Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

So two things here.

First, there really is no way to know the accuracy of the bolded. Personally, I live in a sfh neighborhood and want upzoning in my neighborhood. The majority of my friends in the neighborhood also want it.

Second, it really isn't determinative whether the people already living in the neighborhood want the change. What is determinative is whether it is best for the county, and whether it would meet the needs of all residents. If we made policy based on what the people who already have something wanted, we would get nowhere as a society.

Who determines what’s best for the county if not for the people that live and pay taxes in the county? If it’s the case that people living in the county don’t matter then the YIMBYs should most definitely STFU.

The point is to get more people living and paying taxes in the county...

Roughly 50% of the County residents pay no income taxes. MoCo needs to attract more residents who pay more taxes than they cost the County. Instead, the County is focused on attracting residents who cost the County.

The county also collects property taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

more people have homes

Arlington resident checking in here. I wanted to comment about all of the folks who are saying "if the economics won't work for 4-plexes then they just won't get built". That's not how it's shaping up over here. We're getting experienced SFH builders who are newly trying their hand at multi-family, only slightly aware but have never directly experienced all the extra costs that kick in at the multi-family level: FHA requirements with parking, access, accessible units, fire access requirements, different environmental standards, etc. On top of that some developers are planning on playing landlord to diversify their cash flows (steady stream of rent vs one time influx from SFH sale) - all fine but it's still an inexperienced landlord situation. And if they just want to build and sell, cap rates on multi-family are different and they're less plugged into investor networks that deal with different housing types than their bread-and-butter SFH. In summary, the developers are speculating. It might all work out! But they could also lose their shirt! Either way, they're building, but let's not pretend this is some efficient market hypothesis stuff going on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

So two things here.

First, there really is no way to know the accuracy of the bolded. Personally, I live in a sfh neighborhood and want upzoning in my neighborhood. The majority of my friends in the neighborhood also want it.

Second, it really isn't determinative whether the people already living in the neighborhood want the change. What is determinative is whether it is best for the county, and whether it would meet the needs of all residents. If we made policy based on what the people who already have something wanted, we would get nowhere as a society.

Who determines what’s best for the county if not for the people that live and pay taxes in the county? If it’s the case that people living in the county don’t matter then the YIMBYs should most definitely STFU.

The point is to get more people living and paying taxes in the county...

Roughly 50% of the County residents pay no income taxes. MoCo needs to attract more residents who pay more taxes than they cost the County. Instead, the County is focused on attracting residents who cost the County.

Each student costs the county around $12,425 per year in local tax revenue. Outside of schools the county spends another $3,387 per resident each year (only including the non-school spending funded entirely from local tax revenue). Here are the hypothetical numbers for a new quadplex. Average household size in the county is 2.72 and the expected number of students (using townhome numbers) is 1.85. The residents living in this new quadplex will cost MOCO around $36,850 a year for county services (directly funding using local tax revenue) and another $33,796 each year for schools. That brings the total (directly funded) cost each year to $70,646 for a single quadplex.

Assuming that the total assessed value of a new quadplex is around 2.5 million dollars that will provide the county with around $28,750-32,000 in property tax revenue (depending not the tax district) There is no way that other sources of local tax revenue come close to covering the remaining $38,646 that MOCO will spend on the residents of this new quadplex.

That’s assuming the county hasn’t given them a tax abatement and that SDAT assesses them at fair market value. Those are two huge assumptions, especially if they’re residential rentals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

So two things here.

First, there really is no way to know the accuracy of the bolded. Personally, I live in a sfh neighborhood and want upzoning in my neighborhood. The majority of my friends in the neighborhood also want it.

Second, it really isn't determinative whether the people already living in the neighborhood want the change. What is determinative is whether it is best for the county, and whether it would meet the needs of all residents. If we made policy based on what the people who already have something wanted, we would get nowhere as a society.

Who determines what’s best for the county if not for the people that live and pay taxes in the county? If it’s the case that people living in the county don’t matter then the YIMBYs should most definitely STFU.

The point is to get more people living and paying taxes in the county...

Roughly 50% of the County residents pay no income taxes. MoCo needs to attract more residents who pay more taxes than they cost the County. Instead, the County is focused on attracting residents who cost the County.

