Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

Here it is again: https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

I told you why I won’t. Once GGW was caught taking money from sources and then writing in a way favorable to those sources, they discredited themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but I’m not the one who is suggesting that white people should stay out of lower-income black neighborhoods.

Are you one of the ones saying that Ward 3 should remain off-limits for people who don't have a lot of money?

No I wouldn’t say that. [b]All properties in all areas of the city should be open to anyone and everyone who can afford those properties. I wouldn’t call a SFH in Georgetown “off limits” to me just because I can’t afford it.

That’s the way buying things works. If you can’t afford it, then you can’t buy it. I’m not a big fan of my full-time job and would much rather quit to explore my passions. But I’m not going to do that because I want money so I can buy things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Maybe read the link.

Here it is again: https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but I’m not the one who is suggesting that white people should stay out of lower-income black neighborhoods.

Are you one of the ones saying that Ward 3 should remain off-limits for people who don't have a lot of money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

I’m not reading the link, but a lot of neighborhoods don’t need any upzoning in order to be further developed. So if their real goal is development and building more homes, why not start there?

They can theoretically be in favor of upzoning everywhere but to me it sounds like a convenient smokescreen for what their developer buddies really want to do (i.e., upzone in places like Ward 3).

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry but I’m not the one who is suggesting that white people should stay out of lower-income black neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Well, my home in Ward 3 is not in a historic district, and I'm all for upzoning the area near us so more people can afford to live here. I don't think that'll have any effect on my property values (since I'll still live in a single-family house), and I don't really think the prospect of slightly more crowded schools or streets is a good enough reason to continue to advocate for exclusionary zoning policies that make it so you can't move here without the capital to spend more than $1 million on a house. Cities change all the time. And as a PP pointed out, arguing that changing lower-income black neighborhoods by encouraging well-paid young white people to move there, pushing out longstanding residents, would be better than changing wealthy white neighborhoods is pretty obnoxious.

It sounds like you’re in favor of segregation to me, but you’re just framing it in a way that makes it feel acceptable to you. It’s okay to live near lower income black people. Many of them who sell their homes to newcomers make a big profit. That’s not being “pushed out.” And it’s okay for those neighborhoods to change just like I recognize my neighborhood will change (as long as those changes are permitted by law).

If someone's in favor of segregation here, I don't think it's the person who's advocating to build more low-income housing in Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where else do upzoning advocates want to upzone? I’d say the same thing for those neighborhoods too.

Well, this is from the hated GGW, from someone at least one PP has mentioned by name as disliking, and it advocates upFLUMing everywhere in the city.

https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't invalidate the reality that they are, in fact, advocating for upzoning/upFLUMing everywhere, not just Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you don't like the area you live in, and that's why you doubt the sincerity of people who say they want to add housing in it? Or, you do like the area you live in, but you don't want other people to live in it unless they have a lot of money?

I love the neighborhood I live in and I want more people to live here. It's a great mixed income neighborhood now but I know that any development will be for people with a lot of money. I think we should upzone every place that's close to transit though, and I find it curious the YIMBYs aren't interested in upzoning all neighborhoods, just the fancy ones. That very neatly aligns with developers' goals.

Developers would be perfectly happy to redevelop poorer neighborhoods, since it would make acquiring land and buildings to develop much cheaper (and allow them to sell for more upside down the line).

So what's stopping them from doing that now? Or are they already doing that now? Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where else do upzoning advocates want to upzone? I’d say the same thing for those neighborhoods too.

Well, this is from the hated GGW, from someone at least one PP has mentioned by name as disliking, and it advocates upFLUMing everywhere in the city.

https://ggwash.org/view/75544/were-reading-amendments-to-the-comp-plan-heres-our-critique-of-how-the-flum-works

Yeah you can count me among the commenters who dislike GGW. They’re hypocritical, and they work to promote the interests of developers. Just like back when they were getting $$$ from WMATA that they didn’t disclose and then ignoring all of the metro’s glaring problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, you don't like the area you live in, and that's why you doubt the sincerity of people who say they want to add housing in it? Or, you do like the area you live in, but you don't want other people to live in it unless they have a lot of money?

I love the neighborhood I live in and I want more people to live here. It's a great mixed income neighborhood now but I know that any development will be for people with a lot of money. I think we should upzone every place that's close to transit though, and I find it curious the YIMBYs aren't interested in upzoning all neighborhoods, just the fancy ones. That very neatly aligns with developers' goals.

