Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

The question was how to improve the city. One of the responsive answers was to build more housing so people can afford to live and work there, rather than having a workforce driving in from WVA or Howard County. In your world, the people who are your first responders and retail workers have to have a 2 hour commute to serve you. What does that say about you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restrict it to the Federal city it’s supposed to be, b/c the DC government has been incompetent for years. So a lot of the residential should just go to Maryland. They’re all Dems anyway, and would get a real congressman/senator. Everyone would be better off. I realize the Feds would have to pay to offload.

the DC government has the highest bond rating in the country, or did until Congress withheld a billion dollars of its own money to spend in the city. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I traveled there for 25+ years for work. It’s a cess pool regardless of their bond rating. The schools are horrendous. Even PG looks down on them. They are a comical joke compared to the surrounding counties.

I guess you know nothing about Moodys, Fitch's or S&P and municipal bond ratings. Sad.

Fact: DC had a AAA+ until April when the Congress told DC it wasn't going to approve the 2026 budget, forcing DC to put a billion dollars of its own money (not the federal money, not the congress money) into its rainy day fund and not spend it on policy, social services, schools etc.

You seriously have no clue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban guns, all firearms.
Ban drug use and open containers.

firearms are already banned, and look where that got us

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

Anonymous wrote:Ban guns, all firearms.
Ban drug use and open containers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

other than property taxes, those wealthy people don't pay income taxes. Sure, they pay taxes at restaurants and with some shopping, but more likely they have residences in FL, ME or DE or some other tax free state where they make any big purchases like a car. But assuming wealthy people don't want density is silly. Do you think there are not wealthy people in Tokyo or NY?

LOL you're not a local, clearly.

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing should be in nearby suburbs, making a small city dense with cheap apartment buildings would only uglyfy it. Tall buildings should house company headquarters and luxury apartments to help those companies bring top talent to DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Outlaw uber eats/grubhub/etc. food delivery can only be done by the restaurant and vehicles must have visible signs of the restaurant.
2. Outlaw uber/lyft. Taxis only.
3. Expand metro. Add streetcars.

Hello? They're taking out the streetcars they just put in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

NEAR. Not in. High Density people want to change neighborhoods like Chevy Chase into Tenleytown or Friendship Heights. Just move there if that's what you want. Yes, neighborhoods can be next to each other but that's not what this is about and you know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

other than property taxes, those wealthy people don't pay income taxes. Sure, they pay taxes at restaurants and with some shopping, but more likely they have residences in FL, ME or DE or some other tax free state where they make any big purchases like a car. But assuming wealthy people don't want density is silly. Do you think there are not wealthy people in Tokyo or NY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:owners of all deteriorating homes should clean, repair and spruce up exterior or sell.

Sam could be said for just about any city or county in the country. If they don't have the money to maintain, you can't force them to sell, well at least not without being an authoritarian country. Oh, I see where you are going with this. If it doesn't meet YOUR standards, then take it away.

Instead of living as house poor in a $500k home which is crumbling in a HCOL city, they can buy a newer home in a LCOL area and have a better quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) improve the schools - it is the one thing that really holds back parts of the city. Of course, that also means providing breakfast and lunch, breaking the cycle of poverty, making sure there are opportunities and alternatives to crime to survive and thrive

2) provide incentives at the federal level, to bring big business to the district (not the suburbs, they already have state level incentives and are doing this)

3) Build more housing that is affordable. That means increasing density in the outer areas of the city so people can afford to live here. Even in the poorest parts of the city, rents are $800-1000/mo and even cheap condos are $250,000+ and houses are $400,000+
That isn't "affordable" for people making a working class salary.

Yes, ruin the good neighborhoods.

If you don’t want density, move out to VA or MD.

So driving wealthy people who can afford to live in single family homes out to the suburbs would be good for the city? I don't think so. How about if you want density you move to neighborhoods that have high density and if you want tree lined streets filled with single family homes you get to live there while remaining a dc tax payer.

I live in a SFH in DC and am wealthy. I also support higher density housing. You can do a mix. See the Walter Reed redevelopment next to some beautiful SFH in Colonial Village/Shepherd Park/Brightwood or the high rises on CT Ave near beautiful SFH in Chevy Chase/Forrest Hills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restrict it to the Federal city it’s supposed to be, b/c the DC government has been incompetent for years. So a lot of the residential should just go to Maryland. They’re all Dems anyway, and would get a real congressman/senator. Everyone would be better off. I realize the Feds would have to pay to offload.

the DC government has the highest bond rating in the country, or did until Congress withheld a billion dollars of its own money to spend in the city. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I traveled there for 25+ years for work. It’s a cess pool regardless of their bond rating. The schools are horrendous. Even PG looks down on them. They are a comical joke compared to the surrounding counties.