Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why does that matter? I have visited many times. I'm a native Washingtonian. You?

Because advocating for people to put stuff you don't want, over there where you don't live, instead of over here where you do live, is the definition of Not In My Backyard.

When you say you've visited many times, are you referring to your visits to the Frederick Douglass house?

Actually, yes, I have visited Frederick Douglass house. I've also done some work there, and taken buses to it (need for better transport arteries). The folks in Anacostia are clamoring for super-markets. Why wouldn't the mayor push some vibrant development in there?

Anonymous wrote:

What we do know is that the population projections thrown around by Trueblood, GGW and their echo chamber, to create the illusion of a market housing crisis to justify their massive zoning overreach, are wildly inflated over the conservative estimates of the District’s Chief Financial Officer. The CFO -- even pre-Covid, by the way — projected rather modest future population growth.Because the CFO’s office is supposed to be accurate as revenue and other assumptions depend on its work, I would trust the CFO’s projections more.

You: See, people are fleeing expensive cities for cheaper areas elsewhere!
Also you: What market housing crisis?

If demand didn't exceed supply, then it wouldn't be so expensive to live in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somebody asked earlier. What is the ideal population for Washington DC? Right now it is 705,749.

Probably nobody answered because there's no good answer to the question, because it's like asking, "What is the ideal number of tulips for the National Arboretum?"

Maybe, though the Arboretum could probably tell you exactly how many they need for their ecosystem. Just like USPS knows how many deer they want running around Rock Creek.

But if it is unknown (let's assume it is) do we just build until all of the polls have fat bank accounts, or until what? What threshold are we building to?

We already have recognized that we have more people than DC services can handle now, so what is the magic number that we have set as a goal to build to accomodate?

What we do know is that the population projections thrown around by Trueblood, GGW and their echo chamber, to create the illusion of a market housing crisis to justify their massive zoning overreach, are wildly inflated over the conservative estimates of the District’s Chief Financial Officer. The CFO -- even pre-Covid, by the way — projected rather modest future population growth.Because the CFO’s office is supposed to be accurate as revenue and other assumptions depend on its work, I would trust the CFO’s projections more.

I thought I would pull some stats from DC's latest census:

Ward 3: Pop 85,067 Area: 10.4 Sq Miles Density 8,176.3 people per square mile

Ward 8: 85,024 Area: 8.7 Sq Miles Density 9,817.9 people per square mile

So theoretically is you wanted parity between Ward 3 and Ward 8 you would need another 17,000 people in Ward 3 to have the same density?

But why stop there? Why not have everybody shoot for Ward 1's stats:

Ward 1: Pop 85,134 Area 2.5 Sq Miles 34,540.4 people per square mile

Ward 3 could shoot for adding 274,000 people. That is a lot of construction the Mayor could parcel out to her friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somebody asked earlier. What is the ideal population for Washington DC? Right now it is 705,749.

Probably nobody answered because there's no good answer to the question, because it's like asking, "What is the ideal number of tulips for the National Arboretum?"

Maybe, though the Arboretum could probably tell you exactly how many they need for their ecosystem. Just like USPS knows how many deer they want running around Rock Creek.

But if it is unknown (let's assume it is) do we just build until all of the polls have fat bank accounts, or until what? What threshold are we building to?

We already have recognized that we have more people than DC services can handle now, so what is the magic number that we have set as a goal to build to accomodate?

Nobody needs any tulips for their ecosystem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it isn't. It's Cleveland Park, etc. This isn't about height restrictions, it's about building multi-family apartment/condo buildings.

You are cherry picking. NW already has plenty of multi family apartments and condo buildings. Just drive down Connecticut or Cathedral or Wis and you can see some of the largest and most beautiful multi family units in the city.

The densifiers, want more and taller and have targeted NW, because they are builders and they see real estate rates. This has nothing to do with 'the city is 200K people short of some magic elixir where WMATA will function and town hall will finally figure out homelessness'. This is a construction and real estate gambit and that is it.

NW already has plenty of single-family houses, too. So what?

Nobody is building buildings to stand empty. They are building buildings because people want to move into them. In other words, there is a demand for housing, and the builders are supplying housing to meet the demand.

Not true. There are plenty of units that stay empty. And builders can claim them as a loss.

Especially now, after Covid. There will absolutely prove to be an oversupply.

Well, then, you don't have to worry about it, because if people won't buy, then builders won't build. Your problem is solved. Hooray!

Anonymous wrote:

Why does that matter? I have visited many times. I'm a native Washingtonian. You?

Because advocating for people to put stuff you don't want, over there where you don't live, instead of over here where you do live, is the definition of Not In My Backyard.

