Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Exactly.

But I’d rather have a McMansion next to me than a 8-plex with all the loss of parking and additional school overcrowding that entails. I don’t understand the point you’re making…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Case in point. An angry homeowner decides to attack a strawman instead of engaging on the merits.

There aren’t any merits. Just responding in kind to you.

I completely agree that there is no merit to the arguments MMH opponents put forth, and it's refreshing to hear someone finally admit it. No need to be rude to me for describing reality, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Yes we know why. When you continually state a falsehood after being demonstrated that the assertion is false, then the falsehood is a feature not a bug.

Just as the NIMBYs' overwrought fears about MMH are rooted in fantasy, so too is their political strength. They showed last Fall that they could only muster 30% of the vote for the anti-MMH candidate. Now in the Democratic primary they're hoping that they can squeeze through one of the anti-MMH people. Perhaps they'll get one even with ranked choice voting just because there are two seats up simultaneously. Perhaps.

But I'm guessing "no". The NIMBYs have a lot of land in Arlington (b/c SFH lots) but not a lot of people when all is said and done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Yes we know why. When you continually state a falsehood after being demonstrated that the assertion is false, then the falsehood is a feature not a bug.

Just as the NIMBYs' overwrought fears about MMH are rooted in fantasy, so too is their political strength. They showed last Fall that they could only muster 30% of the vote for the anti-MMH candidate. Now in the Democratic primary they're hoping that they can squeeze through one of the anti-MMH people. Perhaps they'll get one even with ranked choice voting just because there are two seats up simultaneously. Perhaps.

But I'm guessing "no". The NIMBYs have a lot of land in Arlington (b/c SFH lots) but not a lot of people when all is said and done.

Because we allowed all the rental apartments to be built; they carpet bag in and now our future is in the hand of fickle 20 year olds who won’t stick around to deal with outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Case in point. An angry homeowner decides to attack a strawman instead of engaging on the merits.

There aren’t any merits. Just responding in kind to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Yes we know why. When you continually state a falsehood after being demonstrated that the assertion is false, then the falsehood is a feature not a bug.

Just as the NIMBYs' overwrought fears about MMH are rooted in fantasy, so too is their political strength. They showed last Fall that they could only muster 30% of the vote for the anti-MMH candidate. Now in the Democratic primary they're hoping that they can squeeze through one of the anti-MMH people. Perhaps they'll get one even with ranked choice voting just because there are two seats up simultaneously. Perhaps.

But I'm guessing "no". The NIMBYs have a lot of land in Arlington (b/c SFH lots) but not a lot of people when all is said and done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

You could afford it, though, if Santa Monica had a different housing policy. Wouldn't that be nice? Then you could live in Santa Monica!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Case in point. An angry homeowner decides to attack a strawman instead of engaging on the merits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

No, the issue is whiny, entitled 20/30 somethings working at non profits think they have a “right to live anywhere they want.” I’d love to live in Santa Monica, but guess what? I can’t afford it.

Anonymous wrote:DC, especially Ward 3, is next. The Smart Growth lobby is already lobbying the Office of Planning and the Council. "High opportunity" areas will mean that single family neighborhoods will be transformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.