Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that that price of land in the county has eclipsed the average wage/affordability. We have a lot of rich people in MoCo (as does surrounding counties of the DMV), but also lots of middle and lower income people too. Developers make better profits catering to the wealthier residents, but that market is tapped out. The demand for housing is enormous among lower and middle class residents, yet the speculative prices for land are just too high to cater to that demographic. How do we bridge the gap?

Summary: There is no more cheap land. But we still have insatiable demand among lower and middle-income residents. How do we fix it?

By enabling more housing to be built, including on land where there already is housing.

There's no reason to build low income housing if there is middle class demand.

If the middle class are getting squeezed, I guarantee it’s worse for her lower classes.

+1

Part of the homeless crisis in CA is due to the high housing costs.

UMC are buying homes that previously MC people could afford, which pushes the MC down to buy homes that previously LC people could afford, which pushes the LC out completely.

This. We purchased our first house in 2010 at a HHI of $200K. The seller was a divorced immigrant who cut hair at a chain barber shop. They paid $150K for the house in 1994. We paid $500K in 2010. We just bought our second house last year at $400K HHI. The sellers were modestly paid government employees making about $150K combined. They bought the house 15 years ago for 400K. We paid $800K. It makes for an interesting mix of socioeconomic status in neighborhoods.

I think some of this contributes to white and MC flight out of the county. If you are middle class (teachers, firefighters, etc.) and all you can afford is a neighborhood with a lot of LC people, you may look outside of the county, especially if you have children. I have a friend whose family moved to MoCo and make about $125K a year combined. They said when looking at townhouses in mid county in their price range, there were a lot of people hanging out during the day, sitting outside, multiple families in one unit, etc.

So it's not just about affording, but affording something in a neighborhood with people you perceive to be like you. Not saying it's right, but this is the thought process for some people.

Anonymous wrote:
The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Rockville's Main Street project cost $22 million for 70 units, of which 53 are income-limited.

https://www.multihousingnews.com/partially-affordable-community-opens-in-metro-washington-dc/

Anonymous wrote:
This has got to be that “MoCo Mike” dude right? Loves to hammer home on Twitter that his studio condo makes him a “homeowner” like that’s important. Lol.

Are you saying it doesn't?

Elrich isn't responsible for land use decisions. The council decides. The CE doesn't have veto power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCos economy is trash. Developers aren't stupid. They don't want to build because there is no economy to support housing demand . Developers don't want to left holding a big bag of excrement.

Also, why must we constantly kowtow to low income interests? If you want to ruin nice areas, importing poverty is the way to do it. You are not entitled to live wherever you want. If you can't afford to live in an area you need to leave for more affordable COL.

Because they're the ones who fix your dishwasher, stock the shelves at the stores you shop at, look after your children, clean your home and office, cook the food you eat at restaurants and wash the dishes after, draw your blood, schedule your appointments, pick up your garbage, and care for your elderly and sick family members. Who will do all of that for you if they "leave for more affordable COL"?

We could have so much more housing if the county directly funded low income housing construction and stopped requiring developers to pay for and build a minimum number of income-restricted units. The affordable housing minimums kill profits.

Directly funded with what? The capital budget is over capacity as it is.

Redirect the funding from Riemer’s subsidies to housing construction. Between the impact fee reductions, the Grosvenor giveaway, and all of his other schemes, there’s money for affordable housing. And just like the urbanist say: if we let developers build more, affordable housing will magically appear.

The council directly distributes about $30 million in a year uncompetitively awarded grants to “community organizations” in a manner that lacks transparency and reeks of a slush fund. Add that to the developer giveaways and how much affordable housing can we directly build a year? I think a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCos economy is trash. Developers aren't stupid. They don't want to build because there is no economy to support housing demand . Developers don't want to left holding a big bag of excrement.

Also, why must we constantly kowtow to low income interests? If you want to ruin nice areas, importing poverty is the way to do it. You are not entitled to live wherever you want. If you can't afford to live in an area you need to leave for more affordable COL.

