Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't upzone your way out of the housing crisis. It might increase housing stock by 5 percent at the most. Even if they did upzone, the result would be mildly more opportunity to buy a house for 700k. Still looking at a monthly mortgage in excess of $5,000. An upzone policy will only attract developers whose job is to flip houses for maximum profit. There are lots of great neighborhoods in dc. Young families should have access to high quality schools with high quality facilities in every part of the city. After all, Ward 3 is the city's most boring set of neighborhoods.

Except those who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Driving them out of DC does not help DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

It would be extremely hard to qualify for a mortgage now if your income was that tight. It's less that people are unwilling to make the sacrifice as it's not really in their hands. Plus anyone who watched the subprime crisis knows that if the housing market takes a hit and the economy collapses, the bailout will go to the banks while any homeowners who can't make their payments get foreclosed on and their credit ruined. It makes people less willing to risk buying at the very top of their budget (at least it did in our case).

No it’s not. If anything, underwriting requirements have gotten substantially looser, although there was some pull back after the GFC. Everyone who buys a home today is equally broke for a while.

Our family had a similar experience. We slept on a mattress on the floor for a year after buying our house in 2011.

What is clear to me is that there are just a lot of people today who don’t feel that they need to sacrifice.

+1. We, an immigrant family, lived in a horrific roach-ridden rental apartment for 4 years to save up for a modest house, purchased for $150K. We ate a lot of bread and potatoes. Our furniture was made up of things other people had thrown out and we'd picked up from the curb. I used babysitting money and cash made delivering pizza flyers to pay for things like school field trips, or I just didn't go.

I'll argue 'til I'm blue in the face for the right to things like access to healthcare. But home ownership is not a right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

It would be extremely hard to qualify for a mortgage now if your income was that tight. It's less that people are unwilling to make the sacrifice as it's not really in their hands. Plus anyone who watched the subprime crisis knows that if the housing market takes a hit and the economy collapses, the bailout will go to the banks while any homeowners who can't make their payments get foreclosed on and their credit ruined. It makes people less willing to risk buying at the very top of their budget (at least it did in our case).

No it’s not. If anything, underwriting requirements have gotten substantially looser, although there was some pull back after the GFC. Everyone who buys a home today is equally broke for a while.

Our family had a similar experience. We slept on a mattress on the floor for a year after buying our house in 2011.

What is clear to me is that there are just a lot of people today who don’t feel that they need to sacrifice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.

I'd argue that the problem is that many, many people in this area can no longer afford 2 out of the 3. We could (location and price, although the location is really only favorable for one of our commutes) but have two stable, decent paying jobs. Anything affordable for a family making the median HHI in this area is going to be crappy and far away, more often they end up spending more on housing that is advised by economists and end up living paycheck to paycheck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

It would be extremely hard to qualify for a mortgage now if your income was that tight. It's less that people are unwilling to make the sacrifice as it's not really in their hands. Plus anyone who watched the subprime crisis knows that if the housing market takes a hit and the economy collapses, the bailout will go to the banks while any homeowners who can't make their payments get foreclosed on and their credit ruined. It makes people less willing to risk buying at the very top of their budget (at least it did in our case).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

Owners of SFHs in urban neighborhoods also need to accept their circumstances. You’re getting upzoned. Sorry you don’t have enough money to buy out the neighborhood and maintain your status. Guess you’re learning the hard way that you can’t control other properties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable housing, but also middle-income ones, and even luxury homes. I agree with virtually every word of Hayley Bonsteel’s excellent piece for The Urbanist titled “How to Finetune Rep. Macri’s Single-Family Rezone Bill.” I have long been opposed to single-family zoning (not housing), for a number reasons but largely because of its malicious history. Bonsteel is correct in that we must return to our abundant housing roots.

However, abolishing single-family zoning will barely move the needle on our housing crisis. We can’t duplex and triplex our way out of this—though it’s a good step since we do need more diverse types of housing, and rapidly. The decades long fight just to add, and then liberalize accessory dwelling units, or re-legalize duplexes and small apartments in now single-family zones, will pale in comparison to the needed shift.