Developers would be perfectly happy to redevelop poorer neighborhoods, since it would make acquiring land and buildings to develop much cheaper (and allow them to sell for more upside down the line).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, my home in Ward 3 is not in a historic district, and I'm all for upzoning the area near us so more people can afford to live here. I don't think that'll have any effect on my property values (since I'll still live in a single-family house), and I don't really think the prospect of slightly more crowded schools or streets is a good enough reason to continue to advocate for exclusionary zoning policies that make it so you can't move here without the capital to spend more than $1 million on a house. Cities change all the time. And as a PP pointed out, arguing that changing lower-income black neighborhoods by encouraging well-paid young white people to move there, pushing out longstanding residents, would be better than changing wealthy white neighborhoods is pretty obnoxious.

It sounds like you’re in favor of segregation to me, but you’re just framing it in a way that makes it feel acceptable to you. It’s okay to live near lower income black people. Many of them who sell their homes to newcomers make a big profit. That’s not being “pushed out.” And it’s okay for those neighborhoods to change just like I recognize my neighborhood will change (as long as those changes are permitted by law).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Well, my home in Ward 3 is not in a historic district, and I'm all for upzoning the area near us so more people can afford to live here. I don't think that'll have any effect on my property values (since I'll still live in a single-family house), and I don't really think the prospect of slightly more crowded schools or streets is a good enough reason to continue to advocate for exclusionary zoning policies that make it so you can't move here without the capital to spend more than $1 million on a house. Cities change all the time. And as a PP pointed out, arguing that changing lower-income black neighborhoods by encouraging well-paid young white people to move there, pushing out longstanding residents, would be better than changing wealthy white neighborhoods is pretty obnoxious.

It sounds like you’re in favor of segregation to me, but you’re just framing it in a way that makes it feel acceptable to you. It’s okay to live near lower income black people. Many of them who sell their homes to newcomers make a big profit. That’s not being “pushed out.” And it’s okay for those neighborhoods to change just like I recognize my neighborhood will change (as long as those changes are permitted by law).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.

Well, my home in Ward 3 is not in a historic district, and I'm all for upzoning the area near us so more people can afford to live here. I don't think that'll have any effect on my property values (since I'll still live in a single-family house), and I don't really think the prospect of slightly more crowded schools or streets is a good enough reason to continue to advocate for exclusionary zoning policies that make it so you can't move here without the capital to spend more than $1 million on a house. Cities change all the time. And as a PP pointed out, arguing that changing lower-income black neighborhoods by encouraging well-paid young white people to move there, pushing out longstanding residents, would be better than changing wealthy white neighborhoods is pretty obnoxious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The unfortunate fact of life, which is at the center of this debate and everyone knows but no one says, is that poverty is associated with a number of behaviors that people will pay a premium to avoid. (the nouveau riche do too, but that’s another story)

So on the one hand, you have people that have already paid that premium trying to preserve their “investment” and on the other hand you have people that cannot afford to pay the premium who think it’s unfair.

That’s it, that’s the whole story.

It's clearly not the whole story, given opponents' insistence that the build-more-housing people are all younger white college graduates who are just trying to get something they don't deserve. Or is that the kind of "poverty associated with a number of behaviors" you were talking about?

DP. It’s not about “deserve.” That has nothing to do with it. I haven’t seen any poster use that kind of language.

Fine, then "can't afford," does that make it better? It doesn't change the point.

It does. I don’t think Bezos “deserves” billions more dollars than me. But he nevertheless has made billions more dollars than me and thus has way more purchasing power. That’s just the way it goes. I don’t have the money to buy Bezos’ DC house or his neighbors’ for that matter. So I bought somewhere I could afford and try to contribute to my neighborhood and community and make them the best they can be. That’s what the upzoning advocates need to do too. If they do think they “deserve” to live in certain neighborhoods, they need to get over that silly notion ASAP.

Nobody is talking about buying Jeff Bezos's house. Nobody is talking about making you sell your specific house in Ward 3 (assuming you own a house in Ward 3) for less. The point is adding housing in Ward 3 so that more people can live in Ward 3. Your argument boils down: the only people who should get to live in Ward 3 are people who have a lot of money.

And then to also say that people who want to add housing in Ward 3 simply don't want to live in areas with poor people? Major cognitive dissonance.

Why do people who can’t afford to live in Ward 3 need to live there so badly that they are fighting to change the laws that those of us who live there relied upon when we bought? I just don’t think areas outside of Ward 3 are so awful that they need to be avoided at all costs.

PP, I'm sorry, but when you bought your property in Ward 3, it didn't come with a guarantee that Ward 3 would be preserved unchanged forever.

No it didn’t. But I can and will fight against any change to the laws with which I don’t agree. And my home is in a historic district so I wish you luck but I wouldn’t bet on your efforts succeeding where I live. Sorry.