Because they're the ones who fix your dishwasher, stock the shelves at the stores you shop at, look after your children, clean your home and office, cook the food you eat at restaurants and wash the dishes after, draw your blood, schedule your appointments, pick up your garbage, and care for your elderly and sick family members. Who will do all of that for you if they "leave for more affordable COL"?

We could have so much more housing if the county directly funded low income housing construction and stopped requiring developers to pay for and build a minimum number of income-restricted units. The affordable housing minimums kill profits.

Directly funded with what? The capital budget is over capacity as it is.

Redirect the funding from Riemer’s subsidies to housing construction. Between the impact fee reductions, the Grosvenor giveaway, and all of his other schemes, there’s money for affordable housing. And just like the urbanist say: if we let developers build more, affordable housing will magically appear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see that the urbanists are out in force stoking their usual class warfare but not a single one of them has acknowledged that developers with actual skin in the game and Marc Elrich are making the same claims about demand. Just more misinformation. If your position can’t survive facts, it’s probably not a good position.

Hans Riemer made the same point. Which is why he changed the law for the county to subsidize developers and they still won’t build.

And when they do build (ie after the housing shortage gets even worse and rents go even higher) they’ll apply the subsidies to their already high profit margins instead of building more and accepting industry standard profit margins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCos economy is trash. Developers aren't stupid. They don't want to build because there is no economy to support housing demand . Developers don't want to left holding a big bag of excrement.

Also, why must we constantly kowtow to low income interests? If you want to ruin nice areas, importing poverty is the way to do it. You are not entitled to live wherever you want. If you can't afford to live in an area you need to leave for more affordable COL.

Because they're the ones who fix your dishwasher, stock the shelves at the stores you shop at, look after your children, clean your home and office, cook the food you eat at restaurants and wash the dishes after, draw your blood, schedule your appointments, pick up your garbage, and care for your elderly and sick family members. Who will do all of that for you if they "leave for more affordable COL"?

We could have so much more housing if the county directly funded low income housing construction and stopped requiring developers to pay for and build a minimum number of income-restricted units. The affordable housing minimums kill profits.

It also sucks to require middle class residents to directly subsidize poorer residents. MDPUs are bad policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCos economy is trash. Developers aren't stupid. They don't want to build because there is no economy to support housing demand . Developers don't want to left holding a big bag of excrement.

Also, why must we constantly kowtow to low income interests? If you want to ruin nice areas, importing poverty is the way to do it. You are not entitled to live wherever you want. If you can't afford to live in an area you need to leave for more affordable COL.

Because they're the ones who fix your dishwasher, stock the shelves at the stores you shop at, look after your children, clean your home and office, cook the food you eat at restaurants and wash the dishes after, draw your blood, schedule your appointments, pick up your garbage, and care for your elderly and sick family members. Who will do all of that for you if they "leave for more affordable COL"?

We could have so much more housing if the county directly funded low income housing construction and stopped requiring developers to pay for and build a minimum number of income-restricted units. The affordable housing minimums kill profits.

Directly funded with what? The capital budget is over capacity as it is.

Anonymous wrote:What Elrich says here is totally insane.

It makes no sense. He doesn’t understand zoning. Or markets. Or housing!

Look, I’m a homeowner. And I am also about as opposed to today’s Republican Party as it is possible to be.

But we have to elect people who understand that both zoning reform and affordable subsidies are needed. The high price of housing is a market problem and it will have to have some market solutions.

That means upzoning everywhere and letting more housing units be built.

This has got to be that “MoCo Mike” dude right? Loves to hammer home on Twitter that his studio condo makes him a “homeowner” like that’s important. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCos economy is trash. Developers aren't stupid. They don't want to build because there is no economy to support housing demand . Developers don't want to left holding a big bag of excrement.

