One more talking point that no one seems to discuss: DC is actually has some of the slowest price appreciation of any major city over the last several years. In fact DC is now noticably more affordable than several other cities (LA, Seattle, Boston) that were considered to be as expensive or moreso than DC not long ago. This in spite of the fact that we are also one of the fastest growing metros in the country outside of the Sunbelt.

The fact that we've been able to increase housing supply more rapidly than most other high cost cities almost certainly has much to do with that.

See for yourself: https://www.redfin.com/blog/data-center/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

No, because you're either a liar or a fool or both. The idea this is going to lead to affordable housing is completely and totally preposterous. No one can even explain how that would happen.

I mean, there are 22 pages of posts here, some of which do go into explaining exactly how that would happen, but I guess if you see anyone who disagrees with you as either a liar or a fool, it's easy to dismiss those.

I've read every post, and there isn't a single one that offers a coherent explanation of how any of this leads to affordable housing.

If any of this was actually true, why can't anyone explain it?

It's not an outrageous request to say tell me how that would work.

Since you're asking for a more precise explanation, here is the one that I posted I the other thread about single-family zoning that is currently active. Happy to answer questions.

----

Economist here, I posted far up-thread about this proposal. Just wanted to chime back in on the whole "If building more housing reduces prices, then why are the densest cities in the U.S. also the most expensive?" question. This is a somewhat technical answer, but if people actually claim to want answers to the questions they ask, then this is what they get. Feel free to ask questions, I'm not a complete expert but this is a topic of interest to me so I'm happy to delve into the literature.

Urban economists have a long history of building stylized models of cities, then using what are called comparative statics to analyze how things propagate through the model when you change just one thing at a time. Because cities are not simple to model, and these models are designed to be tractable, they have to make a lot of simplifying assumptions. But, that makes it easier to understand what is going on in the model. One of the most unintuitive (but largely necessary) of these assumptions is that there are no housing market frictions. That is, they model housing consumption as something that people have complete freedom to choose an amount of in any location. In other words, I can in principle live in any size house in any place (though I will have to pay for it), while the "optimal" house size that consumers will choose for any place is something that arises in equilibrium. If we think that zoning regulations are binding, that is akin to saying that people cannot in fact consume the amount of space that they would consume in equilibrium. In the context of upzoning, this is usually meant to assume that people are required to consume more land if they live in a particular location than they might otherwise choose.

What follows is loosely based on Brueckner (1987). In the classic monocentric city model, identical people (same preferences, same income) consume a combination of housing and everything else, and they pay commuting costs to get to work in the city center that are increasing in distance. Because everyone is ex ante identical and because housing markets are competitive, everyone achieves the same utility wherever they live. But, closer-in residents consume less housing (live in denser conditions). This is because the price per square foot of closer-in housing ends up being higher, since people are willing to pay to avoid commuting costs. Moreover, the larger the city, the more dense its center becomes, and the higher the prices in the center become, absent regulatory restrictions.

Loosely speaking, in this baseline model, you can think of removing a binding zoning constraint in part of the city by upzoning as similar to adding a bunch of potentially usable space to the city in that one particular location with one particular commuting cost (this isn't quite exact, but the mechanics operate the same way). Assume, for simplicity, that we have a "closed city" with no migration from other cities. Then, upzoning means that there is now, in effect, more space to populate that is closer to the city. But, the "size" of the city (distance of its furthest resident to the center city) is pinned down by the marginal cost of commuting further (which is constant) equaling the marginal benefit of commuting further (value of increased possible consumption of housing and other things). So, what happens is that the city actually shrinks in space (i.e. less exurban expansion). The most distant person can consume the same amount of housing as before, but they commute less, and that means that they must be better off. Therefore, because everyone achieves the same utility as that most distant person, everyone must be better off. This "reduction in city size" effect is partially offset, however, because land prices actually fall, and that allows everyone who lives in the non-upzoned area to afford a bit more housing. But, on net, everyone is better off, prices fall everywhere, and most people actually get to consume more housing because we have freed up land that was not being put to its most productive use. That remains true even though the places with the densest housing are also the most expensive.

