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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

Assuming the goods are fungible. A $350k home is not the same as a $750k home.

There is a market for housing. The market for housing is a market. The market for housing includes supply and demand, with price as an indicator, because it is a market.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

Assuming the goods are fungible. A $350k home is not the same as a $750k home.

+1 and Housing is not a good. It is built on a finite amount of land. Demand for land in Alexandria will always be high and supply can never be increased.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

Assuming the goods are fungible. A $350k home is not the same as a $750k home.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

+1 I live in a west end neighborhood that includes many apartment buildings, townhouses and SFHs. There are so many work trucks parked everywhere, not saying this as a bad thing. But I'm guessing the PP doesn't live in an area of Alexandria that has actual working class people living there or nearby.

If you want to see what happens, look at low rises along Rt 1 with inadequate parking. Local streets are filled with work trucks. People still have to park them somewhere, inadequate parking just means they find street parking. Unless the plan is to deny apartment residents parking permits (an old Crystal City feature), how do you prevent street parking?

Next time you're sitting in traffic, count the number of vehicles on the road with you that aren't work trucks. Include your vehicle.

So your vision is to only allow work vehicles and those people who aren’t transporting items for their labor jobs should take public transportation? My spouse actually works near a metro stop, but their Fed employer has asked they don’t take the metro because the walk from the metro stop is so unsafe they don’t want to be sued when someone becomes a crime victim at the behest of the agency’s encouraging public transportation use.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

+1 I live in a west end neighborhood that includes many apartment buildings, townhouses and SFHs. There are so many work trucks parked everywhere, not saying this as a bad thing. But I'm guessing the PP doesn't live in an area of Alexandria that has actual working class people living there or nearby.

If you want to see what happens, look at low rises along Rt 1 with inadequate parking. Local streets are filled with work trucks. People still have to park them somewhere, inadequate parking just means they find street parking. Unless the plan is to deny apartment residents parking permits (an old Crystal City feature), how do you prevent street parking?

Next time you're sitting in traffic, count the number of vehicles on the road with you that aren't work trucks. Include your vehicle.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

So you think Alexandria can really produce enough multi family units to bring down property values across the city? Unless they produce units so undesirable that they blight whole neighborhoods (which could happen), they won't effect demand because demand is regional and Alexandria is a very small part of the region.

The City of Alexandria is not the only jurisdiction in the region that is allowing, or proposing to allow, property owners to build multi-unit housing where previously only single-unit housing was allowed.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

+1 I live in a west end neighborhood that includes many apartment buildings, townhouses and SFHs. There are so many work trucks parked everywhere, not saying this as a bad thing. But I'm guessing the PP doesn't live in an area of Alexandria that has actual working class people living there or nearby.

If you want to see what happens, look at low rises along Rt 1 with inadequate parking. Local streets are filled with work trucks. People still have to park them somewhere, inadequate parking just means they find street parking. Unless the plan is to deny apartment residents parking permits (an old Crystal City feature), how do you prevent street parking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

Think harder.

And then think of all of the people who are going places while not transporting lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. How many motor vehicles are in your household? For what percentage of your trips by car are you transporting lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting? When people are carrying on about those perfidious $800,000 duplexes that must have their own off-site parking, are they worried because the residents of those perfidious $800,000 duplexes are going to park their work trucks on the street?

And then, while you're driving around, take a look at who's standing at the bus stops waiting for the bus. But don't look too long, because I don't want you to hit people at the bus stop with your car.

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 one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

So you think Alexandria can really produce enough multi family units to bring down property values across the city? Unless they produce units so undesirable that they blight whole neighborhoods (which could happen), they won't effect demand because demand is regional and Alexandria is a very small part of the region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

+1 I live in a west end neighborhood that includes many apartment buildings, townhouses and SFHs. There are so many work trucks parked everywhere, not saying this as a bad thing. But I'm guessing the PP doesn't live in an area of Alexandria that has actual working class people living there or nearby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

2. Property owners will not build market rate housing that is what the planning commission discovered - well they will, they will build $800k condos and $1million townhouses.

1. Those poor people have cars - lots of them. Undocumented day workers live and die by their cars.

3. What is social housing?

1. Property owners will build market rate housing.
2. Improve non-car transportation. Plus cars are ridiculously expensive. Less money needed in the household budget for transportation means more money in the household budget for housing. That will also be good for the City of Alexandria budget, because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and don't pay taxes.
3. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=What+is+social+housing

I can think of no non-car transportation that would lend itself to bringing lawnmowers, ladders, pvc piping, buckets, vacuum cleaners, and rolls of carpeting. You clearly have no idea the vehicles the poor people you advocate for drive or what they do for a living. It’s why only 375 parking spots for the 470 unit buildings in Arlandria is insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

#3 is complicated in VA. Dillon Rule.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/Housing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

You don’t seem to understand the basic idea of missing middle. The whole point is to increase supply of housing units overall thus leading to downward pressure on overall prices.

Right, but that doesn’t work. That’s illusory. How does building a 4-plex on a lot that cost $1.5 million to procure decrease prices? It may on condos, but it increases SFH prices. Should no one live in a SFH?

