Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

Then read this thread, which contains answers to this question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the plan is to build affordable housing in Great Falls and Chevy Chase Village? Ha ha!

Housing affordable for the middle class, yes.

Duplexes are part of the "missing middle" in the housing supply.

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about

The “missing middle” is another nonthreatening-sounding term for “gentle density.” It means profound change for quiet single family residential side streets and big profits for real estate speculators and developers. No wonder they have generously backed the mayor.

A few duplexes on a block of detached SFHs is profound change? I don't think so.

Four times the number of cars driving and parking . More demand on school infrastructure - how many new schools is DC building in Upper NW.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the plan is to build affordable housing in Great Falls and Chevy Chase Village? Ha ha!

Housing affordable for the middle class, yes.

Duplexes are part of the "missing middle" in the housing supply.

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about

The “missing middle” is another nonthreatening-sounding term for “gentle density.” It means profound change for quiet single family residential side streets and big profits for real estate speculators and developers. No wonder they have generously backed the mayor.

Anonymous wrote:Seasons Greetings to developers from Mayor Muriel Bowser, Ho, Ho, Ho!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the plan is to build affordable housing in Great Falls and Chevy Chase Village? Ha ha!

Housing affordable for the middle class, yes.

Duplexes are part of the "missing middle" in the housing supply.

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about

The “missing middle” is another nonthreatening-sounding term for “gentle density.” It means profound change for quiet single family residential side streets and big profits for real estate speculators and developers. No wonder they have generously backed the mayor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the plan is to build affordable housing in Great Falls and Chevy Chase Village? Ha ha!

Housing affordable for the middle class, yes.

Duplexes are part of the "missing middle" in the housing supply.

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about

Seems like you need to play some sim city and let the adults actually live in the real world

but to start why are liberals so obsessed with trying to add more poor people to areas

why should we subsidize employers instead of letting the market run things which if there are truly shortages would require employers to raise wages

please take an economics course

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Housing is not a homogeneous commodity. Developer margins are higher with more expensive housing. In this area, those more expensive units will sell. There is little incentive to create "low income" housing. Even worse, the banks know this. Why didn't the real estate market crash here like it did in the rest of the country? Banks held onto the properties until the real estate market in this area began to recover and they could make a profit again selling the properties.

It did crash - what are you talking about?

Not like the rest of the country did. Yes, we lost some value but not like most of the country.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002636-why-housing-so-expensive-metropolitan-washington

Banks kept the foreclosures sitting empty to keep prices stable in our area. Those units slowly dribbled back onto the market.

In case you have forgotten, the job market was stronger here. Bank incentives were no different here than elsewhere.

Anyway, developers have an incentive to build what sells. Its a competitive business. Some tale from Kotkin about banks and REOs is not evidence that developers form cartels to keep housing from being built when it becomes cheaper to build. Hell, if they did do that, the NIMBYs wouldn't be so afraid of developers.