a lot of intersections just in my neighborhood. A lot of these places are already zoned for such a use and just need site plans and permits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

No, we’re in the situation we’re in now because builders have prioritized profit margins over volume and because governments, on the advice of YIMBYs, have designed policies around maximizing profit instead of maximizing housing production.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Please name the closest intersection where you’d like developers to build more houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

We have a housing shortage because developers aren’t building enough houses. Developers aren’t building enough housing because they prefer rent seeking to growth. There simply aren’t enough units available for purchase. Condo construction, for example, is at historic lows and condos are an important piece of the housing puzzle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

These neighborhoods where people are trying to put ADUs are already built, though. You can both pursue policies that create incentives for development of new neighborhoods and simultaneously pursue policies that limit investor/speculator profits from rule changes in already built out ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

These neighborhoods where people are trying to put ADUs are already built, though. You can both pursue policies that create incentives for development of new neighborhoods and simultaneously pursue policies that limit investor/speculator profits from rule changes in already built out ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Investment is how neighborhoods get built champ. Money doesn't grow on trees. This micromanagement of the housing market is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. None of these rules existed 50 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

Maybe, but it was built in 1940, and a whole lot of things have changed about the economy and the nation since then. So if you're trying to call me a hypocrite or something, I suppose I'm fine with that. If one point of ADUs is to add some cheaper housing to existing lots, seems like there's no reason at all to allow people to develop them AND also the larger houses on the lot as pure investment plays. If you want to have an ADU adjacent to the house you're living in, or to live in the ADU and rent out the other house, great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ADU's are great for me. I can expand my house without the neighbors having a shot at blocking. By the way, it's not an ADU, it's an annex to my house with a room for working out, a home office and an extra bedroom for guests. Increased the value of my house by at least 10 percent but probably more

That's not an ADU, that's an addition.

Nope. Not connected to the house.

Yeah, that is a question for me. Unless people are forced to rent the ADU it is just an office space for people with UMC incomes.

In looking at the incentives and waivers (in permitting, land use) offered in other areas of the country, this seems like a great way to build a nice three car garage with an “ADU” above it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.

Developers today are also building houses to sell. Unless you're saying that developers are today are building apartment buildings to rent, and that's why we have a shortage? If so: no. That's not why we have a shortage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would DC want to open ADU development to absentee landlords and real estate speculators? It seems counter-intuitive given the purpose of ADUs.

It shouldn't want to, but unfortunately, too much of the discussion around this idea has been grounded in libertarian property rights terms. The point of an ADU shouldn't be "it's your land, only you can decide how you use it," it should be "this is a useful way to add more affordable housing in neighborhoods that typically haven't had it." And if it were up to me, I'd bar absentee landlords or real estate speculators from getting ADUs -- you can only have one if you live in the main house or in the accessory unit.

Of course, there are a lot of people in SFH-only-zoned neighborhoods who don't find housing affordability to be an important concern, so maybe the libertarian language is designed to appeal to them. But government can play a role in determining housing policy beyond just a straight binary "is there zoning or not" question...

(Hint: Your house was probably built by one of those evil "speculators")

I don’t understand why this is relevant but the developers of that house built it to sell it. They were seeking to make money in their short term through growth. Development today seems driven more by long-term rent seekers, which may be why we have a shortage.