Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

When I lived in NYC, I realized that I could not afford to live in a multi bedroom condo on Central Park South with views of the Park. I thought it was outrageous that I couldn't afford to do so. So, unfair.

So NYC did just what the Smart Growthers demand. They removed the height limit and built more housing and mixed use near Central Park South, the new “super tall” skyscrapers. How’s all that newly affordable housing workin’ out for ya’?

Funny how so many of the most densely populated places in America turn out to also be the most expensive.

Funny how 75% of the US GDP is in cities, where the jobs, culture and opportunities exist.

Do you think all this stuff is just random? Everything -- from jobs to culture to sky high housing costs -- grow out of the fact that there are a huge number of people living in a small space. If you don't have many people to begin with, you don't have jobs, you don't have culture, you don't have opportunities and you don't have sky high housing costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

I guess you don't know anything about redlining, GI Bill and other programs that paved the way for people who chartered AU Park and CCDC to be white enclaves of single family homes. The Federal Government literally bulldozed black homes in Ft Reno to make way for what we have now.

Irony is just dead.

Assuming for now that everything you state is true, Smart Growth advocates are not able to demonstrate how building dense blocks of upmarket flats and condos has anything to do with diversity, equity, etc. Speaking of enclaves, one of the mega-development projects going up on Wisconsin Ave actually advertises itself as an “exclusive enclave.”

And don’t fall back on “inclusionary zoning.” DC has some of the weakest IZ requirements in the nation, and a handful of IZ units, pegged at 80% of AMI, are not “affordable” housing.

Then you should be joining the rest of the DC housing advocates, including many smart growth supporters, in strengthening IZ and other affordable housing laws, rather than wasting your time here railing against whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

When I lived in NYC, I realized that I could not afford to live in a multi bedroom condo on Central Park South with views of the Park. I thought it was outrageous that I couldn't afford to do so. So, unfair.

So NYC did just what the Smart Growthers demand. They removed the height limit and built more housing and mixed use near Central Park South, the new “super tall” skyscrapers. How’s all that newly affordable housing workin’ out for ya’?

Funny how so many of the most densely populated places in America turn out to also be the most expensive.

Funny how 75% of the US GDP is in cities, where the jobs, culture and opportunities exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

Have you ever noticed that the only people who get pissed off by zoning are white people who are mad they can't afford houses in super white areas? Why are they so mad they can't live in mostly white neighborhoods?

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

You own TWO homes? Gotcha. Land Value Tax on investment properties now! (as an owner of just ONE home in NW DC, I support this)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

I guess you don't know anything about redlining, GI Bill and other programs that paved the way for people who chartered AU Park and CCDC to be white enclaves of single family homes. The Federal Government literally bulldozed black homes in Ft Reno to make way for what we have now.

Irony is just dead.

Assuming for now that everything you state is true, Smart Growth advocates are not able to demonstrate how building dense blocks of upmarket flats and condos has anything to do with diversity, equity, etc. Speaking of enclaves, one of the mega-development projects going up on Wisconsin Ave actually advertises itself as an “exclusive enclave.”

And don’t fall back on “inclusionary zoning.” DC has some of the weakest IZ requirements in the nation, and a handful of IZ units, pegged at 80% of AMI, are not “affordable” housing.

Anonymous wrote:

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

I guess you don't know anything about redlining, GI Bill and other programs that paved the way for people who chartered AU Park and CCDC to be white enclaves of single family homes. The Federal Government literally bulldozed black homes in Ft Reno to make way for what we have now.

Irony is just dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

This is the cynical spin from Smart Growth lobbyists, like the guy from “Cleveland Park Smart Growth” and “Ward 3 Vision” who worked for Trump and Manafort and is business partners with the creator of the Willie Horton ad. “Racist”, “Classist”? - as tossed around by a Trumpist!

You should be paying Bob Ward rent for living in your head.

When did the Ward 3 redistricting tsar turn into “Bob Woke”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

Have you ever noticed that the only people who get pissed off by zoning are white people who are mad they can't afford houses in super white areas? Why are they so mad they can't live in mostly white neighborhoods?

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this entire debate in DC and MD is that everyone focuses on building more housing in what apparently are considered desirable areas. Maybe, the best approach is to create more desirable areas, rather that squeezing more folks in limited space. Wards 7 and 8 residents regularly (and rightfully) complain about lack of development there. So, lets do more development there, improving their quality of life and making their neighborhoods more desirable.

Exactly. And rather than griping about the traffic in DC (which is mostly MD and VA plates) why don't they make the MD/VA burbs more desirable for office space?

I find it hilarious that they whine about bike lanes etc as if that's the cause of the traffic problems. On any given morning I see like 65% MD plates, 30% VA plates, and the remaining 5% are DC and out-of-state tourist plates. A huge chunk of us who actually live in the district take metro, bike, walk, scooter etc to work. We aren't the traffic problem. You suburbanites are. Maybe you should be lobbying your own officials about how to make your own communities so desirable and livable that your offices could relocate there and you too could walk or bike to work?

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this entire debate in DC and MD is that everyone focuses on building more housing in what apparently are considered desirable areas. Maybe, the best approach is to create more desirable areas, rather that squeezing more folks in limited space. Wards 7 and 8 residents regularly (and rightfully) complain about lack of development there. So, lets do more development there, improving their quality of life and making their neighborhoods more desirable.

Have you been to Anacostia, Congress Heights, Deanwood or Hillcrest recently? Because your suggestion demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what is going on on the ground in those Ward 7 and Wad 8 neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

This is the cynical spin from Smart Growth lobbyists, like the guy from “Cleveland Park Smart Growth” and “Ward 3 Vision” who worked for Trump and Manafort and is business partners with the creator of the Willie Horton ad. “Racist”, “Classist”? - as tossed around by a Trumpist!

You should be paying Bob Ward rent for living in your head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

Upzone AU Park!

Agree. And yes, I own a single family home in Ward 3 too. And while I don't agree with the GG or smart growth people, they make more sense than the random NIMBYs that show up to everything and say that bike lanes will end civilization as we know it.

A lot of people on this thread with champagne tastes who are on beer budgets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

When I lived in NYC, I realized that I could not afford to live in a multi bedroom condo on Central Park South with views of the Park. I thought it was outrageous that I couldn't afford to do so. So, unfair.

So NYC did just what the Smart Growthers demand. They removed the height limit and built more housing and mixed use near Central Park South, the new “super tall” skyscrapers. How’s all that newly affordable housing workin’ out for ya’?

Funny how so many of the most densely populated places in America turn out to also be the most expensive.