We sit at the threshold of a decades long housing crisis, and a steepening climate crisis (one our mayor seems wholly unprepared to take on). The region includes some of the smartest and most sophisticated companies in the world, but rather than come to terms with the depth of the scale of this crisis, we put on blinders.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/01/29/housing-action-on-a-truly-massive-scale/

(2020)

About Seattle, but every word applies to the DC area EXCEPT that Seattle is farther along on zoning reform than we are.

We first need to upzone single family home lots.
That means Takoma Park. And Bethesda. And Ward 3 DC. Allow duplexes, triplexes, pop ups, and ADUs.

Then we need even more homes than that.

And if we don’t do all these things, average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

This sounds good on paper. But in the real world people who can afford single family homes in DC clearly have options. They will put up with some changes around the edges, but if you threaten their quality of life they will move. Look at how well busing worked in the 1970s. It took cities about 30 years to recover from that mistake. Some have never recovered. Let’s not try that again.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if this is a fair comparison. But I could not afford my house when I bought it more than 25 years ago for $350k at a 7.5 percent interest rate. It was an absolute struggle with little kids. We had to have a yard sale once to pay for groceries. We had no furniture for several years. But my salary eventually caught up with the mortgage payments. Now it's almost paid off. I don't know if people are willing to make that kind of sacrifice now. That said, when an entry level home is $900k, it completely throws off the equation that helped me enter the market. I'm glad it worked out because my house ended up being one of the best investments I ever made.

Anonymous wrote:You can't upzone your way out of the housing crisis. It might increase housing stock by 5 percent at the most. Even if they did upzone, the result would be mildly more opportunity to buy a house for 700k. Still looking at a monthly mortgage in excess of $5,000. An upzone policy will only attract developers whose job is to flip houses for maximum profit. There are lots of great neighborhoods in dc. Young families should have access to high quality schools with high quality facilities in every part of the city. After all, Ward 3 is the city's most boring set of neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks making 90-120k a year just adjust if they want anything resembling schools that aren't 90%+ FARMS.

If they're Black they live in the nicer parts of Prince George's. If they're Hispanic, they live in parts of Northern VA or Silver Spring. If they're White, they live in Frederick or Winchester.

Or they accept living in a TH in Loudoun or Montgomery is their lot in life.

This is very true. At some point, everyone needs to make concessions.

Yes, everyone. Popular neighborhoods need to accept upzoning. That is their lot in life. You need to live out to the exurbs if you want want to guarantee your neighborhood will remain all SFHs.

upzoning makes cities more expensive not less. this idea that if we just build more, then there will be lower housing prices is just a bunch of hokum. it has never been true in dc. navy yard is the latest in a long list of examples. way more housing there now, and it's exponentially more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

Upzoning makes housing more desirable as it's increases customer density which attracts more retail/restaurant/entertainment venues.

The landowners make out. The people who move in, do so willingly, meaning they're happier there than whatever alternatives were available.

The landowners didn't make the land. The builders make money, but have to compete with other builders, and can't charge too much.

Tax the land. Untax labor, sales, wages, buildings, etc.

No, upzoning destroys neighborhoods that want to remain neighborhoods of SFHs. Rather than destroy SFH neighborhoods, spend money upgrading poorer areas.

Yup. These are all just people who don't want to move to poorer areas but cannot afford to live in more affluent areas. At some point people need to come to terms with their class status. You may have grown up in an UMC suburb and think you have a "good" job, but that is not enough to maintain the class status that you were born into. I am really sorry that these people are learning of their own downward mobility the hard way.

No, these are literally just people trying to find a place to live. The way you talk about who you imagine is demanding more affordable housing is very telling. You think people are just jealous of you. But it’s actually people need a place to live within a reasonable distance of their job. The end.

The most common way someone “tries to find a place to live” is to evaluate their budget and then look at the market to identify areas that meet their budget.

The old saw in real estate is that you have location, quality and price - pick two. You cannot have it all. The people who are advocating policy change are doing it out of spite because it will not result in them being able to benefit (they will still not be able to afford it) but they will harm others.

“Affordable housing” only works with low input costs - cheap land and cheap materials. Cheap land does not exist in dense urban areas and the more density that is brought the more expensive the land becomes. If you want affordable housing, the only way it has ever been delivered in the history of this country is in new build suburbs. You may not like it, but it’s facts.

If you like living in the city and you want it to more affordable, the only way that has ever been accomplished in this country is through massive construction of SFH in the suburbs.

That’s it folks. Live in reality and make your choices.