Anonymous
04/24/2023 20:50
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
I don’t think driving prices down is the point of ADU’s. Most people who need help with homes need help with closing and up front costs.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 20:37
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.
How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.
I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.
1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family
There is a #3.
Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.
So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.
And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.
It's not your deciion either.
I can't wait until nothing changes and the builders laugh themselves to the bank. This does NOTHING except put oney in their pocket. Look at Minnesota. But, whatever. You'll see.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 20:35
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.
The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?
That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.
Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.
People would be living in them. There's no rent if there's nobody living in it.
Sure, but ADUs represent a very good opportunity to expand housing and density without bringing in commercial landlords. If we're waving our magic wands and making ideal policy in this thread, why not ban investors from owning and operating them? I'd like to see both more housing and less profit motivation in housing construction.
I'd like to get rid of all of the ways we subsidize homeownership and penalize renters, but in the real world, I don't support imposing residency requirements on property owners.
If you look at how multifamily rental properties and financed and taxed, you’ll find plenty of subsidies. They benefit landlords (the other homeowners), not renters. I’d be for eliminating the landlord and homeowner subsidies and lowering tax rates for everyone.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 17:03
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.
How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.
I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.
1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family
There is a #3.
Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.
So wait, do the ADUs raise property values or lower property values? They can't do both simultaneously.
And what does "Hard pass" mean in this context? You don't want to live next door to a property with an ADU? Then you need to buy that property. Othherwise, not your property, not your decision.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 16:59
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We live in a starter home with a decent sized yard. We could easily fit an ADU and we could pay for it by borrowing against the appreciation in the value of our home. And that would increase the value of our home overnight by probably 30 percent.
How exactly does that help affordable housing? How does that help someone trying to save up to buy their first home, a starter home like ours? All it does it drive the price of our starter home beyond the budget of anyone who would be in the market for a starter home.
I can't tell if the D.C. government is cynical or just stupid in how they portray policies that are designed to enrich developers and people who already own homes as somehow helping everyone else.
1) the income it provides to you helps make your house more affordable
2) the rental unit provides a lower cost option to another person or family
There is a #3.
Your neighbors' homes just became more affordable because their home value will now reflect living next door to a SFH with another dwelling and more people in the backyard. All all things being equal, the next homebuyer will select a SFH, next door to other SFHs. Unless, they too want to put an ADU on their property. Pretty soon the whole street will have 2x the people, cars, trash, impact on schools, etc. Hard pass.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 16:58
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.
The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?
That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.
Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.
People would be living in them. There's no rent if there's nobody living in it.
Sure, but ADUs represent a very good opportunity to expand housing and density without bringing in commercial landlords. If we're waving our magic wands and making ideal policy in this thread, why not ban investors from owning and operating them? I'd like to see both more housing and less profit motivation in housing construction.
I'd like to get rid of all of the ways we subsidize homeownership and penalize renters, but in the real world, I don't support imposing residency requirements on property owners.
It's not a residency requirement on all property owners. It's a condition for renting out an ADU on your property. Again, if we're making up imaginary policy, why limit yourself to what you think is achievable in the real world? Completely agree with you on eliminating homeownership subsidies and penalizing renters; I also want developers, investors, commercial landlords and, generally "the market" to have less power in housing. (Which is why I recognize all my ideas are going to remain in the realm of made-up imaginary policy.)
Anonymous
04/24/2023 16:15
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
ADUs will get massively more popular as Boomers age. Having a small ADU in your backyard for grandma will be such a boon to families with kids, worried about coordinating care for an elderly relative, etc. The Boomer relative will likely have the funds to pay for the building without a loan.
ADUs are going to become very critical to caring for our aging relatives, particularly when you see how much assisted living facilities charge ($10-20K per month).
ADUs are going to become very critical to caring for our aging relatives, particularly when you see how much assisted living facilities charge ($10-20K per month).
Anonymous
04/24/2023 14:10
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.
The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?
That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.
Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.
People would be living in them. There's no rent if there's nobody living in it.
