Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

It's not that they are intrinsically bad. Developers are necessary. But, they are typically entirely profit motivted, meaning they view every deal as the maximum amount of cash they can get per square foot. Thus, left to their own devices they would prioritize building luxury apartments, luxury office spaces and high end retail. They don't care as much about green spaces, or families, young working people, children, and affordable establishments. They also don't care about the impacts on infrastructure, traffic, police or other services, they leave taxpayers holding the bag. It's typically the communities that have to keep them in check and push for those things.

"Luxury apartments" just means new market-rate apartments. All new market-rate apartments have the meaningless term "luxury" slapped on them.

Using the term "market rate" is a joke - you can only afford them if you're part of the top 5-10%

Supply/demand dictates market price. If most people are outpriced and management companies run out of top 5% looking and being able to afford their rentals, then they drop the price or risk high vacancy rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

I'm in Alexandria and that is certainly the case here but shouldn't that be the city government's job to think about all those things? It doesn't happen here and we are headed for disaster.

Not even a little because of all the back room dealing that goes on. Corruption to the very core.

For sure. It's pretty well known in D circles why the mayor and council and cronies push this. All while living in large single family homes with large (for Alexandria) yards.

You know all those large single family homes were planned and built by developers.

80 years ago...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

I'm in Alexandria and that is certainly the case here but shouldn't that be the city government's job to think about all those things? It doesn't happen here and we are headed for disaster.

Not even a little because of all the back room dealing that goes on. Corruption to the very core.

For sure. It's pretty well known in D circles why the mayor and council and cronies push this. All while living in large single family homes with large (for Alexandria) yards.

You know all those large single family homes were planned and built by developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

I'm in Alexandria and that is certainly the case here but shouldn't that be the city government's job to think about all those things? It doesn't happen here and we are headed for disaster.

Not even a little because of all the back room dealing that goes on. Corruption to the very core.

For sure. It's pretty well known in D circles why the mayor and council and cronies push this. All while living in large single family homes with large (for Alexandria) yards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

I'm in Alexandria and that is certainly the case here but shouldn't that be the city government's job to think about all those things? It doesn't happen here and we are headed for disaster.

Not even a little because of all the back room dealing that goes on. Corruption to the very core.

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

I'm in Alexandria and that is certainly the case here but shouldn't that be the city government's job to think about all those things? It doesn't happen here and we are headed for disaster.

Anonymous wrote:Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

They prioritize profit over quality of design, materials and craftsmanship.

They only care about density if it is a means towards making profit. Where sprawl is more profitable, they do that instead.

Developers are all about expediency.

Developers (at least where I live) prioritize denisity without thought toward overcrowding schools, utilities, services, parking, traffic etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

short term vision (profit), unintended consequences for those of us here for the long haul. They move the shells around on the table and get you to place your momey--in the long run city and residents are left with nothing, but they do fine. Hope this helps!

Residents are left with HOUSING UNITS.

Apparently, progressives believe housing units are only important if they're the "right kind" of housing units. These units should be no more than 60% of market rate... but it's best if they're far away from our backyards.

That’s old progressive thinking. New progressive thinking is that housing units should all be rentals and developers should make at least 15 percent ROI. We should also avoid building any new infrastructure like roads (even though it’s fine to let developers build as much parking as they want so that everything pencils out) or like schools (because renters apparently don’t have kids). Never mind that the lack of additional housing available for purchase makes it really hard for people to build wealth, so the benefits of development all accrue to existing homeowners and developers.

15% is too low of a margin for developers. Try more like 25-30% margins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

short term vision (profit), unintended consequences for those of us here for the long haul. They move the shells around on the table and get you to place your momey--in the long run city and residents are left with nothing, but they do fine. Hope this helps!

Residents are left with HOUSING UNITS.

Apparently, progressives believe housing units are only important if they're the "right kind" of housing units. These units should be no more than 60% of market rate... but it's best if they're far away from our backyards.

That’s old progressive thinking. New progressive thinking is that housing units should all be rentals and developers should make at least 15 percent ROI. We should also avoid building any new infrastructure like roads (even though it’s fine to let developers build as much parking as they want so that everything pencils out) or like schools (because renters apparently don’t have kids). Never mind that the lack of additional housing available for purchase makes it really hard for people to build wealth, so the benefits of development all accrue to existing homeowners and developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

short term vision (profit), unintended consequences for those of us here for the long haul. They move the shells around on the table and get you to place your momey--in the long run city and residents are left with nothing, but they do fine. Hope this helps!

Residents are left with HOUSING UNITS.

Apparently, progressives believe housing units are only important if they're the "right kind" of housing units. These units should be no more than 60% of market rate... but it's best if they're far away from our backyards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

short term vision (profit), unintended consequences for those of us here for the long haul. They move the shells around on the table and get you to place your momey--in the long run city and residents are left with nothing, but they do fine. Hope this helps!

Residents are left with HOUSING UNITS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

It's not that they are intrinsically bad. Developers are necessary. But, they are typically entirely profit motivted, meaning they view every deal as the maximum amount of cash they can get per square foot. Thus, left to their own devices they would prioritize building luxury apartments, luxury office spaces and high end retail. They don't care as much about green spaces, or families, young working people, children, and affordable establishments. They also don't care about the impacts on infrastructure, traffic, police or other services, they leave taxpayers holding the bag. It's typically the communities that have to keep them in check and push for those things.

"Luxury apartments" just means new market-rate apartments. All new market-rate apartments have the meaningless term "luxury" slapped on them.

Using the term "market rate" is a joke - you can only afford them if you're part of the top 5-10%

But won't opening the zoning floodgates to development in DC result in affordable housing and greater inclusion?

That's what Smart Growth tells us.

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

short term vision (profit), unintended consequences for those of us here for the long haul. They move the shells around on the table and get you to place your momey--in the long run city and residents are left with nothing, but they do fine. Hope this helps!

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me why developers are bad. I see this take so much whether it's in DC with the Mayor, Montgomery County or any other place. What is it about the developers that makes them awful people?

They’re not bad. They’re essential to economic growth. But like any other essential business, they need to be regulated and properly incentivized (or disincentivized). Developers’ lobbyists would like everyone to think that their interests are well aligned with the public interest. But that’s frequently not the case. For example:

1. The public would benefit from plentiful housing bordering on oversupply. Developers benefit from tight markets bordering on shortage. For all the talk of zoning (which we should abolish almost in its entirety), developers don’t use the capacity that’s available now because their business incentives all are stacked toward creating shortages.

2. The public would benefit from a tax system that allocated the costs of development to those who profit from it, with tax-supported infrastructure delivered just as new units come online. Developers want to shift infrastructure costs to the right of occupancy so they extract more of the money that the customer pays as profit for themselves.

3. The public would benefit from truly transit oriented development but developers continue building parking spaces (more than the minimum required) because parking spaces generate a high ROI while the costs (climate, roads, etc) are spread across the community.

As for the complaint above about luxury housing, no one should expect developers to sell for less than market rate. And they wouldn’t if the likes of GGW, Montgomery Planning, and CSG weren’t running around promising that new housing would be affordable. For anyone who says “filtering,” it can work in theory but hasn’t worked in our market because developers don’t build enough. I’ve never understood why people think developers would intentionally drive down the price of their own product over a sustained period of time. How would they stay in business?