This model is very simple, so you might ask what happens when you change a few things:

- If you add migration across cities to the model, then larger cities are larger either because they offer higher incomes (likely), better non-housing amenities (likely in many cases), or lower commuting costs (unlikely). The cities that end up being largest are the most expensive and the densest cities. The mechanics of what happens under upzoning still work the same way. However, since people migrate to the places where zoning regulations are relaxed, the utility benefits of upzoning (though still positive) may be much smaller for local residents. This is because the benefit of upzoning in one city is now shared among residents of all cities.
- If you add congestion costs (increasing density increases commuting costs), then the shape of the location-price curve will look different, and the city may look more compact in equilibrium. However, the basic results of the model still hold. The gains from upzoning are likely to be smaller because they are offset by increased commuting costs, but the comparative statics still hold.
- If you change the model to allow people to have different incomes, then all else equal, people with higher incomes will tend to live further away from the urban center. That matches pretty well to U.S. cities of the 1970s and 1980s when that model was developed, but it doesn't match European cities, nor the trend in American cities of today. However, this can be easily explained by the existence of local amenities within a city (e.g. restaurants, the symphony, etc.), which draw higher-income people who are able to consume those amenities back into the city (Gaigne et al 2017; See and Lin 2018). All else equal, high-amenity locations will have higher prices, and if the highest-amenity locations are also dense, then this will exacerbate the relationship between high density and high price. However, the comparative statics of upzoning do not change.
- One argument that has been commonly made in recent literature is that increased density may actually _make_ people more productive because of what are called agglomeration effects. For example, car manufacturers may find it easier to find and retain the people people for each job opening in a city that is dense with car manufacturers. And, engineers and inventors may be able to learn from each other more easily. As shown by Eeckhout, Pinheiro, and Schmidheiny (2014), these effects are likely to benefit both high-skilled and low-skilled workers within the city. And, if this is the case, then upzoning may actually lead to increased productivity, and therefore higher incomes and increased welfare overall, even though the most productive cities may still have the highest housing costs. Hsieh and Moretti (2019) suggest that this effect is quite large, claiming that supply restrictions have lowered aggregate growth in the U.S. by more than one third since the 1960s.

Hope this helps clear some things up!

Anonymous wrote:

I've read every post, and there isn't a single one that offers a coherent explanation of how any of this leads to affordable housing.

If any of this was actually true, why can't anyone explain it?

It's not an outrageous request to say tell me how that would work.

It depends on what you mean by "affordable housing." What do you mean?

The simple explanation is:

Housing in DC is expensive because demand exceeds supply. So, if you increase supply (for example, by allowing property owners to build duplexes, triple-deckers, or four-plexes by right), then demand will exceed supply by less, and the price of housing will decrease - i.e., become affordable to more people.

There are two objections to this:

a. if you increase the number of units and the price decreases, then people will move in from elsewhere and the price will just go back up again. I see this as a feature, not a bug: here are neighborhoods where people want to live, more housing means more people can live there, this is good. But also there is surely not an infinite supply of people who want to move to DC.

b. the price of housing will not decrease enough to become affordable for people who are poor. This is true. The market by itself won't solve this problem. That's why there also has to be housing built by the government or non-profits.

None of this is complicated, and all of it has been explained multiple times at great length on this thread, so I don't understand the difficulty.

Anonymous wrote:

I've read every post, and there isn't a single one that offers a coherent explanation of how any of this leads to affordable housing.

If any of this was actually true, why can't anyone explain it?

It's not an outrageous request to say tell me how that would work.

Here’s the thinking: cost is a function of supply and demand. Build more housing = reduce costs. Loosening zoning restrictions is one way to make sure that more housing gets built everywhere. It gets rid of over-regulation.

