Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Again, I never said anything about a conspiracy. You are the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies. You don’t seem to dispute the actual numbers or the impact that delivering those units faster would have in lowering prices. You also don’t dispute that it’s not in developers’ interests for prices to fall. Whether the depth of the pipeline is similar to recent years doesn’t really matter, though the fact that it is similar means that it’s been a long time since anyone other than developers has had the greatest impact on supply and that NIMBYs aren’t the first-order threat to affordable housing that you make them out to be.

That’s a lot of words to admit that you’ve never heard of warehousing.

Anonymous wrote:That's silly, PP. There are a lot of problems with the planning/land-use process in Montgomery County, as well as with the current Planning Board (and past Planning Boards).

That doesn't excuse NIMBYs.

Nothing excuses NIMBYs. But the only outcome of being mad at NIMBYs all the time is that you’re mad at NIMBY’s all the time. If you want more affordable housing, advocate for ways to penalize developers who fail to build to maximum use in a timely manner. Developers have been far more effective in limiting affordable housing than NIMBYs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Again, I never said anything about a conspiracy. You are the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies. You don’t seem to dispute the actual numbers or the impact that delivering those units faster would have in lowering prices. You also don’t dispute that it’s not in developers’ interests for prices to fall. Whether the depth of the pipeline is similar to recent years doesn’t really matter, though the fact that it is similar means that it’s been a long time since anyone other than developers has had the greatest impact on supply and that NIMBYs aren’t the first-order threat to affordable housing that you make them out to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

The pipeline is quite normal right now, contrary to the conspiracy theories you keep bringing up. You keep saying the same things, and they keep being wrong.

Anonymous wrote:Remote work will change and has changed much. No commute. Live in the cheaper suburbs.

Terrific. Then there's no reason to spend billions and billions on widening highways, building new highways, and building new bridges.

Meanwhile, however, people who do remote work will still go places. Grocery stores, doctors' offices, schools. How will they get there?

Remote work will change and has changed much. No commute. Live in the cheaper suburbs.

That's silly, PP. There are a lot of problems with the planning/land-use process in Montgomery County, as well as with the current Planning Board (and past Planning Boards).

That doesn't excuse NIMBYs.

So when people buy those duplexes and try to convert them back into SFH, will they be allowed to do so? I read that’s what many are doing now with B&B properties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

No guilty mind (really odd that your mind goes there first), but collusion is the only condition under which developers operate as a monolith. Yes, they face similar economics, but they all have slightly different cost structures, depending on how many projects they have going on at the same time, depending on contracts they've signed, depending on a million other things. In any event, I agree that there is a role for policy - implement a land value tax!

Going back to your original post, I truly don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are we only allowed to talk about NIMBYs when developers have delivered every unit in their pipeline? There are always going to be approved units that haven't been built yet. Developers aren't always able to secure financing, NIMBYs throw up every roadblock and procedural trick to try to prevent anything from being built, and so on.

I think it's fair to complain about NIMBYs when the Montgomery County Planning Board stops giving out site plan validity extensions as if developers are entitled to them by right, when developers stop converting apartments to short-term rentals en masse (as happened with the project above the Purple Line in Bethesda), and when we impose some sort of penalty on underutilization and warehousing, whether that's a land value tax or a vacancy tax. (Either policy option probably would cause land values to drop, which would be painful in the short term but would be healthy for the market over the long term.) The case against NIMBYs is more compelling when Montgomery County's inventory of unbuilt units approved in the past six years isn't 20,000.

I disagree that collusion is required. Developers are rational actors, and in Montgomery County they've repeatedly told the Planning Board that they're not building because they're concerned about absorption at the top end of the market. They've told planning this in requesting site plan validity extensions and in response to the White Flint survey. The pattern of development in Montgomery County is consistent with what developers are telling planning. When rents stagnate or fall, they don't start new projects. We also know that investors and developers alike prefer tight markets because tight markets have less downside risk and because tight markets are more likely to produce windfalls. Supply chain innovations, such as just-in-time delivery of detached single family units, have also held inventory low and kept prices high. Altogether, that's a strong body of evidence that developers have collectively contributed to skyrocketing housing prices even without collusion.

Finally, developers' inability to secure financing is not caused by NIMBYs. We'd be better off if the process weeded out developers who can't get projects to market and are using low-interest loans to tie up land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

No guilty mind (really odd that your mind goes there first), but collusion is the only condition under which developers operate as a monolith. Yes, they face similar economics, but they all have slightly different cost structures, depending on how many projects they have going on at the same time, depending on contracts they've signed, depending on a million other things. In any event, I agree that there is a role for policy - implement a land value tax!

Going back to your original post, I truly don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are we only allowed to talk about NIMBYs when developers have delivered every unit in their pipeline? There are always going to be approved units that haven't been built yet. Developers aren't always able to secure financing, NIMBYs throw up every roadblock and procedural trick to try to prevent anything from being built, and so on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

I didn't say there was collusion. It's funny how urbanists always bring that up. Do you know something I don't? Guilty mind, maybe? Collusion isn't the only mechanism that produces this outcome. Developers are all pretty much dealing with the same economics, so it's not surprising they would make similar choices. They all want to protect their existing returns, they all need to deliver high returns to investors, and low interest rates make it cheaper for them to sit on land than it would be for them to sit on land if interest rates were higher. There's clearly a market inefficiency where urbanists claim a shortage on the one hand but developers claim they're worried about a glut on the other. This is a great place for regulation to step in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

I didn't realize that developers are acting as a cartel. What's your evidence for your claim of collusion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.

Developers do a lot of artificial capping themselves. Just look at the tens of thousands and pipeline units, the units off the market, and the short-term rentals. When we address those units, I’ll be ready to start blaming NIMBYs.

The only way you can tell whether something is affordable is by comparing its price to people's incomes.

Yes, housing is expensive. But salaries here, across the board, are sky high. Heck, gym teachers working for DCPS make six figures.

Housing is expensive, but not as expensive as people like to think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.

Not even remotely true. Developers love the fat margins NIMBYs enable by artificially capping the supply of housing.