Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.
It was difficult for the boomers to buy back then too, but we didn't blow our money on stupid stuff like $5 lattes and $1000 phones.
Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.
I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.
Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?
DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.
Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.
You give developers way too much credit. They specialize in using a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to them. Secondly, we just came out of a period of easy money where even bad projects penciled out. It will take a while for the new financial reality to sink in.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.
I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.
Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?
DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.
Why do builders keep building new condos/apartments? Because there is demand, or they believe there is demand. And I'm inclined to believe the builders over the anonymous commenters on DCUM who insist that nobody wants new condos/apartments and the units are all sitting empty, because the builders have their money on the line.
Anonymous wrote:There are 4400 vacant units in Alexandria alone. Anyone that wants to try and convince me that there isn't enough housing can SMD.
Anonymous wrote:^boomer is a state of mind, not an age range. You can be a 30 year old boomer
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
Deeply affordable housing is wonderful because it brings so much value to the community. The low income housing complex near my neighborhood has only had two murders in the last three years.
At least you don’t have them under the same roof. We rented in Arlington and we’re not told there were set aside affordable units in the expensive condo building. We are in the 11th month of a 12 month lease and are moving to a small condo in Falls Church which limits the number of rentals.
All the fires, arrests, break ins, stolen packages, fire alarms, pool clearings, police calls were down to the affordable unit people. They also grabbed food meant for others from drivers that we nowvhave to go to the delivery person’s car to get a delivery.
This was $2,400 a month in North Arlington so it wasn’t a slum.
+1. This is the ugly truth that you're not supposed to talk about. Just wait for Plan Langston Blvd.
Supporting affordable housing is fine, but don't lie about the consequences. Crime rates will go up. There is a 20x discrepancy between incarceration rates among males born to families in bottom 10% of income distribution vs the top 10% of income distribution. There is no serious research that suggests any crime prevention policies will come close to reducing the incidence of criminality by 95%.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/14/17114226/incarceration-family-income-parents-study-brookings-rich-kid-poor-kid
Crime rates are associated with areas with a HIGH concentration of extremely low income in a particular areas due in part to the lack of economic and educational opportunity in those areas. Part of the point is to reduce these high concentrations (intentionally created by past public policy by the way) and thereby decrease overall crime.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.
I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.
Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?
DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.
I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.
Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?
DP but why not more townhouse developments where new condos/apts are planned instead? There are a lot of apt vacancies but they just keep building more. I just assume the profit margin must be higher for them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of Moco is actually very cheap once you get about 25 minutes outside the beltway.
Not many places that are less than an hour outside a major global city where you can buy SFHs for under 500k. There are TONS in Germantown, Montgomery Village, Laytonville, Damascus, etc
That's funny, because I just checked Redfin, and they have zero (0) listings in Montgomery Village for SFHs under 500k. Germantown has one (1), listed at $400,000 which is a short sale. Laytonsville has one (1), listed at $499,900. Damascus has zero (0). I can't check etc.
That's because there is intense competition, and so they all sell quickly. Lots of people don't sit around whining, they get out there and make offers. You can check the sold listings. Houses like this:
https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/12106-Foley-St-20902/home/11025196
There are two housing crises. One is the shortage of deeply affordable units. For-profit developers aren’t building these, but YIMBYs would like you to think that they are. The other is the shortage of single family homes. YIMBYs want to reduce the stock of single family homes even more.
lol, this is the best summary I’ve read on the topic.
I think a very reasonable and middle ground approach would be to encourage the building of substantially more townhouses. You could tight communities with townhouses that include some green space.
Builders do not need encouragement to build more attached houses. They are doing it without encouragement. Unless you're referring to building attached houses in residential areas where currently, only detached houses are allowed?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.
No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.
Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.
No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.
Yup, younger posters here are angry and jealous, as well as ignorant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.
No Boomer was buying a house in 1940, on grounds that no Boomer was even born yet in 1940.