The vision is a city with more duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, accessory dwelling units, and small multi-unit condo/apartment buildings. These would be by-right developments that neighbors could not protest on the basis of parking, daylight, or zoning concerns. Not every neighborhood would need to have really dense high rises along commercial corridors. So, while apartment and condo construction in NoMa did reduce DC rental prices by 1 percent (and would have reduced them more if supply had not been artificially constrained by developers who held a lot of newly constructed units off the market), we know that not all development sites are appropriate for that level of density. But you could take a block in Manor Park and convert a large corner lot to a four-plex. Maybe a couple of homeowners throw accessory dwelling units in their backyards (if their uncovered land area is large enough to permit it based on DC’s other regulations). Now a block that had about 20 housing units has five more, a 25 percent increase. Since median housing values have increased $150k in the 20011 zip code over the last five years, it doesn’t seem absurd to increase the number of housing units there, particularly since not every block would experience a 25 percent increase, and it construction wouldn’t happen all at once, flooding the market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only person on this thread who knows what he or she is talking about....

I 100% agree. What's really egregious about this project is the dissimulation, not the project itself which--if presented transparently--people could respond up or down to. However, instead they shoes to cloak a developer's wet dream in this affordable talk. Then to also recruit the layer of green city people, who fervently believe urban density is the answer to carbon reduction--thought the developers could give two whits about that. It ends up being a confusing proposal with tons of virtue signalling, and actually comes off a lot more sinister than what it is (developers trying to develop). If the Mayor could submit her plan bare knuckled (I see $ in developing Ward 3) people could actually discuss that pros and cons of that.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

No, because you're either a liar or a fool or both. The idea this is going to lead to affordable housing is completely and totally preposterous. No one can even explain how that would happen.

I mean, there are 22 pages of posts here, some of which do go into explaining exactly how that would happen, but I guess if you see anyone who disagrees with you as either a liar or a fool, it's easy to dismiss those.

I've read every post, and there isn't a single one that offers a coherent explanation of how any of this leads to affordable housing.

If any of this was actually true, why can't anyone explain it?

It's not an outrageous request to say tell me how that would work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

Soooo...why don't you move into a black neighborhood and make it 'expensive'...which seems to be the goal? That we could all live in 'expensive' neighborhoods. Off you go!

I don't want to do that; I would prefer to find ways for people without as much money as I have to live in my expensive neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only person on this thread who knows what he or she is talking about....

I 100% agree. What's really egregious about this project is the dissimulation, not the project itself which--if presented transparently--people could respond up or down to. However, instead they shoes to cloak a developer's wet dream in this affordable talk. Then to also recruit the layer of green city people, who fervently believe urban density is the answer to carbon reduction--thought the developers could give two whits about that. It ends up being a confusing proposal with tons of virtue signalling, and actually comes off a lot more sinister than what it is (developers trying to develop). If the Mayor could submit her plan bare knuckled (I see $ in developing Ward 3) people could actually discuss that pros and cons of that.

Who cares if the developers do or don't care about urban density and carbon reduction? If the goals of developers lead to better results for everyone -- i.e., more density and more sustainability -- that seems fine. Same thing with if developers make money; personally, I would rather that the city directly built and owned public housing in Ward 3, but given the reaction to the idea of building privately owned affordable housing, that seems completely impossible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

No, because you're either a liar or a fool or both. The idea this is going to lead to affordable housing is completely and totally preposterous. No one can even explain how that would happen.

I mean, there are 22 pages of posts here, some of which do go into explaining exactly how that would happen, but I guess if you see anyone who disagrees with you as either a liar or a fool, it's easy to dismiss those.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only person on this thread who knows what he or she is talking about....

I 100% agree. What's really egregious about this project is the dissimulation, not the project itself which--if presented transparently--people could respond up or down to. However, instead they shoes to cloak a developer's wet dream in this affordable talk. Then to also recruit the layer of green city people, who fervently believe urban density is the answer to carbon reduction--thought the developers could give two whits about that. It ends up being a confusing proposal with tons of virtue signalling, and actually comes off a lot more sinister than what it is (developers trying to develop). If the Mayor could submit her plan bare knuckled (I see $ in developing Ward 3) people could actually discuss that pros and cons of that.

Anonymous wrote:The mayor of Alexandria is pushing this rezoning agenda too, with the same excuse: adding housing will increase affordable housing.

