Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To sum up 30 pages. Poor people want what they can’t have, rich people don’t want poorer people near them.

This has been in debate for 2,000 years.

The problem now is that "poorer people" are about 2/3rds of the county and growing.

DP. I note that you chose to use "poorer" over "poor" when positing that proportion.

The poor, and associated need, typically are viewed as more worthy of programmatic societal benefit, but the extent of that benefit typically is limited, with broad support only for ensuring a modest standard is met -- meeting the need.

That isn't the case for those simply not having as much as others, but having several options that define an issue as one of preference. The kinds of policies and housing being discussed, here, clearly are aimed at the latter, and the great majority of those living in MoCo are far from "poor."

The most recent census data (2022) has the poverty rate well below both the national and state rates. Meanwhile, the housing supply exceeded the number of households by more than 5%, the median rent was under $2k and the median owner costs with a mortgage were under $3k. With a median household income of over $125k, either are supportable (even accounting for the current increase in borrowing cost), and, while close to the expense-to-income ratios for the state, they leave greater disposable income to MoCo residents.

This doesn't mean there isn't a debate to be had or that need shouldn't be addressed, nor that changing demographics may make these more challenging. Certainly, medians and the like do not tell the whole story. However, it places the current debate firmly in the context of preference, where one might presume that the interests of those residing in the neighborhoods most likely affected by proposed zoning policies would carry significantly more weight than is being afforded by those pressing for the policy changes.

Anonymous wrote:To sum up 30 pages. Poor people want what they can’t have, rich people don’t want poorer people near them.

This has been in debate for 2,000 years.

Landlords don't want to rent to poor people so as long as that doesn't change what other people do or don't want is really irrelevant. The landlords love to scapegoat other people for this but it's really all about them.

Anonymous wrote:To sum up 30 pages. Poor people want what they can’t have, rich people don’t want poorer people near them.

This has been in debate for 2,000 years.

The problem now is that "poorer people" are about 2/3rds of the county and growing.

Anonymous wrote:I hope people against up zoning single family neighborhoods aren’t also demanding a return to office.

For dual GS-11 salaries ($160k a year) to have a family and okay public schools, you’re basically talking Frederick.

Your two GS-11s (step 1) can spend $4,100 a month on housing without being considered housing burdened. There are plenty of rentals (even with two bedrooms) inside the beltway in Montgomery County available for less money than that. The YIMBY plan is for everyone to rent, so it works out perfectly (probably because the market is set up precisely to meet this demand).

Also these two 11-1s are probably under 30 because otherwise they would have more steps or a higher grade. Their household income will reach almost $180,000 within four years (plus annual increases) and top out around $215,000, at which point they could pay $5,375 a month without being considered housing burdened. Again, there are plenty of units available at the this price (or less) right now.

Is it a coincidence that housing is priced consistently with these incomes or a sign that prices are a function of household income?Why should a developer do anything that results in people paying less than 30 percent of gross income now that 30 percent is the standard?

To sum up 30 pages. Poor people want what they can’t have, rich people don’t want poorer people near them.

This has been in debate for 2,000 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

I wouldn’t because I don’t like urban living. But if I wanted to live in an urban area, sure. What I would do is move out of my SFH neighborhood if SFHs were being replaced with apartments of any kind. We chose a suburban SFH neighborhood to get away from density.

…and that’s what will happen, and once people see that writing on the wall it will be a race to escape. It will be the new white flight, but this time it will just be wealth flight because MOCO has plenty POC who worked very hard to get where they are and bought into nice neighborhoods. Of course, the YImBYs don’t care because averaging incomes and property values down are features to them, not bugs.

I agree that there will be significant wealth flight from SFH areas that are densified. You already see lots of wealthy people moving to rural exurbs to flee urban crime. Many of these people no longer feel safe in their suburban communities and they are leaving before things get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

There's existing zoning for larger buildings that can meet need. Rezoning SFH areas or zoning redefinition to the same effect as rezoning is a political play, pandering to new residents at the expense of those with a reasonable expectation of neighborhood stability from existing zoning (just as there is the reasonable expectation of development in the already-zoned-but-underdeveloped areas), while lining the pockets of developers who play in the small-scale building space (and of the real estate agents/brokers operating in those areas who want more transactions). That's the thing really making it "someone else's problem."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

I wouldn’t because I don’t like urban living. But if I wanted to live in an urban area, sure. What I would do is move out of my SFH neighborhood if SFHs were being replaced with apartments of any kind. We chose a suburban SFH neighborhood to get away from density.

…and that’s what will happen, and once people see that writing on the wall it will be a race to escape. It will be the new white flight, but this time it will just be wealth flight because MOCO has plenty POC who worked very hard to get where they are and bought into nice neighborhoods. Of course, the YImBYs don’t care because averaging incomes and property values down are features to them, not bugs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

So, the issue is not sufficient housing but housing in prime locations. That, to me is entitlement and not actual need.

There is plenty of entitlement to go around here. Existing home owners feel entitled to keep their zoning while advocating/voting for population growth policies. These new people and younger generations feel entitled to the same standard of living. The history of this, and any other urban area, is that if the population grows, something has to be upzoned. Whether that's agricultural land on the periphery being upzoned to SFHs, or close in suburbs being upzoned to "missing middle", or urban areas being upzoned to Watergate complexes, someone's cheese is going to get moved.

So the question becomes who pays the price for this growth? It should be the close in SFHs for two reasons. The first being, that more than any other group they are responsible for the current situation. The close in suburbs were littered with the "In this House..." and "Refugees Welcome..." type signs, so its time for them to practice what they preach. If you want to fill the county with such people, you should have to live with them rather than making them someone else's problem.