Each student costs the county around $12,425 per year in local tax revenue. Outside of schools the county spends another $3,387 per resident each year (only including the non-school spending funded entirely from local tax revenue). Here are the hypothetical numbers for a new quadplex. Average household size in the county is 2.72 and the expected number of students (using townhome numbers) is 1.85. The residents living in this new quadplex will cost MOCO around $36,850 a year for county services (directly funding using local tax revenue) and another $33,796 each year for schools. That brings the total (directly funded) cost each year to $70,646 for a single quadplex.

Assuming that the total assessed value of a new quadplex is around 2.5 million dollars that will provide the county with around $28,750-32,000 in property tax revenue (depending not the tax district) There is no way that other sources of local tax revenue come close to covering the remaining $38,646 that MOCO will spend on the residents of this new quadplex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

So two things here.

First, there really is no way to know the accuracy of the bolded. Personally, I live in a sfh neighborhood and want upzoning in my neighborhood. The majority of my friends in the neighborhood also want it.

Second, it really isn't determinative whether the people already living in the neighborhood want the change. What is determinative is whether it is best for the county, and whether it would meet the needs of all residents. If we made policy based on what the people who already have something wanted, we would get nowhere as a society.

Who determines what’s best for the county if not for the people that live and pay taxes in the county? If it’s the case that people living in the county don’t matter then the YIMBYs should most definitely STFU.

The point is to get more people living and paying taxes in the county...

Roughly 50% of the County residents pay no income taxes. MoCo needs to attract more residents who pay more taxes than they cost the County. Instead, the County is focused on attracting residents who cost the County.

Each student costs the county around $12,425 per year in local tax revenue. Outside of schools the county spends another $3,387 per resident each year (only including the non-school spending funded entirely from local tax revenue). Here are the hypothetical numbers for a new quadplex. Average household size in the county is 2.72 and the expected number of students (using townhome numbers) is 1.85. The residents living in this new quadplex will cost MOCO around $36,850 a year for county services (directly funding using local tax revenue) and another $33,796 each year for schools. That brings the total (directly funded) cost each year to $70,646 for a single quadplex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

Gentrification and upzoning have different names because they are different things.

Chevy Chase Lake was upzoned around the future Purple Line station. If you told me Chevy Chase Lake has been gentrified, I would laugh out loud.

Gentrification and upzoning both involve the changing of a neighborhood's character against the wishes of the residents. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want exactly that. Very simple.

Some do. Some don't. Different people have different opinions! Very simple.

It’s not that simple. The majority of people who live in sfh neighborhoods don’t want mixed use housing. There are lots of places that are already mixed use and have density that can accommodate more of it without needing to change the zoning for existing sfh neighborhoods.

So two things here.

First, there really is no way to know the accuracy of the bolded. Personally, I live in a sfh neighborhood and want upzoning in my neighborhood. The majority of my friends in the neighborhood also want it.

Second, it really isn't determinative whether the people already living in the neighborhood want the change. What is determinative is whether it is best for the county, and whether it would meet the needs of all residents. If we made policy based on what the people who already have something wanted, we would get nowhere as a society.

Who determines what’s best for the county if not for the people that live and pay taxes in the county? If it’s the case that people living in the county don’t matter then the YIMBYs should most definitely STFU.

The point is to get more people living and paying taxes in the county...

Roughly 50% of the County residents pay no income taxes. MoCo needs to attract more residents who pay more taxes than they cost the County. Instead, the County is focused on attracting residents who cost the County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

DP from above. You miss the point. Schools are overcrowded and ither public facilities under-planned versus the additional population. That's what the county should be careful about as they increase density allowances with multiplex units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

Denser housing leads to higher housing prices, which, yes, leads to bigger property tax receipts but not really seeing how any of that is a positive thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

This development might not be tax positive. Increasing revenue is not beneficial if county expenses grow more than taxes collected. The cost to expand infrastructure pay for new students can easily exceed property tax revenue for new development.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

The McMansion has a better risk-adjusted return than three-unit and most four-unit configurations.

The "tacky flippers are going to build fourplexes instead of McMansions" people need to hash it out with the "tacky flippers are not going to build fourplexes instead of McMansions" people.

It’s pretty simple. The fourplexes people don’t understand math or finance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

The McMansion has a better risk-adjusted return than three-unit and most four-unit configurations.

The "tacky flippers are going to build fourplexes instead of McMansions" people need to hash it out with the "tacky flippers are not going to build fourplexes instead of McMansions" people.