Sure, but ADUs represent a very good opportunity to expand housing and density without bringing in commercial landlords. If we're waving our magic wands and making ideal policy in this thread, why not ban investors from owning and operating them? I'd like to see both more housing and less profit motivation in housing construction.
I'd like to get rid of all of the ways we subsidize homeownership and penalize renters, but in the real world, I don't support imposing residency requirements on property owners.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:58
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The "Smart Growth" lobbyists are trying to push the council to allow for two story ADUs with a 650 sf footprint. That's a 1300 sf house. And they want DC to get rid of the requirement that the owner of the primary dwelling on the property has to live there while the ADU is rented. Seems like a way to undercut single family home zoning and open the door to sales to investors. It will drive prices up and not do a thing for affordable housing. If I spend $300k to build an ADU, I'm going to rent it at market.
The owner could live in the ADU and rent out the house,. Why would that be an issue?
That would totally be fine. I think the issue is whether an investor should be able to buy and rent both, with no residency requirement.
Would be better if investors were not allowed to do this. Homes should be for people, not for pure rent-seekers.
People would be living in them. There's no rent if there's nobody living in it.
Sure, but ADUs represent a very good opportunity to expand housing and density without bringing in commercial landlords. If we're waving our magic wands and making ideal policy in this thread, why not ban investors from owning and operating them? I'd like to see both more housing and less profit motivation in housing construction.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:45
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:]Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.
ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.
So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?
Why do you think only certain types of property owners should be allowed to build ADUs on their property or own a property with an ADU?
Aren't ADUs intended primarily to be "granny flats", in-law apartments, student accommodations, etc? And to allow homeowners to have an income stream to help pay taxes and defray other expenses, and thereby to stay in their homes as they become empty nesters?
Grannies, in-laws, students, and etc. can all live in an ADU without the property owner living in the other unit.
Who is responsible for sorting out issues with having multiple rental dwelling units on the same property, maybe in the same structure? An investor management company?
Whoever the landlord is, just like with any other rental property.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:33
Subject: Re:Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:I get the arguments in favor of ADUs on this thread and elsewhere and am generally in favor of more density and more housing.
BUT I have personally observed OP's point in practice. I live in a neighborhood with rising housing costs, but not rising as rapidly as some nearby areas do to school quality. We own a condo here. We've seen two single family homes near out condo put in ADUs in the last few years (both installed by developers who had bought and renovated the properties). Neither of those ADUs is being used as a long term rental -- both are used as AirBnBs or in-law units.
The installation of those ADUs raised the sale prices of those two properties exponentially. Without the ADUs, even with the full renovations, they would have goon for around 850-950k. With the ADUs, they both went for over 1.2m. Those are the highest sale prices in our neighborhood by a mile, even compared to SFHs that are larger than either of these.
But it has not resulted in more housing, since the ADUs are not being used as housing. Instead, they are contributing to noise issues, parking concerns, and maybe even crime because of the transient nature of the AirBnB rental. So these ADUs hiked the average cost of buying a home in our neighborhood without improving housing availability for renters at all. Plus, they've done nothing at all to address the factor most depressing prices in our neighborhood -- the poor school, since both homes attracted investor/developer buyers, but no families with school age kids or likely to have them in a few years.
It's not the panacea people think it is. I hate to say this because it's not actually good for MY property value, but the better move is to tear down those SFHs and put up multi-family housing, which would actually lower prices (including the value of my own condo) by creating more housing for people, and the people buying those condos are more likely to invest in local schools and other infrastructure than the AirBnB tenants or someone's ILs who are staying with them for a few months.
Ok? So your neighbors invested in THEIR OWN property and increased the value. Would you also be complaining if they upgraded their kitchen and landscaping and added a bathroom to add value? And of course we already have restrictive short-term rental regs.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:23
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Anonymous wrote:Sounds like it's AirBnB that's the problem, not the ADU.
