If housing prices ever went down, or even stopped going up as quickly, buildings would stop building because it wouldn't be worth it to them. Especially when inflation is driving their input costs up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

DP. For whom is it better? Infrastructure can be built or improved upon. Why give up on less dense communities like that? Is it because they are poorer? Or is it race related?

Please tell the "why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?" PP that infrastructure can be improved upon.

Why do you only want infrastructure improved in Ward 3? Because that’s kind of what it sounds like.

Why don't you want infrastructure improved in Ward 3?

I’m for improvement of all infrastructure throughout the city. Every ward. I don’t believe in giving up on certain parts of the city. But it sure seems like many upzoning advocates have given up on the poorer and more African American parts of city. I can’t see how that is morally justified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

DP. For whom is it better? Infrastructure can be built or improved upon. Why give up on less dense communities like that? Is it because they are poorer? Or is it race related?

Please tell the "why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?" PP that infrastructure can be improved upon.

Why do you only want infrastructure improved in Ward 3? Because that’s kind of what it sounds like.

Why don't you want infrastructure improved in Ward 3?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

DP. For whom is it better? Infrastructure can be built or improved upon. Why give up on less dense communities like that? Is it because they are poorer? Or is it race related?

Please tell the "why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?" PP that infrastructure can be improved upon.

Why do you only want infrastructure improved in Ward 3? Because that’s kind of what it sounds like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

DP. For whom is it better? Infrastructure can be built or improved upon. Why give up on less dense communities like that? Is it because they are poorer? Or is it race related?

Please tell the "why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?" PP that infrastructure can be improved upon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

DP. For whom is it better? Infrastructure can be built or improved upon. Why give up on less dense communities like that? Is it because they are poorer? Or is it race related?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Go back ot page 1 of this thread -- it started with a focus on Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Because it's better than increasing housing in locations where there currently isn't any infrastructure (like school capacity, city services, etc.) at all.

Anonymous wrote:Under $750,000 is the threshold for "affordable"? Affordable for whom?

It's a range. Suemmer down. Affordable for lots of people.

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.

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Whereas building it elsewhere.might fill existing or encourage new!

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.

Why would you increase housing in any location where the current density exceeds current infrastructure, like school capacity, city services, etc.?

Anonymous wrote:Under $750,000 is the threshold for "affordable"? Affordable for whom?

You seem to have missed the point.

The market is never going to clear at a lower price point. It doesn’t work that way.

Under $750,000 is the threshold for "affordable"? Affordable for whom?

I can't help it. As much as I support affordable housing. the people pushing for upzoning don't make any sense. There are 1,000 condos for sale in DC for less than $750,000. Adding another floor or two on current housing stock is not going to solve your problem. Face it.

Housing is a lot cheaper here than people think because salaries here -- across the board -- are sky high.