Posters on here need to educate themselves on public finance, HUD, the IRS code and urban planning. Do people really understand how "affordable" units/ multifamily units get built and financed? The municipality cannot just waive a magic wand and build more. A municipality requiring a developer to add affordable units to their condo building, while does happen, does not result in significant additions to the supply of affordable units. A 501c3 developer or a developer will the main purpose of building and maintaining affordable units is rare, as it is usually a money losing enterprise and isn't sustainable. The only ones I have worked with in the DMV that are able to stay in business for any significant amount of time are ones associated with religious organizations and even those do very small projects. Hence government agencies do it.

Traditionally a municipality uses public finance/ tax-exempt financing to fund the development of affordable units. Otherwise your taxes get raised. There isn't room in a budget to build and maintain a building of affordable units. So DC for instance may issue muni bonds to get the money to finance the building. But just like you cannot print as munch money as you want forever you cannot keep issuing tons of bonds, you have to be able to pledge an income/ asset for the debt service. DC has already pledged all real estate taxes on everything, for infinity so a traditional TIF financing won't work (where you are making the prediction that by adding additional density or real property improvements that real estate values and thus real estate taxes will increase, and thus you are pledging that future increase in receivable real estate taxes towards payment of future debt service). This is how Alexandria City and Arlington County are quietly financing the tax incentive/breaks pledged to Amazon for their HQ.

A TIF on future increases in sales tax could work in DC. This is how DC financed improvements to Gallery Place/ Chinatown and the Navy Yard, but that was mainly to attract business. If you build it , they will come so to speak.

With all this in mind, a train of thought in public finance world has been ways to encourage private development to fund and develop affordable housing. Hence the "theory" if a municipality removes zoning restrictions on SFH, then a developer will immediately want to get more bang for their buck, a build a duplex/condo building/apartment building on the same lot. This will thereby increase the number of housing units in a jurisdiction and thereby raise supply and the economic principle is if you raise supple, the price will decrease. And easy peasy if the price on housing goes down then you have more "affordable" housing, and the government didn't have to fund it, organize it or build it. Hurrah. Genius.

But as many posters have pointed out, in a location like this that is so densely populated, that is so highly educated with a very high average income, that is very transient with people moving into the area constantly to work in a new administration or other fed government supporting work, with an ever increasing population, the theories don't equate to reality when the changes are instituted.

What is your definition of "affordable"? It should mean that people who earn 60% of the average income for the area (as defined by HUD) can afford to live there. It should not mean that a developer takes a big house, makes four $800,000 condos out of it, and sells them to people who qualify for that high of a mortgage. Don't play games, that isn't increasing affordable housing whatsoever. That isn't making it easier for your teachers, first responders, elderly on a fixed income, your trash collectors, your grocery store clerks, your restaurant servers, your construction workers, etc who work in your jurisdiction be able to afford a place to live. This just adds to the housing supply so that UMC people have more options. Don't stick the word affordable in front of something, then point fingers when called out that it is disingenuous, purposefully misleading and not pushing the proper agenda at all. Just like bike lanes help poor people get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only person on this thread who knows what he or she is talking about....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

No, because you're either a liar or a fool or both. The idea this is going to lead to affordable housing is completely and totally preposterous. No one can even explain how that would happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

Soooo...why don't you move into a black neighborhood and make it 'expensive'...which seems to be the goal? That we could all live in 'expensive' neighborhoods. Off you go!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.

I am a married white guy in my 40s who agrees with the idea of ending SFH zoning in my neighborhood in Ward 3 so more marginalized and poor people can afford to live here. Do I disprove your theory?

Anonymous wrote:Nobody “needs” a SFH. Just because you are able to afford one thanks to your white privilege and generational wealth, does not make it right.

There needs to be more options in expensive areas for marginalized people and low income families. It’s not fair to keep building McMansions to keep people of color out of neighborhoods.

The sooner we can stop building new SFH’s, the better for society.

This is all such a lie.

The only people pushing to get rid of single-family homes are 30-year old white guys who don't want to have to move into predominantly black neighborhoods, where affordable housing is plentiful.