Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go for your upzoning. ADU built in the backyard of someone near Beverly Hills area that is a two story, 2 bd/2ba 931 sq ft house for rent for $3,000.

Eat your heart out. So affordable!!!

https://www.zillow.com/homes/821-Summit-Ave-.num.A-Alexandria,-VA-22302_rb/2055841832_zpid/

That's great news. There used to be one housing unit on the parcel, now there are two.

And it looks cute too! Although I don't get the sink/minifridge/microwave thing.

So your position is to build housing for the sake of building housing not to make housing affordable, desegregate, or some other made-up reason? I commend you owning this instead of couching it all in some greater social good gaslighting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go for your upzoning. ADU built in the backyard of someone near Beverly Hills area that is a two story, 2 bd/2ba 931 sq ft house for rent for $3,000.

Eat your heart out. So affordable!!!

https://www.zillow.com/homes/821-Summit-Ave-.num.A-Alexandria,-VA-22302_rb/2055841832_zpid/

The local government should take possession of the rental, right? Or subsidize the rent so that the owner can charge an even higher rent?

Who is proposing this? Are you proposing this?

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:

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.

The existence of a market doesn't mean the goods are fungible. A 4BR home is not the same as a 2BR home. You can't buy two 2BR homes as a substitute for a 4BR home.

Who has said housing is fungible? How is it relevant whether or not housing is fungible?

Anonymous wrote:Here you go for your upzoning. ADU built in the backyard of someone near Beverly Hills area that is a two story, 2 bd/2ba 931 sq ft house for rent for $3,000.

Eat your heart out. So affordable!!!

https://www.zillow.com/homes/821-Summit-Ave-.num.A-Alexandria,-VA-22302_rb/2055841832_zpid/

The local government should take possession of the rental, right? Or subsidize the rent so that the owner can charge an even higher rent?

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.

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.

The existence of a market doesn't mean the goods are fungible. A 4BR home is not the same as a 2BR home. You can't buy two 2BR homes as a substitute for a 4BR home.

Anonymous wrote:Here you go for your upzoning. ADU built in the backyard of someone near Beverly Hills area that is a two story, 2 bd/2ba 931 sq ft house for rent for $3,000.

Eat your heart out. So affordable!!!

https://www.zillow.com/homes/821-Summit-Ave-.num.A-Alexandria,-VA-22302_rb/2055841832_zpid/

That's great news. There used to be one housing unit on the parcel, now there are two.

And it looks cute too! Although I don't get the sink/minifridge/microwave thing.

Here you go for your upzoning. ADU built in the backyard of someone near Beverly Hills area that is a two story, 2 bd/2ba 931 sq ft house for rent for $3,000.

Eat your heart out. So affordable!!!

https://www.zillow.com/homes/821-Summit-Ave-.num.A-Alexandria,-VA-22302_rb/2055841832_zpid/

Between school and housing policies Alexandria is looking to take the fast path to becoming the next Baltimore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.

If they're "working hard and good money," why are you speaking of them as poor people? And how is this relevant to the proposal to allow property owners to build buildings with 2-4 residential units in places where, right now, it's only legal to have buildings with 1 residential unit?

Because an earlier poster said we could build more housing for poor people if we got rid of cars. It has been highlighted that those same poor people have cars. And will still need / want cars.

As to the second point, who is the target buyer for these expensive du/tri/quadplexes that will be built. My SFH 9000 square foot steep-hilled lot is assessed at $800k. Would building a quadplex on every lot in my neighborhood make my lot less than $800k?

So here's the good news for you. Unless you're planning to build a duplex/triplex/quadplex, you don't have to worry about who the buyers (or renters) will be! Property owners will only build duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes if they believe there is a demand for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes. If there is no demand for duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes, then property owners will not build them.

Also, I don't understand how "There would be more land available for housing if there were better non-car transportation choices and less land devoted to cars" turns into "we could build more housing for poor people if we got rid of cars," every single time. Getting rid of parking requirements is not getting rid of cars. Improving bus service is not getting rid of cars. Poor people are not the only people who live in housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.

If they're "working hard and good money," why are you speaking of them as poor people? And how is this relevant to the proposal to allow property owners to build buildings with 2-4 residential units in places where, right now, it's only legal to have buildings with 1 residential unit?

Because an earlier poster said we could build more housing for poor people if we got rid of cars. It has been highlighted that those same poor people have cars. And will still need / want cars.

As to the second point, who is the target buyer for these expensive du/tri/quadplexes that will be built. My SFH 9000 square foot steep-hilled lot is assessed at $800k. Would building a quadplex on every lot in my neighborhood make my lot less than $800k?

They don't want poor people to have cars. That is a feature, not a bug.

So, to summarize:

the housing proposal will overburden Alexandria infrastructure
even though it won't result in a meaningful increase in units
and the units will cost too much for poor people to be able to afford
although the poor people aren't actually poor
and there has to be parking for them because poor people have trucks they drive for work
but also affordable units should not be in SFH neighborhoods far from transit because poor people take the bus
and also there shouldn't be bike lanes because poor people don't drive, they take the bus
but bus lanes won't do anything because people don't take the bus, they drive,
but...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.

If they're "working hard and good money," why are you speaking of them as poor people? And how is this relevant to the proposal to allow property owners to build buildings with 2-4 residential units in places where, right now, it's only legal to have buildings with 1 residential unit?

Because an earlier poster said we could build more housing for poor people if we got rid of cars. It has been highlighted that those same poor people have cars. And will still need / want cars.

As to the second point, who is the target buyer for these expensive du/tri/quadplexes that will be built. My SFH 9000 square foot steep-hilled lot is assessed at $800k. Would building a quadplex on every lot in my neighborhood make my lot less than $800k?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.

If they're "working hard and good money," why are you speaking of them as poor people? And how is this relevant to the proposal to allow property owners to build buildings with 2-4 residential units in places where, right now, it's only legal to have buildings with 1 residential unit?

Because working hard and making good money doesn't automatically bring one out of poverty. We all know many of the dollars earned are being sent home to other countries. That's not new, and it's not up for debate.

My comment was relevant in terms of the debate about whether folks who live in committed affordable housing will be driving cars or riding the bus or even riding bicycles powered by the laughter of children.

Let's face it. Alexandria will change the zoning. More units will become available, but they won't be affordable. The folks coming to work in the City will continue to drive their own cars from wherever they may live in the greater DMV. Dedicated bus lanes are coming, but traffic will get worse. Justin Wilson will earn the centerfold pic on the Greater Greater Washington calendar. The City will continue to thrive despite the hindrances placed by the Council and long-time City staff.

That's my view, colored after living here for 45 years. Your mileage may vary.

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.

If they're "working hard and good money," why are you speaking of them as poor people? And how is this relevant to the proposal to allow property owners to build buildings with 2-4 residential units in places where, right now, it's only legal to have buildings with 1 residential unit?

Speaking of poor people and cars..... has anybody tried parking at Bradlee during the day anymore? The entire lot along Braddock, as well as 75%+ of the interior lot, is filled with the cars the construction workers building the new Minnie Howard are driving each day. They come from PWC, Fairfax, Montgomery, PG, etc.... When this project is completed, they will drive their Honda Civics and their Toyota Corollas with the loud mufflers to the next job site in the DMV. These folks are working hard and making good money. They buy cars. They fix them up. They are (understandably) proud of their mobility. It's a sign of success. This isn't going to change.

And they're definitely not going to be buying $800K duplexes.