Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is your suggestion for lower income residents? Are you saying we should build public housing in large quantity, which would naturally be concentrated in lower cost parts? Do you suggest we should give incentive to market rate landlords or developers to build at a loss/rent at a loss or somehow motivate them to be more self-sacrificing? NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction and incredible density and zoning laws. The poor also get pushed out into more distant or more unsafe parts due to gentrification there.

The only way to make housing more affordable is to make someone pay for it, simple as that. Who will pay for it? Solve this problem and get back to us.

"Naturally"?

If government-sponsored housing is concentrated in lower-cost parts, it's because the government made a deliberate decision for that to happen.

Land costs less in cheaper parts. To build cheap housing you need cheap land, what's unnatural about this?

It's a decision to build "cheap housing" for poor people. It's also a decision to locate housing for poor people on cheap land. Neither of those things happens naturally.

Last time I checked IT COSTS MONEY to buy land, demolish, develop, and build. In your world perhaps it's free and it's natural to build luxury housing for people who don't pay or can afford to pay very little?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is your suggestion for lower income residents? Are you saying we should build public housing in large quantity, which would naturally be concentrated in lower cost parts? Do you suggest we should give incentive to market rate landlords or developers to build at a loss/rent at a loss or somehow motivate them to be more self-sacrificing? NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction and incredible density and zoning laws. The poor also get pushed out into more distant or more unsafe parts due to gentrification there.

The only way to make housing more affordable is to make someone pay for it, simple as that. Who will pay for it? Solve this problem and get back to us.

"Naturally"?

If government-sponsored housing is concentrated in lower-cost parts, it's because the government made a deliberate decision for that to happen.

Land costs less in cheaper parts. To build cheap housing you need cheap land, what's unnatural about this?

It's a decision to build "cheap housing" for poor people. It's also a decision to locate housing for poor people on cheap land. Neither of those things happens naturally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing people seem kind of racist to me. They always to pretend that areas like Anacostia — predominantly black neighborhoods where housing is cheap — don’t exist.

As opposed to the people on here who are arguing that (economic, and therefore de facto racial) segregation is a desirable outcome of our housing policy?

Segregation is not desirable, but in capitalist economy where property is privately owned and is an asset it's hard to avoid. You need a time machine and a jet to fly to former Soviet countries, or interview people who lived there to find out what happened after RE became privatized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ITA. There is plenty of affordable housing in parts of DC that yuppies don't want to live in.

And if yuppies go there (some already are, of course - yes, EOTR) that will push out the current low income residents. More gentrification is not the answer to making housing more affordable.

What is your suggestion for lower income residents? Are you saying we should build public housing in large quantity, which would naturally be concentrated in lower cost parts? Do you suggest we should give incentive to market rate landlords or developers to build at a loss/rent at a loss or somehow motivate them to be more self-sacrificing? NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction and incredible density and zoning laws. The poor also get pushed out into more distant or more unsafe parts due to gentrification there.

The only way to make housing more affordable is to make someone pay for it, simple as that. Who will pay for it? Solve this problem and get back to us.

"Naturally"?

If government-sponsored housing is concentrated in lower-cost parts, it's because the government made a deliberate decision for that to happen.

Land costs less in cheaper parts. To build cheap housing you need cheap land, what's unnatural about this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ITA. There is plenty of affordable housing in parts of DC that yuppies don't want to live in.

And if yuppies go there (some already are, of course - yes, EOTR) that will push out the current low income residents. More gentrification is not the answer to making housing more affordable.

What is your suggestion for lower income residents? Are you saying we should build public housing in large quantity, which would naturally be concentrated in lower cost parts? Do you suggest we should give incentive to market rate landlords or developers to build at a loss/rent at a loss or somehow motivate them to be more self-sacrificing? NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction and incredible density and zoning laws. The poor also get pushed out into more distant or more unsafe parts due to gentrification there.

The only way to make housing more affordable is to make someone pay for it, simple as that. Who will pay for it? Solve this problem and get back to us.

"Naturally"?

If government-sponsored housing is concentrated in lower-cost parts, it's because the government made a deliberate decision for that to happen.

Government owns loads of property in high cost areas and can confiscate it from private owners without spending any money to acquire it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they never actually build affordable housing. Literally the only thing they build are luxury condos for rich people. It's funny and strange how the rhetoric from affordable housing advocates and big real estate developers is exactly the same.

The more new luxury condos they build for rich people, the fewer existing non-luxury condos those rich people are going to outbid non-rich people for.

So basically it’s trickle down economics, except with housing. It’s so odd hearing leftie housing affordability people espousing right wing theories.

