Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:moving density higher is 99 percent driven by developers. It doesn't take people into consideration. DC is a great city to live in because it has parks and trees and wide open spaces. Humans have a right to live in humane environments. The dystopian landscape that the pro-density folks are calling for won't even make things cheaper.

Also - its just a negotiating tactic. the developers are pushing for huge uptick in density so they can eventually accept half or even 25 percent of it.

Don't fall for it.

I don't really see how D.C. would be a less humane city if the three-story single-family house next door to me was, instead, a four-story building with three apartments in it.

Anonymous wrote:moving density higher is 99 percent driven by developers. It doesn't take people into consideration. DC is a great city to live in because it has parks and trees and wide open spaces. Humans have a right to live in humane environments. The dystopian landscape that the pro-density folks are calling for won't even make things cheaper.

Also - its just a negotiating tactic. the developers are pushing for huge uptick in density so they can eventually accept half or even 25 percent of it.

Don't fall for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC 2,000,000.

20 year goal to develop 50 of DC's square miles to roughly Columbia Heights density (40,000 / smi). Leave the other 16 square miles as parks and public buildings.

1) by right mixed-use development to lot lines x 4 stories. Denser pre-existing zones can remain.
2) third-party bonded and video-recorded building inspections to international code. Zero permitting fees.
3) Allow ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Allow 'tiny' multi-familyhousing. If the builder thinks they'll rent, let them build it (to fire code).
4) zero parking requirements
5) city-wide market-rate street parking. Market rate means whatever hourly rate (can be variable) that keeps one spot open per block. Also, 15 minute loading & unloading zones at every intersection.
6) bounties for video record of parking violators. Steep fines for same.
7) un-tax buildings. Split rate tax, with zero tax on assessed improvement value, revenue neutral shift to land value.
8) later, un-tax personal property, deed, and general sales taxes in the same manner.
9) keep on going by un-taxing business and corporate taxes, personal income taxes, and other taxes and permits.
10) build one-way dedicated bus rapid transit lines every other block (e.g. NB on 16th st, SB on 14th st) ~40 NB/SB, ~40 EB/WB. Make them free to ride. Run at least half of them 24/7 with not more than 10 minute headways and stops not closer than 1/4 mile apart.
11) School Vouchers
12) Housing Vouchers
13) develop the other 16 square miles to be accessible parkland (but enforce no camping laws and basic sanitation)
14) allow businesses to rent street parking at market rate for dedicated parking or cafe space

So you wind up with a city with ONE SINGLE TAX (the tax on land values) that everyone pays anyway, just usually to a land lord or a previous owner. No sales, income, or corporate taxes. Expensive but easy to park, easier to walk not more 1/4 mile to a free bus line. Housing market would be safe and responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by permitting and inspections. Education system would be responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by lethargic Public School System.

The idea that DC will have a population of 2M within 20 years or anything close to that is simply silly. DC's population is not growing at the moment. The idea that all of DC should have the density of Columbia Heights is also silly. Yes, DC should ensure that all parts of DC have growth. But a key attraction of DC is that it is NOT NY.

Anonymous wrote:moving density higher is 99 percent driven by developers. It doesn't take people into consideration. DC is a great city to live in because it has parks and trees and wide open spaces. Humans have a right to live in humane environments. The dystopian landscape that the pro-density folks are calling for won't even make things cheaper.

Also - its just a negotiating tactic. the developers are pushing for huge uptick in density so they can eventually accept half or even 25 percent of it.

Don't fall for it.

Anonymous wrote:DC 2,000,000.

20 year goal to develop 50 of DC's square miles to roughly Columbia Heights density (40,000 / smi). Leave the other 16 square miles as parks and public buildings.

1) by right mixed-use development to lot lines x 4 stories. Denser pre-existing zones can remain.
2) third-party bonded and video-recorded building inspections to international code. Zero permitting fees.
3) Allow ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Allow 'tiny' multi-familyhousing. If the builder thinks they'll rent, let them build it (to fire code).
4) zero parking requirements
5) city-wide market-rate street parking. Market rate means whatever hourly rate (can be variable) that keeps one spot open per block. Also, 15 minute loading & unloading zones at every intersection.
6) bounties for video record of parking violators. Steep fines for same.
7) un-tax buildings. Split rate tax, with zero tax on assessed improvement value, revenue neutral shift to land value.
8) later, un-tax personal property, deed, and general sales taxes in the same manner.
9) keep on going by un-taxing business and corporate taxes, personal income taxes, and other taxes and permits.
10) build one-way dedicated bus rapid transit lines every other block (e.g. NB on 16th st, SB on 14th st) ~40 NB/SB, ~40 EB/WB. Make them free to ride. Run at least half of them 24/7 with not more than 10 minute headways and stops not closer than 1/4 mile apart.
11) School Vouchers
12) Housing Vouchers
13) develop the other 16 square miles to be accessible parkland (but enforce no camping laws and basic sanitation)
14) allow businesses to rent street parking at market rate for dedicated parking or cafe space

So you wind up with a city with ONE SINGLE TAX (the tax on land values) that everyone pays anyway, just usually to a land lord or a previous owner. No sales, income, or corporate taxes. Expensive but easy to park, easier to walk not more 1/4 mile to a free bus line. Housing market would be safe and responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by permitting and inspections. Education system would be responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by lethargic Public School System.

