Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.
I like the concept of housing assistance for police officers, other first responders and teachers with incomes below certain thresholds. But the notion that taxpayers should be subsidiziing housing for, say, bureaucrats who work at DCRA or at DMV is anathema.
Why some city employees but not other city employees?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.
I like the concept of housing assistance for police officers, other first responders and teachers with incomes below certain thresholds. But the notion that taxpayers should be subsidiziing housing for, say, bureaucrats who work at DCRA or at DMV is anathema.
Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.
Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.
Anonymous wrote:There are programs for city employees, like teachers, to help with making market rate housing affordable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.
That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.
The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.
The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.
Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.
That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.
The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.
The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.
Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.
No system is perfect but rent control work much better than “inclusionary zoning.” First of all, IZ is usually only 10 percent of a project’s units and developers hire crafty zoning lawyers to whittle the number down or double count it for another benefit. And IZ eligibility is at a higher income point, which means that a lot of single young professionals working at think tanks and NGOs are qualifying for inclusionary zoning housing.
Higher income point than what? Than deeply affordable, sure, which is why AH plans like Bowser's usually include deeply affordable as well as IZ. But compared to rent controlled units which have no income cap? And which crafty landlords have many ways to get around.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Putting mixed use high rises around and between Van Ness and Tenleytown could work from a SimCity perspective but we'd have to, at a minimum, expand Hearst.
Otherwise just build a few apartment buildings near AU and UDC. College kids and grad students easily fit the income demographics targeted.
There have been quite a few apartment buildings put in on the way to friendship heights in the past decade, down Wisconsin to Georgetown as well, the new homeless shelter and hideous garage that blew threw all the variances with the Council's blessing, and the Fannie Mae redevelopment. Housing is coming in steadily. As to affordable housing, I'm not sure where the Mayor's proposal is coming from, when she is the one incentivizing the demise of rent-control. I'm sure some landlords are delighted though. Eventually, they will just flip these units to a higher rent.
For Bowser it’s all about providing new lucrative opportunities to her developer cronies and contributors through her proposed upzoning of areas of Chevy Chase DC and Cleveland Park. Providing affordable housing is a pretext, pure and simple, to weaken existing neighborhood overlays and historic district protections. The trickle down impact of providing minimal “inclusionary zoning” units among an influx of luxury condos - and at a higher qualifying income point, no less — will be relatively negligible and won’t offset the rent controlled housing lost through upzoning.
This.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Putting mixed use high rises around and between Van Ness and Tenleytown could work from a SimCity perspective but we'd have to, at a minimum, expand Hearst.
Otherwise just build a few apartment buildings near AU and UDC. College kids and grad students easily fit the income demographics targeted.
There have been quite a few apartment buildings put in on the way to friendship heights in the past decade, down Wisconsin to Georgetown as well, the new homeless shelter and hideous garage that blew threw all the variances with the Council's blessing, and the Fannie Mae redevelopment. Housing is coming in steadily. As to affordable housing, I'm not sure where the Mayor's proposal is coming from, when she is the one incentivizing the demise of rent-control. I'm sure some landlords are delighted though. Eventually, they will just flip these units to a higher rent.
For Bowser it’s all about providing new lucrative opportunities to her developer cronies and contributors through her proposed upzoning of areas of Chevy Chase DC and Cleveland Park. Providing affordable housing is a pretext, pure and simple, to weaken existing neighborhood overlays and historic district protections. The trickle down impact of providing minimal “inclusionary zoning” units among an influx of luxury condos - and at a higher qualifying income point, no less — will be relatively negligible and won’t offset the rent controlled housing lost through upzoning.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.
That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.
The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.
The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.
Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.
No system is perfect but rent control work much better than “inclusionary zoning.” First of all, IZ is usually only 10 percent of a project’s units and developers hire crafty zoning lawyers to whittle the number down or double count it for another benefit. And IZ eligibility is at a higher income point, which means that a lot of single young professionals working at think tanks and NGOs are qualifying for inclusionary zoning housing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rent controlled units do NOT provide afforable housing to the people who truly need. Rent control is not means tested, so someone making 200k a year can live in rent control forever. Its probably the most inefficient ways to deliver affordable housing.
That's probably less than 3% of rent controlled tenants in DC. I've lived in rent controlled apartment in DC - they are safe and habitable, put usually quite dated and ugly. No dishwashers, no in-unit washers and dryer. I left my rent controlled apartment for a nicer place once I made enough money.
The vast majority of people (80%+) who are in rent controlled apartments would probably be homeless or leave DC if you took away their homes. Further, rent controlled apartments in DC remain under the rent control system forever. I can go get a rent controlled apartment today, if I want. They are freely available. Ward 3 easily has 8,000+ rent controlled units.
The good thing about rent control in DC that it rewards long term residents who (1) work for a living and (2) make a moderate income. These are people who can stick to a budget and, since they have rent control, they stay put. They become pillars of their community because they are so invested in their neighborhood for the long run.
Thanks for your anecdotes based on nothing. I work in real estate and you have it backwards. The majority of rent units are not occupied living below poverty or even working poor. Unless
Rent control is means tested is does not deliver affordable housing to the people who need it most.