I'm an economist and this is a total mischaracterization. Housing filters down because most people only need to live in one house. "Trickle down economics" is really just a statement about tax multipliers, because people whose taxes are reduced consume more goods and services, which leads to greater employment and therefore economic activity. Just not the same thing at all.

Please don't make false equivalences like this if you haven't at least minimally thought them through. We economists only have so much time to combat the misinformation that people spread using our theories as justification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they never actually build affordable housing. Literally the only thing they build are luxury condos for rich people. It's funny and strange how the rhetoric from affordable housing advocates and big real estate developers is exactly the same.

The more new luxury condos they build for rich people, the fewer existing non-luxury condos those rich people are going to outbid non-rich people for.

So basically it’s trickle down economics, except with housing. It’s so odd hearing leftie housing affordability people espousing right wing theories.

What's factually incorrect about the statement you're criticizing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
ITA. There is plenty of affordable housing in parts of DC that yuppies don't want to live in.

And if yuppies go there (some already are, of course - yes, EOTR) that will push out the current low income residents. More gentrification is not the answer to making housing more affordable.

What is your suggestion for lower income residents? Are you saying we should build public housing in large quantity, which would naturally be concentrated in lower cost parts? Do you suggest we should give incentive to market rate landlords or developers to build at a loss/rent at a loss or somehow motivate them to be more self-sacrificing? NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction and incredible density and zoning laws. The poor also get pushed out into more distant or more unsafe parts due to gentrification there.

The only way to make housing more affordable is to make someone pay for it, simple as that. Who will pay for it? Solve this problem and get back to us.

"Naturally"?

If government-sponsored housing is concentrated in lower-cost parts, it's because the government made a deliberate decision for that to happen.

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing people seem kind of racist to me. They always to pretend that areas like Anacostia — predominantly black neighborhoods where housing is cheap — don’t exist.

As opposed to the people on here who are arguing that (economic, and therefore de facto racial) segregation is a desirable outcome of our housing policy?

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior.

Everyone has a right to safe, healthful shelter. It should be spread across all areas, so that we do not have economic segregation which produces MORE poverty.

I don't have to be their savior. The majorities of voters in DC, Alexandria, Arlington and MoCo agree with me. Together we will make the region better.

You cannot give a chance to anyone to live anywhere they want, unless they want to get a tent and live as homeless on the street of their favorite neighborhood. Shelters are not going to be embraced in expensive parts of the city and building adequate housing there would cost tons of money, someone has to pay for. Someone will be left over, low income families have higher chances scoring lottery housing in cheaper parts vs. expensive parts, there is never going to be enough cheap housing supply for them in expensive parts. No landlords or developers will forgo their bottom line. You also forget about the "birds of feather" effect. Affluent generally do not want to live next to poor and vice versa. Achieving a healthy mix of different socio-economic groups artificially is a very difficult exercise. It can happen organically given longer history and high density like it has in some parts of NYC, not happening in DC or other cities easily.

For your dreams to come true, RE has to stop being an asset, plain and simple. It's almost like former socialist block countries where housing was government assigned and could not be sold/bought like commodity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

You've never been to any of the Metros besides DC. Because many of them aren't 6 or 7 mile bike rides away from a station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

The majority of the population doesn't want to live in a shoe box in a giant condo tower.

+1

PP acts like they only have Metros in DC. The Metro expands out into many of the burbs with homes not living in a luxury box.

Affordable housing people seem kind of racist to me. They always to pretend that areas like Anacostia — predominantly black neighborhoods where housing is cheap — don’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

The majority of the population doesn't want to live in a shoe box in a giant condo tower.

Especially in cities where alternatives are readily available and affordable. In NYC people have no choice, don't compare, if you want to raise your family in an apartment in supremely dense area without a car, and have lots of other families around doing the same, then move to NYC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

The majority of the population doesn't want to live in a shoe box in a giant condo tower.

Luxury condo living may be great if done well. It has to be a family sized apartment, great sound insulation as families are very noisy in general, some safe outdoor space, like balcony/terrace, storage units for bulky items families have, playrooms for kids, amenities that private home owners aren't likely to have, like pools, gyms, party and movie theater rooms. And these condos have to be located in safe neighborhoods with decent public schools walking distance away (since you want to reduce reliance on a car), near transit to jobs. And there have to be family friendly amenities serving children, like daycares, sports centers for kid's athletic classes, art classes, music and dance, pediatric offices and doctors offices and certainly playgrounds and safe sidewalks, all within walking distance. Can you make this happen to attract enough urban enthusiasts?