Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it’s what will cause the equity in your house to rise. Are you supposed to be the last gentrifier allowed in?

+1 to the second sentence. There’s something so disingenuous about well off (most likely) white people objecting to further development in their previously poor neighborhood.

Is this some kind of weird Orwellian joke? This stuff is *only* allowed to happen in black neighborhoods. If a developer went to DuPont Circle or Georgetown or Alexandria or Friendship Heights and proposed tearing down a single-family home and covering every square inch of the yard with condos, people would be in the streets with pitchforks. Of course, that never actually happens, because people in those neighborhoods have already engineered their zoning laws to ensure that developers can never do any such thing. So the developers come to poor black neighborhoods where zoning laws basically don't exist, and no one will complain.

Give me a break. Creating more multifamily housing is GOOD, not bad. It's extremely well established that restrictive zoning negatively impacts housing supply. Do you think it HELPS lower-income homeowners in these neighborhoods to have a historic designation slapped on that makes it harder to do repairs?

wtf is a popback/popup

If you don’t own the view, you shouldn’t be upset about it changing. If you want to stop the pop up then buy the building. It’s incredibly simple as a solution.

Oregon is expected to be the first state to ban single family zoning in its municipalities. I suspect there will be some followers and hope DC will follow as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it’s what will cause the equity in your house to rise. Are you supposed to be the last gentrifier allowed in?

+1 to the second sentence. There’s something so disingenuous about well off (most likely) white people objecting to further development in their previously poor neighborhood.

Is this some kind of weird Orwellian joke? This stuff is *only* allowed to happen in black neighborhoods. If a developer went to DuPont Circle or Georgetown or Alexandria or Friendship Heights and proposed tearing down a single-family home and covering every square inch of the yard with condos, people would be in the streets with pitchforks. Of course, that never actually happens, because people in those neighborhoods have already engineered their zoning laws to ensure that developers can never do any such thing. So the developers come to poor black neighborhoods where zoning laws basically don't exist, and no one will complain.

This makes zero sense. OP is in Petworth. That is a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, and most homes sell for close to $1M. Sure, it's not old-money Georgetown, but let's please not act like it's nothing but poor black folks.

Lower income African-American families are selling the properties to the developers. These properties have been in their families for decades and they are realizing a very nice profit (so long as they don't have reverse mortgage or something crazy like that). Poor black folks in rental units are getting pushed out en mass from Petworth as values skyrocket.

And yes, the nicer WOTP neighborhoods have engineered their zoning to be much more restrictive. I live in a rowhouse in an R-20 zone in Burleith. No single plats can be sub-divided into multiples deeds in my zone, i.e. a single house cannot be converted to multiple condos. It's banned in my zone. So what happens? Developers build a 4-story home with with a roof deck and sell it for $2.5m. They blast it out to the max height (35 feet) and lot coverage in the R-20 zone. However, it doesn't really create any new housing as the home cannot be legally sub-divided into multiple units.

The restrictions in the historic districts - Georgetown and Foxhall Village - are even more strict as they can regulate aesthetics and ban roof decks/elevated terraces, along with lots of other restrictions.

These types of zoning shenanigans ultimately drive up the cost of housing. I follow the RE market fairly closely. About 50% of the work in Petworth is tasteful and the other 50% is god awful shoddy work by fly-by-night developers looking to sell $750K condos to GS-13's scrapping together every last dollar they have. The only ones winning are the awful developers who cut corners and leave others to hold the bag.

The developers who do the right thing - work fairly with their neighbors, take time to build to code, spend money on aesthetics - get a bad name. They are out there, but operate mostly in nicer neighborhoods where their reputation actually matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it’s what will cause the equity in your house to rise. Are you supposed to be the last gentrifier allowed in?

+1 to the second sentence. There’s something so disingenuous about well off (most likely) white people objecting to further development in their previously poor neighborhood.