Also, why must we constantly kowtow to low income interests? If you want to ruin nice areas, importing poverty is the way to do it. You are not entitled to live wherever you want. If you can't afford to live in an area you need to leave for more affordable COL.

Because they're the ones who fix your dishwasher, stock the shelves at the stores you shop at, look after your children, clean your home and office, cook the food you eat at restaurants and wash the dishes after, draw your blood, schedule your appointments, pick up your garbage, and care for your elderly and sick family members. Who will do all of that for you if they "leave for more affordable COL"?

We could have so much more housing if the county directly funded low income housing construction and stopped requiring developers to pay for and build a minimum number of income-restricted units. The affordable housing minimums kill profits.

The one or two pro-Thrive nerds on Twitter got tired of people ignoring them there and decided to come here?

Sad.

Anonymous wrote:I see that the urbanists are out in force stoking their usual class warfare but not a single one of them has acknowledged that developers with actual skin in the game and Marc Elrich are making the same claims about demand. Just more misinformation. If your position can’t survive facts, it’s probably not a good position.

Hans Riemer made the same point. Which is why he changed the law for the county to subsidize developers and they still won’t build.

I see that the urbanists are out in force stoking their usual class warfare but not a single one of them has acknowledged that developers with actual skin in the game and Marc Elrich are making the same claims about demand. Just more misinformation. If your position can’t survive facts, it’s probably not a good position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elrich is incompetent but housing is an issue. The County, like the rest of the area, is growing in population.

If you look at areas like Silver Spring up Georgia Ave, Langley Park, and parts of Rockville (Rollins Ave behind the strip malls), there is lots of affordable housing there. High-rise apartment buildings or garden apartments. Nothing fancy, but nice enough and not too crazy price-wise.

But what's being built now if you look at Rockville or Bethesda where a lot of the high-density housing is going in, is luxury condos and apartments. I dont' blame the developer -- most of your costs are in the structure not the interior, so if it's $10mln to build low-income and $13mln to build luxury, spend the extra $3mln because you'll make it back in much higher rent/sales prices.

So how do we fix this? More incentives to build lower-price units? They already have to build 10-15% of units for low-income, but it's not enough.

Or maybe we zone parts of upcounty for high-density? How many apartment high-rises are there in Clarksburg?

1. Clarksburg is almost built out.
2. There is a lot of multi-unit housing in Clarksburg.
3. Clarksburg is a really stupid place to build high-rise apartments (which is one reason why there aren't a lot of high-rise apartments in Clarksburg, even in places where it's allowed).

If they're able t build new housing in Bethesda and Rockville, they can do it in Clarksburg. Those areas are way more built out than Clarksburg.

Of course they CAN do it in Clarksburg. The question is whether it makes sense to do it in Clarksburg, where almost everything is less than 20 years old, and it's a long way to almost anything. Do you think developers will be eager to build 20-story apartment buildings next to the bus stop for the 75 RideOn at Harris Teeter? If Adventist Hospital had been allowed to build its hospital at Cabin Branch, AND if that regional rail line from Shady Grove to Frederick had been built, then it might have made sense. But instead we got an outlet mall and buses that run every 30 minutes to Germantown.

It's not idea but it can work. I think there's a false assumption that low-income people only travel by public transportation and that's just not true. Look at the success of the low-income housing neighborhood in Avenel in Potomac for example.

Sure, it may not be suitable for all low-income applicants, but it would probably work for a lot of people.

The topic was high-rise apartments, not housing for low-income people. With almost all of the housing in Clarksburg being new and thus subject to the MPDU requirements, Clarksburg already has a lot of housing for low-income people. In some of the developments, 25% of the units are MPDUs.

This. The county also decided that they didn't want metro/ rail to go past shady Grove so it would be stupid to put high rise apartments there. See what happens when our local politicians lack big picture thinking? Instead of coming up with workable solutions, they'd rather criticize the people who live 'far away" by telling them to just live closer to work. If you don't improve roads and public transportation, it limits your ability to build all types of housing.