Anonymous wrote:DC 2,000,000.

20 year goal to develop 50 of DC's square miles to roughly Columbia Heights density (40,000 / smi). Leave the other 16 square miles as parks and public buildings.

1) by right mixed-use development to lot lines x 4 stories. Denser pre-existing zones can remain.
2) third-party bonded and video-recorded building inspections to international code. Zero permitting fees.
3) Allow ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Allow 'tiny' multi-familyhousing. If the builder thinks they'll rent, let them build it (to fire code).
4) zero parking requirements
5) city-wide market-rate street parking. Market rate means whatever hourly rate (can be variable) that keeps one spot open per block. Also, 15 minute loading & unloading zones at every intersection.
6) bounties for video record of parking violators. Steep fines for same.
7) un-tax buildings. Split rate tax, with zero tax on assessed improvement value, revenue neutral shift to land value.
8) later, un-tax personal property, deed, and general sales taxes in the same manner.
9) keep on going by un-taxing business and corporate taxes, personal income taxes, and other taxes and permits.
10) build one-way dedicated bus rapid transit lines every other block (e.g. NB on 16th st, SB on 14th st) ~40 NB/SB, ~40 EB/WB. Make them free to ride. Run at least half of them 24/7 with not more than 10 minute headways and stops not closer than 1/4 mile apart.
11) School Vouchers
12) Housing Vouchers
13) develop the other 16 square miles to be accessible parkland (but enforce no camping laws and basic sanitation)
14) allow businesses to rent street parking at market rate for dedicated parking or cafe space

So you wind up with a city with ONE SINGLE TAX (the tax on land values) that everyone pays anyway, just usually to a land lord or a previous owner. No sales, income, or corporate taxes. Expensive but easy to park, easier to walk not more 1/4 mile to a free bus line. Housing market would be safe and responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by permitting and inspections. Education system would be responsive to market demand, rather than throttled by lethargic Public School System.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC to Ward 3 residents: you're all a bunch of racists for not having enough affordable housing in your neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, in the increasingly wealthy and white Navy Yard, the city is trying to let a developer build a giant condo building with exactly zero affordable units:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/wc-smith-pitches-residential-development-proposed-at-695-and-south-capitol-/18485#.YO9DjIWmKSY.twitter

First, BS to your first comment.

Second, you need to read the link again. It is titled "WC Smith Pitches." Nothing in the article itself says the City has agreed to anything. Perhaps, it will have some affordable units. But a simple basic point is that there will not be enough people to live in high end apartments or condos. DC population is not growing. So, at some point, the market will force rates down.

Anonymous wrote:DC to Ward 3 residents: you're all a bunch of racists for not having enough affordable housing in your neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, in the increasingly wealthy and white Navy Yard, the city is trying to let a developer build a giant condo building with exactly zero affordable units:

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/wc-smith-pitches-residential-development-proposed-at-695-and-south-capitol-/18485#.YO9DjIWmKSY.twitter

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remote work (accelerated by Covid and dim-witted CEOs finally realizing that paying for large office space doesn't help productivity and employee engagement along with climate change focus that realizes millions of people commuting to work everyday doesn't help the global warming cause) will change everything over the next 20 to 30 years. People will move to suburbs, ex-urbs, rural areas and still have a good paying job. This will depress existing cities even further and make lots of housing more "affordable" there, by default.

This would be amazing. We’ve realized most office work can be done remotely, but I don’t think it will be permanent.

The federal government could revitalize other areas of the country by simply allowing remote workstations. Plenty of people will need to stay here for classified work or Hill jobs, but so many will be able to leave. The feds could set up one salary scale for all remote capable jobs so no one would be enticed to stay in high cost of living areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable housing, but also middle-income ones, and even luxury homes. I agree with virtually every word of Hayley Bonsteel’s excellent piece for The Urbanist titled “How to Finetune Rep. Macri’s Single-Family Rezone Bill.” I have long been opposed to single-family zoning (not housing), for a number reasons but largely because of its malicious history. Bonsteel is correct in that we must return to our abundant housing roots.

However, abolishing single-family zoning will barely move the needle on our housing crisis. We can’t duplex and triplex our way out of this—though it’s a good step since we do need more diverse types of housing, and rapidly. The decades long fight just to add, and then liberalize accessory dwelling units, or re-legalize duplexes and small apartments in now single-family zones, will pale in comparison to the needed shift.

We sit at the threshold of a decades long housing crisis, and a steepening climate crisis (one our mayor seems wholly unprepared to take on). The region includes some of the smartest and most sophisticated companies in the world, but rather than come to terms with the depth of the scale of this crisis, we put on blinders.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/01/29/housing-action-on-a-truly-massive-scale/

(2020)

About Seattle, but every word applies to the DC area EXCEPT that Seattle is farther along on zoning reform than we are.

We first need to upzone single family home lots.
That means Takoma Park. And Bethesda. And Ward 3 DC. Allow duplexes, triplexes, pop ups, and ADUs.

Then we need even more homes than that.

And if we don’t do all these things, average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

So many affordable homes in NE, SE, pg county-many are on the metro or Marc lines! What We need are good schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to invest more in any of the upcoming wards in DC such as 7, or 8 but the property values are not coming up. Seems like stuck.

Get DC Govt to fund infrastructure improvements in 7 and 8. Get DC Govt to improve schools there, etc.