A four-unit building increases the supply of housing by three units, compared to a one-unit building.

3 $750k units does what for those workers living in cramped spaces you alluded to earlier? Your argument makes 0 sense.

The concept of supply and demand is used to explain how price is influenced by the supply of goods and services available and the demand for those products. When supply decreases, the price of the good increases. Inversely, when the supply of the good increases, the price falls. A similar relationship exists between price and demand. When the demand for the good increases, the price of the good also increases. When the demand decreases, the price of the good falls with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one building (The Blake on Beauregard) and just the availability of 2 bedroom units available immediately- ie- today.

https://8934213.onlineleasing.realpage.com/#k=95825

That's 45 units. They also have studios, one bed units, and 2+den units so lets be conservative and say there are 100 units available in just this one building.

Where is the crisis? Where is the shortage?

Seriously- someone ELI5- where is the crisis? Why are these units not OK but ones built in Del Ray would be the cure all?

Can anyone answer that?

If not, maybe we don't change the entire zoning code, mmm'kay?

It's 42 units, total, in a building with 300 units. Starting with $2000-$3000/month for a 519 sf studio.

Noting, also, that units turn over all the time. There should be units available for rent. The existence of units that are available for rent does not negate the existence of a housing crisis.

No, that is incorrect. There are 42, two bedroom units availbale right now. If you add the one bed and studios in too, it's easily 100 units.

Would you have us believe that the proposed Del Ray 4 plexes will rent for less than these?

Or do you think people have the right to live exactly where they please for exactly the price they deem affordable?

And if units turn all the time, well then, great. That shows mobility in the housing market, which is a chief indicator of abundance.

So, again, where is the crisis?

I clicked on your link and posted the information I found there, which included all units, not just 2 bedroom units..

Your idea that mobility in the housing market is a chief indicator of abundance is, well, a novel economic idea. The more standard economic idea is that price is the chief indicator of supply vs. demand.

Now, if you want to make a normative argument, for example, "I believe it's just fine if people who don't have a lot of money have to spend a large proportion of their income in order to live in tiny spaces in unpleasant or dangerous areas far from where they work, and actually it would be even better if they just went away altogether", feel free, but that's a normative argument, not a data argument.

Serious question. What is your plan to create a socialist utopia where this does not happen? What would Alexandria do and look like? How would it be paid for?

I think it says a lot about your beliefs that you think anywhere where poor people have decent housing in safe neighborhoods close to jobs is some kind of unaffordable "socialist utopia".

You are avoiding the questions. How does this happen in Alexandria? And it is a “socialist utopia” because the plan to make this happen in urban settings will inevitably involve government taking of private land and providing some sort of social welfare. If the wealthy leave you get Baltimore or Detroit and no jobs with an abundance of housing. Even big houses.

1. Stop prioritizing cars over housing.
2. Allow property owners to build market-rate housing.
3. Provide social housing for people who can't afford market-rate housing.

This isn't complicated, and it's also not "socialism".

#3 is complicated in VA. Dillon Rule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Massive”

I’m just here to see whether the Justin’s traffic jam folks are going to freak out even when the plan is this mild…

Wow. "Massive" apparently means "a few tweaks here and there." Who knew!

No one following the issue apparently (on both sides!). Both the city and council made it sound like a significant revamp was needed to resolve the housing crisis. Are you making fun of constituents for responding to what they were told?

Also, as with the bonus height density proposal, the devil may still be in the details. Developers are very good about finding loopholes and pushing the limits of what is allowable (see: every McMansion in ALX that uses FAR exclusions to build massive homes).

A significant revamp is needed, to address the housing crisis. This is not a significant revamp.

Turns out paving paradise and putting up massive housing blocks is not a step the planning commission was willing to take. Also turns out no developer is going to construct a costly high rise when 1/3 units need to be affordable and the land does not lend itself to underground parking. Even if a developer buys my detached SFH to build a duplex, those units would need to over $1.5 million each for any profit. Economics are a b&$c! Land is finite around here and expensive because it is.

This is Alexandria. Paradise has already been paved.

I have to laugh at people who argue, on the one hand, that a policy proposal to allow X would be a disaster because X would be a disaster, and on the other hand, that the policy proposal to allow X would not actually result in X.

If you own a single-unit house, guess what? Your property value will increase if you're allowed to build a duplex on your property.

And that won't do anything to make housing more affordable. So what's the point? The ancillary detriments - overcrowded schools and infrastructure - may not be worth it.

You're right, one one-unit building vs. one two-unit building will have no effect on the overall housing market!

Nobody claimed that. Simple math would suggest doubling the stock will have an impact on the housing market. What I claimed is your hypothetical increase in property values will not do anything to make housing more affordable.

Entirely independent from the effects of supply and demand in the housing market, which is more affordable on a given piece of property - one $1 million unit, or two $800,000 units?

The goal isn't to build $800K duplexes, the goal is to make housing more equitable, accessible and affordable for those who can't afford to drop $800K on a duplex. Do you think my cleaning ladies are going to be lining up to buy an $800K duplex? Nope. It'll go to some white family and beat goes on...

You misunderstood the goal. The city cannot allocate affordable housing in this manner. The goal was to build $800k duplexes.