Many localities, including DC, restrict AirBnB to some extent, but there is little enforcement.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:10
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
Sounds like it's AirBnB that's the problem, not the ADU.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 13:07
Subject: Re:Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
I get the arguments in favor of ADUs on this thread and elsewhere and am generally in favor of more density and more housing.
BUT I have personally observed OP's point in practice. I live in a neighborhood with rising housing costs, but not rising as rapidly as some nearby areas do to school quality. We own a condo here. We've seen two single family homes near out condo put in ADUs in the last few years (both installed by developers who had bought and renovated the properties). Neither of those ADUs is being used as a long term rental -- both are used as AirBnBs or in-law units.
The installation of those ADUs raised the sale prices of those two properties exponentially. Without the ADUs, even with the full renovations, they would have goon for around 850-950k. With the ADUs, they both went for over 1.2m. Those are the highest sale prices in our neighborhood by a mile, even compared to SFHs that are larger than either of these.
But it has not resulted in more housing, since the ADUs are not being used as housing. Instead, they are contributing to noise issues, parking concerns, and maybe even crime because of the transient nature of the AirBnB rental. So these ADUs hiked the average cost of buying a home in our neighborhood without improving housing availability for renters at all. Plus, they've done nothing at all to address the factor most depressing prices in our neighborhood -- the poor school, since both homes attracted investor/developer buyers, but no families with school age kids or likely to have them in a few years.
It's not the panacea people think it is. I hate to say this because it's not actually good for MY property value, but the better move is to tear down those SFHs and put up multi-family housing, which would actually lower prices (including the value of my own condo) by creating more housing for people, and the people buying those condos are more likely to invest in local schools and other infrastructure than the AirBnB tenants or someone's ILs who are staying with them for a few months.
BUT I have personally observed OP's point in practice. I live in a neighborhood with rising housing costs, but not rising as rapidly as some nearby areas do to school quality. We own a condo here. We've seen two single family homes near out condo put in ADUs in the last few years (both installed by developers who had bought and renovated the properties). Neither of those ADUs is being used as a long term rental -- both are used as AirBnBs or in-law units.
The installation of those ADUs raised the sale prices of those two properties exponentially. Without the ADUs, even with the full renovations, they would have goon for around 850-950k. With the ADUs, they both went for over 1.2m. Those are the highest sale prices in our neighborhood by a mile, even compared to SFHs that are larger than either of these.
But it has not resulted in more housing, since the ADUs are not being used as housing. Instead, they are contributing to noise issues, parking concerns, and maybe even crime because of the transient nature of the AirBnB rental. So these ADUs hiked the average cost of buying a home in our neighborhood without improving housing availability for renters at all. Plus, they've done nothing at all to address the factor most depressing prices in our neighborhood -- the poor school, since both homes attracted investor/developer buyers, but no families with school age kids or likely to have them in a few years.
It's not the panacea people think it is. I hate to say this because it's not actually good for MY property value, but the better move is to tear down those SFHs and put up multi-family housing, which would actually lower prices (including the value of my own condo) by creating more housing for people, and the people buying those condos are more likely to invest in local schools and other infrastructure than the AirBnB tenants or someone's ILs who are staying with them for a few months.
Anonymous
04/24/2023 12:13
Subject: Say it with me: ADUs drive housing prices UP not down
]Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Housing prices are going up because more people can pay for them. If you can’t afford to live in DC move to the suburbs. You don’t have a right to live in Ward 3.
ADUs create revenue for homeowners which makes housing prices go up even faster.
So why does the development lobby want to open up the ADU market to real estate investors, speculators and flippers?
Why do you think only certain types of property owners should be allowed to build ADUs on their property or own a property with an ADU?
Aren't ADUs intended primarily to be "granny flats", in-law apartments, student accommodations, etc? And to allow homeowners to have an income stream to help pay taxes and defray other expenses, and thereby to stay in their homes as they become empty nesters?
Grannies, in-laws, students, and etc. can all live in an ADU without the property owner living in the other unit.
Who is responsible for sorting out issues with having multiple rental dwelling units on the same property, maybe in the same structure? An investor management company?