Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

So, you are a developer yourself. It's just you will reap the rewards vs. a 3rd party developer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should be emailing their state senator and representatives. This is a huge government overstep. We have local municipalities and county officials who know the specifics of the neighborhoods they represent.

No. The government overstep is dictating what owners of private property can and cannot build on their land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should be emailing their state senator and representatives. This is a huge government overstep. We have local municipalities and county officials who know the specifics of the neighborhoods they represent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Agree! What an exaggerated hysterical title for a post.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sighhhhhhh

America so desperately thinks they can plan urban design like Japan, but it will be a disaster because America never plans anything right. For starters, the US doesn't have the infrastructure to be designed like Japan. Our public transport sucks ass. Everyone drives everywhere.

All we are going to get are a bunch of neighborhoods that were designed for SFHs now flooded with townhouses, multiplexes and apartments. You are ging to get a million cars parking on the streets, trash problems, and water problems. People are still going to drive everywhere.

Exactly, just like MoCo thinks it can be like Copenhagen by putting a bike lane up in Old Georgetown Road and calling it a day.

The difference is that Denmark and Japan have much smarter and capable populations and don’t do everything half a$$ed. We’ll end up with haphazard planning with increased, mismatched density without the well planned water, road, and transit infrastructure to support it.

We are governed and run by unimpressive people, voted in by an increasingly undereducated populace. That’s a rude thing to say, but it is what it is.

God this is such a pet peeve of mine. My city added bus lanes, removing traffic lanes to do so, and when people protested cited Japan as an example.
I rode that bus in my city throughout my 20s. The Reason no one wants to ride it is because it's filthy and full of addicts and bums. The end. Until you fix that, no one is riding your bus.
Not to mention that the urban planner my city hired is a 22 year old who talks like a very dumb sorority girl. Really inspires trust that they didn't hire someone who might know something about the job. But they got DEI points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sighhhhhhh

America so desperately thinks they can plan urban design like Japan, but it will be a disaster because America never plans anything right. For starters, the US doesn't have the infrastructure to be designed like Japan. Our public transport sucks ass. Everyone drives everywhere.

All we are going to get are a bunch of neighborhoods that were designed for SFHs now flooded with townhouses, multiplexes and apartments. You are ging to get a million cars parking on the streets, trash problems, and water problems. People are still going to drive everywhere.

Exactly, just like MoCo thinks it can be like Copenhagen by putting a bike lane up in Old Georgetown Road and calling it a day.

The difference is that Denmark and Japan have much smarter and capable populations and don’t do everything half a$$ed. We’ll end up with haphazard planning with increased, mismatched density without the well planned water, road, and transit infrastructure to support it.

We are governed and run by unimpressive people, voted in by an increasingly undereducated populace. That’s a rude thing to say, but it is what it is.

Anonymous wrote:Maryland is a fail.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:I'll be voting republicans next election. Sadly, I realize there are too many communist/socialist/progressives in MD for my vote to make any difference.

As much as I'd like to live here my whole life (I truly do), I think I'll have to move once I have some financial independence.