When you say you've visited many times, are you referring to your visits to the Frederick Douglass house?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somebody asked earlier. What is the ideal population for Washington DC? Right now it is 705,749.

Probably nobody answered because there's no good answer to the question, because it's like asking, "What is the ideal number of tulips for the National Arboretum?"

Maybe, though the Arboretum could probably tell you exactly how many they need for their ecosystem. Just like USPS knows how many deer they want running around Rock Creek.

But if it is unknown (let's assume it is) do we just build until all of the polls have fat bank accounts, or until what? What threshold are we building to?

We already have recognized that we have more people than DC services can handle now, so what is the magic number that we have set as a goal to build to accomodate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, it isn't. It's Cleveland Park, etc. This isn't about height restrictions, it's about building multi-family apartment/condo buildings.

You are cherry picking. NW already has plenty of multi family apartments and condo buildings. Just drive down Connecticut or Cathedral or Wis and you can see some of the largest and most beautiful multi family units in the city.

The densifiers, want more and taller and have targeted NW, because they are builders and they see real estate rates. This has nothing to do with 'the city is 200K people short of some magic elixir where WMATA will function and town hall will finally figure out homelessness'. This is a construction and real estate gambit and that is it.

NW already has plenty of single-family houses, too. So what?

Nobody is building buildings to stand empty. They are building buildings because people want to move into them. In other words, there is a demand for housing, and the builders are supplying housing to meet the demand.

Not true. There are plenty of units that stay empty. And builders can claim them as a loss.

Especially now, after Covid. There will absolutely prove to be an oversupply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

When you say "Anacostia" do you actually mean Anacostia, or do you mean "everything across the river"?

Also, do you think the people posting on DCUM about liking their leafy green neighborhoods and not wanting them to change, live in Anacostia (actually Anacostia) or in the parts of DC across the Anacostia River?

I am just wondering why Anacostia, which is lovely, is not being eye-balled in this manner. It is a prime candidate for some high-speed transport options and I'm sure the folks there would love some supermarkets. Perhaps the Mayor can turn her attention to this?

Do you live there?

Why does that matter? I have visited many times. I'm a native Washingtonian. You?

Would it surprise anyone if we read in the Post someday soon that the FBI Public Integrity Section have Bowser et al as targets into an investigation into improper financial ties with DC developers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

When you say "Anacostia" do you actually mean Anacostia, or do you mean "everything across the river"?

Also, do you think the people posting on DCUM about liking their leafy green neighborhoods and not wanting them to change, live in Anacostia (actually Anacostia) or in the parts of DC across the Anacostia River?

I am just wondering why Anacostia, which is lovely, is not being eye-balled in this manner. It is a prime candidate for some high-speed transport options and I'm sure the folks there would love some supermarkets. Perhaps the Mayor can turn her attention to this?

Do you live there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

When you say "Anacostia" do you actually mean Anacostia, or do you mean "everything across the river"?

Also, do you think the people posting on DCUM about liking their leafy green neighborhoods and not wanting them to change, live in Anacostia (actually Anacostia) or in the parts of DC across the Anacostia River?

I am just wondering why Anacostia, which is lovely, is not being eye-balled in this manner. It is a prime candidate for some high-speed transport options and I'm sure the folks there would love some supermarkets. Perhaps the Mayor can turn her attention to this?

Great!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has a number of “lower density” single family residential neighborhoods. (Note that they Council Chairman correctly points out that DC is the densest subnational jurisdiction in the nation.) People seem to value that, particularly now: the fact that there is green space, that they can see the sunny sky without shadows all day, that that they can take walks without being on top of one another, and they can still hear birdsong and other natural sounds to calm them. Why force zoning changes that would bring more density and height that people don’t want in their neighborhoods, just to make a fat buck for connected developers?

Agreed, the people who are living in these affluent residential areas in the District of Columbia, who paid a lot of money in order to be able to live there, do not want builders to build more housing to meet the demand that other people also have to live there.

Anacostia has rolling green neighborhoods as well. Why so focused on Ward 3 and affluence?

Because, as Willy Sutton infamously said about banks, that’s where the money is. For developers, that’s where they can get the highest prices. The Office of Planning calls them “high opportunity zones” (for developers). For the mayor, it’s a political plus. She can reward her cronies and contributors lavishly by also playing on the old DC politics of resentment and grievance — that west of the park needs to meet its “fair burden” to have more density and by suggesting that lots of new construction there will prevent gentrification in NE and SE.

And why can they get the highest prices there?

Because that's where the most people want to live.

Why do you live in Ward 3, and not in Ward 7 or 8 across the river?