Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Increasing supply in AU park allows more people to live in AU Park at a given price point. This isn't complicated.

So why is more people in one specific location the objective? I thought that affordable housing was the objective. Why does that specific spot need more people?

You'll have to ask the PP who brought up AU Park in the first place.

In general, increasing the housing supply in [location] allows more people to live in [location]. As the other PP said, this isn't complicated.

The question for which there has never been an answer is why the focus on Ward 3 in particular?

You're the one who brought up Ward 3, not me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Increasing supply in AU park allows more people to live in AU Park at a given price point. This isn't complicated.

So why is more people in one specific location the objective? I thought that affordable housing was the objective. Why does that specific spot need more people?

You'll have to ask the PP who brought up AU Park in the first place.

In general, increasing the housing supply in [location] allows more people to live in [location]. As the other PP said, this isn't complicated.

The question for which there has never been an answer is why the focus on Ward 3 in particular?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Increasing supply in AU park allows more people to live in AU Park at a given price point. This isn't complicated.

So why is more people in one specific location the objective? I thought that affordable housing was the objective. Why does that specific spot need more people?

You'll have to ask the PP who brought up AU Park in the first place.

In general, increasing the housing supply in [location] allows more people to live in [location]. As the other PP said, this isn't complicated.

Anonymous wrote:
That’s weird, because I have never heard anyone say that we needed more density in Brookland. It’s a bit of gaslighting (although I hate that term) to suggest that their reaction to be targeted is the reason they are being targeted?

I'm a PP. I support enabling property owners to build duplexes by right in Brookland, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Increasing supply in AU park allows more people to live in AU Park at a given price point. This isn't complicated.

So why is more people in one specific location the objective? I thought that affordable housing was the objective. Why does that specific spot need more people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Increasing supply in AU park allows more people to live in AU Park at a given price point. This isn't complicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

So what is the point of more supply in AU Park? The rationales seem to be all over the place and incoherent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of housing in the other half of DC. Not to mention condos.

I’m not saying people should live there, but be honest (hahahaha) about why you don’t and stop pretending you’re righteous, when your life and ambitions are the exact opposite.

People actually do live in the "other half" of DC. People actually do live in condos.

Also, everyone is anonymous on this forum, and you don't know anything about my life or my ambitions.

(dp) Seems like you want to buy a house in ward 3 instead somewhere else in DC where there are houses you can afford, and you are mad about it. Maybe that isn't the case, but it does seem that way.

Nope. Absolutely not. Not any of it. And there has been nothing in my posts to suggest anything of the sort, so it's pure projection.

Then why are you so fixated on Ward 3 when Wards 4, 5, 7 and 8 also have lots of SFH?

If you don’t want to move their then you seem to have an issue with Ward 3 and Ward 3 alone that doesn’t seem rational.

Because people in Ward 3 are shouting the loudest against it.

That’s weird, because I have never heard anyone say that we needed more density in Brookland. It’s a bit of gaslighting (although I hate that term) to suggest that their reaction to be targeted is the reason they are being targeted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing supply in AU Park, upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures, or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Anonymous wrote:Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

When looking at the long term trend, zoning does not even appear to a very important factor at all. Let's consider this real world scenario. Which outcome would have a larger outcome on housing prices in AU Park? Upzoning to allow for 2-4 unit structures or mortgage rates going up to 6.5%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in this thread who is arguing for *not* building new homes needs to answer this very simple question.

Thousands of new jobs are created every month in the DC area. Where, exactly, will those people live?

It really doesn't take a genius to understand that we need more houses. You NIMBYs need to get over it.

Why do you insist on making things up? Or maybe you’ve been in a coma and might of missed it the massive pandemic that led to tens of millions of people being laid off in the space of 2 months?

In any case, I would hesitate to request a citation for these “new jobs”.

I find that many of the YIMBY have very little invested in said backyard. Or, there is an envy of the large SFH in NW. These folks are more than welcome to come live in Ward 3 - market price. Then we will revisit their feelings on shoving density down everyone’s throat under the thin veil of looking to help others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of housing in the other half of DC. Not to mention condos.

I’m not saying people should live there, but be honest (hahahaha) about why you don’t and stop pretending you’re righteous, when your life and ambitions are the exact opposite.

People actually do live in the "other half" of DC. People actually do live in condos.

Also, everyone is anonymous on this forum, and you don't know anything about my life or my ambitions.

(dp) Seems like you want to buy a house in ward 3 instead somewhere else in DC where there are houses you can afford, and you are mad about it. Maybe that isn't the case, but it does seem that way.

Nope. Absolutely not. Not any of it. And there has been nothing in my posts to suggest anything of the sort, so it's pure projection.

Then why are you so fixated on Ward 3 when Wards 4, 5, 7 and 8 also have lots of SFH?

If you don’t want to move their then you seem to have an issue with Ward 3 and Ward 3 alone that doesn’t seem rational.

Because people in Ward 3 are shouting the loudest against it.

Zoning isn't the ONLY factor, and I don't think anyone has said that it was.

Zoning certainly is A factor, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, look at what I discovered about housing policy and zoning in DC.

This one thing explains everything.

Sharon Pratt Kelly (91-95): YIMBY
Marion Barry (95-99): YIMBY
Anthony Williams (99-07): NIMBY
Adrian Fenty (07-11): YIMBY
Vincent Gray (11-15): NIMBY
Muriel Bowser (15-present): NIMBY

Is this a joke? The housing bubble popped in 2007, which is why housing prices went down -- not just in DC but basically everywhere.

It is a joke to point out how ridiculous the premise that zoning is somehow the main reason why real estate and hence housing is expensive.

Marion Barry obviously was not a YIMBY hero helping to increase supply to keep prices down. Similarly Bowser is not a NIMBY villain whose housing policies are driving up prices.

It’s obviously a situation much more complicated that more supply = lower prices, that gets continually peddled. A big part of that story, as you point out is obviously macroeconomic conditions. Financialization of the sector is another major contributor, as well as the related favorable rate environment. Mortgage rates never get factored into these discussions about price/cost and it would probably be better to compare on an average PITI basis, adjusted for inflation, which is a much more true metric of “affordability” than people balking at how much things cost.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, look at what I discovered about housing policy and zoning in DC.

This one thing explains everything.

Sharon Pratt Kelly (91-95): YIMBY
Marion Barry (95-99): YIMBY
Anthony Williams (99-07): NIMBY
Adrian Fenty (07-11): YIMBY
Vincent Gray (11-15): NIMBY
Muriel Bowser (15-present): NIMBY

Is this a joke? The housing bubble popped in 2007, which is why housing prices went down -- not just in DC but basically everywhere.