Anonymous
07/03/2021 12:28
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.
Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.
You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Did you even bother reading any of the articles? Which ones were not peer-reviewed?
And yes, all papers address the central topic that land-use restrictions increase the price of housing. Please try reading them.
You don’t even know what peer review is, couldn’t even describe how it works and the different types and are just an all around low IQ person.
Wow, I really touched a nerve! Since you're obviously a very stable genius, telling me which papers were not subject to peer review should be trivial. So which ones weren't?
Anonymous
07/03/2021 12:24
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?
"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.
But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.
"Increasing density" happens everywhere in DC except Ward 3. It *only* happens in areas that are mostly black.
Anonymous
07/03/2021 11:08
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?
"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.
But in the neighborhoods where many DCUM readers and posters live, "increasing density" would just be increasing density. You can't gentrify an already rich area, and you can't remove black homeowners from neighborhoods that are already highly segregated and mostly white.
Anonymous
07/03/2021 10:48
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.
Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.
You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Did you even bother reading any of the articles? Which ones were not peer-reviewed?
And yes, all papers address the central topic that land-use restrictions increase the price of housing. Please try reading them.
You don’t even know what peer review is, couldn’t even describe how it works and the different types and are just an all around low IQ person.
Anonymous
07/03/2021 08:58
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.
Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.
You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Did you even bother reading any of the articles? Which ones were not peer-reviewed?
And yes, all papers address the central topic that land-use restrictions increase the price of housing. Please try reading them.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 17:51
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?
"Increasing density" is just a rebranding of "gentrification." They also considered renaming it "Black homeowner removal project" but "increasing density" sounded less evil.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 16:49
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
You said I should read the "peer reviewed journals" yet post many links to non-peer reviewed pdfs? In any case, none of what you posted addresses the central question of the impact of additional supply of new construction on unit housing costs per the context of the discussion. Your links look at policy, but don't provide any information on how housing is delivered and where.
Replacing affordable units with "luxury" units definitionally increases the supply of high cost housing units while decreasing the supply of low cost units.
You presume that developers are like soy farmers and will keep adding unlimited supply to the market until the market clears and prices crash. Developers are not this dumb. The only time in modern history where even an approximation of this occurring was during the 80's, but back then developers were not interesting in making money on housing, they were making money on bank fraud. It was called the Savings and Loan Scandal.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 16:14
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?
Gentrification and densification are two distinct phenomena. You can have gentrification without densification. Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle gentrified in the 90s with almost no new construction.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 16:05
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
In the vast majority of the city, "increasingly density" is synonymous with gentrification. Are there people who dispute whether gentrification drives housing prices up?
Anonymous
07/02/2021 15:59
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
These barely scratch the surface. Let me know if you're interested in learning more.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
Anonymous
07/02/2021 15:55
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
*showmetheevidencememe.jpg*
Anonymous
07/02/2021 15:19
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
I guess I'd rather LARP as a big-brained internet academic than LARP as a dimwit who gets his rocks off on posting the same debunked theories over and over again, ignoring a plethora of evidence to the contrary, and calling people names.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 15:09
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
You have invented something to change the subject to avoid the embarrassment of larping as a big-brained internet academic.
Anonymous
07/02/2021 14:17
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The obsession of GGW in this forum is pretty pathetic lol. As if a small nonprofit is the be blamed for all the housing woes in this city. NIMBYs (who don't understand supply and demand) will NIMBY, I guess.
More pathetic than people who insult others in defense of a website?
Nope. Try again. Read some peer reviewed journals on housing. Then get back to me.
DP. Where are your peer reviewed articles that show that an increased housing supply raises prices?
Anonymous
07/02/2021 13:37
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The obsession of GGW in this forum is pretty pathetic lol. As if a small nonprofit is the be blamed for all the housing woes in this city. NIMBYs (who don't understand supply and demand) will NIMBY, I guess.
More pathetic than people who insult others in defense of a website?
Nope. Try again. Read some peer reviewed journals on housing. Then get back to me.