The second is that car-dependent suburbs are just awful in that they consume a lot of space, are not fiscally sustainable and create downstream problems for urban areas. Widen my highway, build more parking, don't you dare build that Purple-line near me. That's entitlement.

While I personally like/prefer single family homes and live in one with my family, having keenly watched trends over the past twenty years with density clustered around subway stations and transit, and with the removal of the agricultural and rural preserves in Prince William County and elsewhere for housing and data centers, I predict that most housing in the inner ring suburbs and DC itself will be missing middle within 15-20 years. Except for some enclaves, like along Foxhall Rd or Old Dominion Drive in outer McLean, there won’t be many single family homes left. That’s the next evolution for this area, specifically. So my prediction doesn’t extend to other cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore, where there is no housing crisis. I could be wrong but I see the writing on the wall. Due to the DC hight limit, developers and planners have typically pushed innovation (re density) in the inner ring suburbs. DC itself is now playing catch up.

Personally, I think that it’s just a sort of fashionable talking point and isn’t at all destiny for the area, mainly because there are so many other viable solutions. Arlington might get sued out of even the 50-something missing middle permits (per year) that they were going to approve. Lots of money and political will can do wonders.

However, even if that was the case, 15-20 years is a long enough timeline that you’d see it coming and could plan accordingly. You just have to hope that you aren’t amoung the first victims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

So, the issue is not sufficient housing but housing in prime locations. That, to me is entitlement and not actual need.

There is plenty of entitlement to go around here. Existing home owners feel entitled to keep their zoning while advocating/voting for population growth policies. These new people and younger generations feel entitled to the same standard of living. The history of this, and any other urban area, is that if the population grows, something has to be upzoned. Whether that's agricultural land on the periphery being upzoned to SFHs, or close in suburbs being upzoned to "missing middle", or urban areas being upzoned to Watergate complexes, someone's cheese is going to get moved.

So the question becomes who pays the price for this growth? It should be the close in SFHs for two reasons. The first being, that more than any other group they are responsible for the current situation. The close in suburbs were littered with the "In this House..." and "Refugees Welcome..." type signs, so its time for them to practice what they preach. If you want to fill the county with such people, you should have to live with them rather than making them someone else's problem.

The second is that car-dependent suburbs are just awful in that they consume a lot of space, are not fiscally sustainable and create downstream problems for urban areas. Widen my highway, build more parking, don't you dare build that Purple-line near me. That's entitlement.

While I personally like/prefer single family homes and live in one with my family, having keenly watched trends over the past twenty years with density clustered around subway stations and transit, and with the removal of the agricultural and rural preserves in Prince William County and elsewhere for housing and data centers, I predict that most housing in the inner ring suburbs and DC itself will be missing middle within 15-20 years. Except for some enclaves, like along Foxhall Rd or Old Dominion Drive in outer McLean, there won’t be many single family homes left. That’s the next evolution for this area, specifically. So my prediction doesn’t extend to other cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore, where there is no housing crisis. I could be wrong but I see the writing on the wall. Due to the DC hight limit, developers and planners have typically pushed innovation (re density) in the inner ring suburbs. DC itself is now playing catch up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

So, the issue is not sufficient housing but housing in prime locations. That, to me is entitlement and not actual need.

There is plenty of entitlement to go around here. Existing home owners feel entitled to keep their zoning while advocating/voting for population growth policies. These new people and younger generations feel entitled to the same standard of living. The history of this, and any other urban area, is that if the population grows, something has to be upzoned. Whether that's agricultural land on the periphery being upzoned to SFHs, or close in suburbs being upzoned to "missing middle", or urban areas being upzoned to Watergate complexes, someone's cheese is going to get moved.

So the question becomes who pays the price for this growth? It should be the close in SFHs for two reasons. The first being, that more than any other group they are responsible for the current situation. The close in suburbs were littered with the "In this House..." and "Refugees Welcome..." type signs, so its time for them to practice what they preach. If you want to fill the county with such people, you should have to live with them rather than making them someone else's problem.

The second is that car-dependent suburbs are just awful in that they consume a lot of space, are not fiscally sustainable and create downstream problems for urban areas. Widen my highway, build more parking, don't you dare build that Purple-line near me. That's entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

I wouldn’t because I don’t like urban living. But if I wanted to live in an urban area, sure. What I would do is move out of my SFH neighborhood if SFHs were being replaced with apartments of any kind. We chose a suburban SFH neighborhood to get away from density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

So, the issue is not sufficient housing but housing in prime locations. That, to me is entitlement and not actual need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to today's article in the Washington Post, "The D.C. region needs to build 87 new homes per day. It’s not close," we are not doing nearly enough to build low income, affordable and workforce housing. Just to meet our housing target we'd need to build "1,600 Watergate apartment complexes this decade" according to the article. Funny how people are fighting over preserving single family homes, historic districts, etc., in light of the current housing crisis.

So build giant Watergate-sized apartment complexes in urban areas instead of wasting your time and effort trying to drag down SFH neighborhoods building random fourplexes. No one is saying that you can’t build in places that make sense. In fact, you can build to your heart’s content and likely get support from the population at large if you’d drop the upzoning nonsense.

Would you move to a Watergate like complex in an urban area? Would any current home owner?

What urban area would welcome such a development? What about more than one of them?

This solution just makes housing somebody else's problem.

I hope people against up zoning single family neighborhoods aren’t also demanding a return to office.

For dual GS-11 salaries ($160k a year) to have a family and okay public schools, you’re basically talking Frederick.