Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SFHs are addictive. Once you have one you want to keep that style of housing.

Especially when zoning makes it so that is the only thing that can be built.

Supply-side nonsense. The vacancy rate for apartments is higher than for single family. No one is being forced to live in a single family home.

The vacancy rate for apartments needs to be higher than SFH, kiddo. They turn over more quickly. If there was 0 vacancy when what would happen if someone wanted to move to a new apartment? Critical thinking, use it.

Where did I say that the spread was undesirable? Just saying no one is being forced to live in a SFH, kiddo. It’s a more desired form of housing. That’s why developers keep building them. Try to stay on topic.

It's so weird that developers only build the type of housing that the property's zoning allows. I wonder why that happens.

Are you honestly so naive as to believe that zoning causes housing units to magically appear? Do you think it works like SimCity?

If that were true, this area would have 100,000 more housing units overnight. Developers build SFH because there's demand and it's profitable. Developers also build enough multifamily to cover 100 to 120 percent of AMI because there's demand and it's profitable. They don't build more than that because they wouldn't be able to charge as much for rent.

Even when SF neighborhoods are upzoned (I believe they should be upzoned and will be upzoned), the economics of multifamily are going to be pretty tough when you consider their profitability against the profitability of a SFH and incremental risk of multifamily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the the Smart Growth cult, it reminds me of a recent article about Trump cultists. Many of them are lonely and want to belong to something. Just as Trump and his operatives managed to hook and manipulate the Trump cultists, develop lobbyists (some former Trump operatives themselves) speak to lonely Density Bros who blog from mom's basement about Smart Growth.

-Said someone who lives in a house built by one of those "evil developers".

Lol.

I had that one on my bingo card. What a cool gotcha. Urbanists are so clever.

Nice retort! Had that on my NIMBY who doesn't understand simple Econ card.

Guess we should ban all new housing and prices will magically come down. That works so well for SF. Genius!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SFHs are addictive. Once you have one you want to keep that style of housing.

Especially when zoning makes it so that is the only thing that can be built.

Supply-side nonsense. The vacancy rate for apartments is higher than for single family. No one is being forced to live in a single family home.

The vacancy rate for apartments needs to be higher than SFH, kiddo. They turn over more quickly. If there was 0 vacancy when what would happen if someone wanted to move to a new apartment? Critical thinking, use it.

Where did I say that the spread was undesirable? Just saying no one is being forced to live in a SFH, kiddo. It’s a more desired form of housing. That’s why developers keep building them. Try to stay on topic.

It's so weird that developers only build the type of housing that the property's zoning allows. I wonder why that happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SFHs are addictive. Once you have one you want to keep that style of housing.

Especially when zoning makes it so that is the only thing that can be built.

Supply-side nonsense. The vacancy rate for apartments is higher than for single family. No one is being forced to live in a single family home.

The vacancy rate for apartments needs to be higher than SFH, kiddo. They turn over more quickly. If there was 0 vacancy when what would happen if someone wanted to move to a new apartment? Critical thinking, use it.

Where did I say that the spread was undesirable? Just saying no one is being forced to live in a SFH, kiddo. It’s a more desired form of housing. That’s why developers keep building them. Try to stay on topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the the Smart Growth cult, it reminds me of a recent article about Trump cultists. Many of them are lonely and want to belong to something. Just as Trump and his operatives managed to hook and manipulate the Trump cultists, develop lobbyists (some former Trump operatives themselves) speak to lonely Density Bros who blog from mom's basement about Smart Growth.

-Said someone who lives in a house built by one of those "evil developers".

Lol.

I had that one on my bingo card. What a cool gotcha. Urbanists are so clever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SFHs are addictive. Once you have one you want to keep that style of housing.

Especially when zoning makes it so that is the only thing that can be built.

Supply-side nonsense. The vacancy rate for apartments is higher than for single family. No one is being forced to live in a single family home.