Is this some kind of weird Orwellian joke? This stuff is *only* allowed to happen in black neighborhoods. If a developer went to DuPont Circle or Georgetown or Alexandria or Friendship Heights and proposed tearing down a single-family home and covering every square inch of the yard with condos, people would be in the streets with pitchforks. Of course, that never actually happens, because people in those neighborhoods have already engineered their zoning laws to ensure that developers can never do any such thing. So the developers come to poor black neighborhoods where zoning laws basically don't exist, and no one will complain.

This makes zero sense. OP is in Petworth. That is a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, and most homes sell for close to $1M. Sure, it's not old-money Georgetown, but let's please not act like it's nothing but poor black folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it’s what will cause the equity in your house to rise. Are you supposed to be the last gentrifier allowed in?

This building is not going to help property values on the street. It's going to be a massive development that will tower over all the neighbors. You would have to be crazy to want to buy a place next door.

This.

But a develop will and pop up that one... and on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, it’s what will cause the equity in your house to rise. Are you supposed to be the last gentrifier allowed in?

This building is not going to help property values on the street. It's going to be a massive development that will tower over all the neighbors. You would have to be crazy to want to buy a place next door.

This.

Buy the property!

+1000

Happening in MC all up the redline, from downtown Bethesda (at least on a metro stop), to North Bethesda (metro 2 miles away) to Pike and Rose and now Twin Brook. Tons of housing/infill, traffic awful (newsflash to all you Real Estate developers living in Chevy Chase, the FAMILIES buying your million dollar condos and townhomes DRIVE multiple cars and have kids they are sending to overcrowded Farmland, Tilden and WJ).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOB. Other people deserve housing too. NIMBYs like you are why there is a housing shortage.

Thanks, real estate developer. Please tell us all about how replacing homes for families with luxury condos costing nearly $1 million a pop is going to fix everything.

+1

Anonymous wrote:MYOB. Other people deserve housing too. NIMBYs like you are why there is a housing shortage.

Thanks, real estate developer. Please tell us all about how replacing homes for families with luxury condos costing nearly $1 million a pop is going to fix everything.

MYOB. Other people deserve housing too. NIMBYs like you are why there is a housing shortage.

Anonymous wrote:OP, the builder can do whatever they want so long as it conforms to the zoning for your block. Unless you’re in a historic district, there are no regulations of aesthetic.

Where you have the power is IF the developer asks for a variance from the zoning code. A variance means the developer will ask to build taller, further back, or on a higher percentage of the property than normally allowed in the zoning code.

Typically, when they want a zoning variance, they need to go before the local ANC to plead their case. They also need to go before the District Zoning Board and plead their case. If you want to mess with the developer, testify against the approval of their zoning variance. Even better, get the adjacent neighbor to testify.

In sum, you can’t derail their construction. But you can ensure they stick to the zoning code. Further, you can report them to DCRA if they are working outside permitted hours, allow their soil runoff to go onto neighboring or public property, etc. Fines can accrue.

That said, we are currently living next door to a flip project by a major local developer. The house is ugly and towers over us. But we want him to just finish as soon as possible. I have zero desire to look at a half-finished project for the next three years.

OP here. Thanks. This is helpful.

OP, the builder can do whatever they want so long as it conforms to the zoning for your block. Unless you’re in a historic district, there are no regulations of aesthetic.

Where you have the power is IF the developer asks for a variance from the zoning code. A variance means the developer will ask to build taller, further back, or on a higher percentage of the property than normally allowed in the zoning code.

Typically, when they want a zoning variance, they need to go before the local ANC to plead their case. They also need to go before the District Zoning Board and plead their case. If you want to mess with the developer, testify against the approval of their zoning variance. Even better, get the adjacent neighbor to testify.

In sum, you can’t derail their construction. But you can ensure they stick to the zoning code. Further, you can report them to DCRA if they are working outside permitted hours, allow their soil runoff to go onto neighboring or public property, etc. Fines can accrue.

That said, we are currently living next door to a flip project by a major local developer. The house is ugly and towers over us. But we want him to just finish as soon as possible. I have zero desire to look at a half-finished project for the next three years.