The vacancy rate for apartments needs to be higher than SFH, kiddo. They turn over more quickly. If there was 0 vacancy when what would happen if someone wanted to move to a new apartment? Critical thinking, use it.

Anonymous wrote:As the the Smart Growth cult, it reminds me of a recent article about Trump cultists. Many of them are lonely and want to belong to something. Just as Trump and his operatives managed to hook and manipulate the Trump cultists, develop lobbyists (some former Trump operatives themselves) speak to lonely Density Bros who blog from mom's basement about Smart Growth.

-Said someone who lives in a house built by one of those "evil developers".

Lol.

Anonymous wrote:Why the push for duplexes or attached houses? What is the problem it will solve? Aside from current home owners and developers, it doesn’t seem like it would have any significant impact on dc housing supply and zero impact on affordable housing supply.

The problem of not enough housing units in a given area where people want to live.

It’s great to have many of the urbanist memes in one thread:

Supply-side economics
Trickle-down economics
Allegations of racism
Promises of affordable housing that never materializes
Requests for proof that is ignored when provided
What about cars

“Urbanists and Progressives do more harm to the under served under the guise of fairness than white supremacists could ever dream. They treat those "experiencing homelessness" like pets. Give them a tent and allow them to live in the park until the mayor tries to clean it up and then they'll scream about fairness. Please feel free to invite them into your home and if you can't do that develop a real solution to the problem. Don't play policy games with the lives of human beings.

I will say they're excellent at painting lines on roads though.”


Definitely has a point. The urbanist progressive crowd says one thing and does another. They berate the wealthy for putting their kids in private schools all the while creating charter schools for their spawn. Luckily they have time for neighborhood patrols all the while espousing “Defund the police” for the poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SFHs are addictive. Once you have one you want to keep that style of housing.

Especially when zoning makes it so that is the only thing that can be built.

Supply-side nonsense. The vacancy rate for apartments is higher than for single family. No one is being forced to live in a single family home.

Why the push for duplexes or attached houses? What is the problem it will solve? Aside from current home owners and developers, it doesn’t seem like it would have any significant impact on dc housing supply and zero impact on affordable housing supply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is some next level conspiracy bullshit.

It exposes the group-think and mass hysteria behind the Holocaust and the witch-hunts of the 1600s, then draws supported analogies to fake news and social media.

Yet you somehow conclude it is “conspiracy bull ****”

Well, okay then.

I'm not sure how anyone can read this post:

Anonymous wrote:As the the Smart Growth cult, it reminds me of a recent article about Trump cultists. Many of them are lonely and want to belong to something. Just as Trump and his operatives managed to hook and manipulate the Trump cultists, develop lobbyists (some former Trump operatives themselves) speak to lonely Density Bros who blog from mom's basement about Smart Growth.

and this post:

Anonymous wrote:Urbanists and Progressives do more harm to the under served under the guise of fairness than white supremacists could ever dream. They treat those "experiencing homelessness" like pets. Give them a tent and allow them to live in the park until the mayor tries to clean it up and then they'll scream about fairness. Please feel free to invite them into your home and if you can't do that develop a real solution to the problem. Don't play policy games with the lives of human beings.

I will say they're excellent at painting lines on roads though.

and walk away with the impression that ~The Urbanist Cult (TM)~ are the ones in this discourse that are "obsessive, vile" trolls, "creating a cringing circle jerk of how wonderful they are and how horrible that everyone else is" and "[berating people] for having an opinion that differs from their own."

Anonymous wrote:As the the Smart Growth cult, it reminds me of a recent article about Trump cultists. Many of them are lonely and want to belong to something. Just as Trump and his operatives managed to hook and manipulate the Trump cultists, develop lobbyists (some former Trump operatives themselves) speak to lonely Density Bros who blog from mom's basement about Smart Growth.

Hi! I'm a mom, I own a basement, and I advocate for policies for safer streets, more/better transit, and more housing near transit.