Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning. They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units. They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.

I was there today and missed this - it certainly wasn't part of the public discussion at the meeting.

And the rest of what you are saying doesn't even make sense. If Ward 3 added tens of thousands of market rate units in multi-unit buildings it would easily meet a good part of the affordable housing goals for Ward 3. Since tens of thousands of units in Ward 3 are very unlikely that by itself won't get the city there.

And it is not simply a question of political will. IZ does cost developers real money and is a version of takings. But it can be a deterrent to new development if you ask for too much, especially in Ward 3 where some of the fixed development costs are much higher than they are in other wards (land and legal costs). Also there is a great deal of value to also adding market rate units as it helps to moderate housing prices and those units also generate a lot of tax revenue.

So it isn't just some magic NIMBY thing where the evil developers should only build affordable units and that will solve all the cities problems. IZ units are a useful way to leverage new development for needed workforce housing but it is only part of the affordable housing solution and needs to be imposed on new development in a way that doesn't stifle it to the point that developers shy away from certain projects.

Certainly it is reasonable in a situation where DC increases the zoning, say from low or medium to high density residential, that the condition be that the development has to include at least 25 percent affordable housing. That is not a “taking” — upzoning is a huge windfall for the investor or developer, which is why certain interests have lobbied so heavily to it include it in the Comp Plan and FLUM proposed amendments. Therefore DC can put conditions on realizing that windfall.

At the same time I don’t see Bowser standing up on requiring more affordable housing from the monied interests who fund her campaign, PAC and perhaps other things. After all, a hooker won’t push back too much on her pimp or her johns. It’s professionally limiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning. They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units. They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.

I was there today and missed this - it certainly wasn't part of the public discussion at the meeting.

And the rest of what you are saying doesn't even make sense. If Ward 3 added tens of thousands of market rate units in multi-unit buildings it would easily meet a good part of the affordable housing goals for Ward 3. Since tens of thousands of units in Ward 3 are very unlikely that by itself won't get the city there.

And it is not simply a question of political will. IZ does cost developers real money and is a version of takings. But it can be a deterrent to new development if you ask for too much, especially in Ward 3 where some of the fixed development costs are much higher than they are in other wards (land and legal costs). Also there is a great deal of value to also adding market rate units as it helps to moderate housing prices and those units also generate a lot of tax revenue.

So it isn't just some magic NIMBY thing where the evil developers should only build affordable units and that will solve all the cities problems. IZ units are a useful way to leverage new development for needed workforce housing but it is only part of the affordable housing solution and needs to be imposed on new development in a way that doesn't stifle it to the point that developers shy away from certain projects.

Certainly it is reasonable in a situation where DC increases the zoning, say from low or medium to high density residential, that the condition be that the development has to include at least 25 percent affordable housing. That is not a “taking” — upzoning is a huge windfall for the investor or developer, which is why certain interests have lobbied so heavily to it include it in the Comp Plan and FLUM proposed amendments. Therefore DC can put conditions on realizing that windfall.

At the same time I don’t see Bowser standing up on requiring more affordable housing from the monied interests who fund her campaign, PAC and perhaps other things. After all, a hooker won’t push back too much on her pimp or her johns. It’s professionally limiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning. They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units. They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.

I was there today and missed this - it certainly wasn't part of the public discussion at the meeting.

And the rest of what you are saying doesn't even make sense. If Ward 3 added tens of thousands of market rate units in multi-unit buildings it would easily meet a good part of the affordable housing goals for Ward 3. Since tens of thousands of units in Ward 3 are very unlikely that by itself won't get the city there.

And it is not simply a question of political will. IZ does cost developers real money and is a version of takings. But it can be a deterrent to new development if you ask for too much, especially in Ward 3 where some of the fixed development costs are much higher than they are in other wards (land and legal costs). Also there is a great deal of value to also adding market rate units as it helps to moderate housing prices and those units also generate a lot of tax revenue.

So it isn't just some magic NIMBY thing where the evil developers should only build affordable units and that will solve all the cities problems. IZ units are a useful way to leverage new development for needed workforce housing but it is only part of the affordable housing solution and needs to be imposed on new development in a way that doesn't stifle it to the point that developers shy away from certain projects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

At a “Charrette” meeting at Wilson High today, some Office of Planning staffers were saying that 10 percent is about the limit that they believe developers will accept for inclusionary zoning. They acknowledged that Ward 3 would have to add tens of thousands of new market housing units to achieve an appreciable number of IZ units. They suggested that there is not political will in the Bowser Admin. to change the law to increase the IZ percentage requirement.

Anonymous wrote:Bowser would never force this on her buddies, the developers. She’s all talk about affordable housing, but the reality is that eligible projects for inclusive zoning have on average 8% IZE units and effective level that is even below the statutory requirement. There is no effort by the bows are administration to hold developers to account for the meager requirements exist today

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

I have no problem raising RPP fees and certainly no issue with progressively rising RPP fees for multiple vehicles registered by the same owner. But I have a huge problem with developers piously assuring the public and commissioners that their new residents will take transit or bike everywhere and that no offstreet parking is necessary. Then the new residents bring their cars and overburden already overburdened street parking. That’s a classic case of shifting costs from the developer to the public. As for the argument that precluding new residents in parking-less buildings is somehow unfair, developers and smart growth advocates argue that by eliminating parking the cost of housing will go down. So if these touted cost savings are passed along to renters and purchasers, then with notice those parties can decide if the benefit overrides the disadvantage of new RPP.

Developers are passing these claimed cost savings along in the form of lower prices, aren’t they?

Terrific. Abolish mandatory parking minimums, abolish the RPP, set a market price on street parking for everybody - we're all set.

Let’s require developers to pay into a special assessment fund for affordable housing and infrastructure (schools, transportation, etc). That’s what many other jurisdictions require.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

I have no problem raising RPP fees and certainly no issue with progressively rising RPP fees for multiple vehicles registered by the same owner. But I have a huge problem with developers piously assuring the public and commissioners that their new residents will take transit or bike everywhere and that no offstreet parking is necessary. Then the new residents bring their cars and overburden already overburdened street parking. That’s a classic case of shifting costs from the developer to the public. As for the argument that precluding new residents in parking-less buildings is somehow unfair, developers and smart growth advocates argue that by eliminating parking the cost of housing will go down. So if these touted cost savings are passed along to renters and purchasers, then with notice those parties can decide if the benefit overrides the disadvantage of new RPP.

Developers are passing these claimed cost savings along in the form of lower prices, aren’t they?

Terrific. Abolish mandatory parking minimums, abolish the RPP, set a market price on street parking for everybody - we're all set.

But what about people on lower incomes and other marginalized people ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

I have no problem raising RPP fees and certainly no issue with progressively rising RPP fees for multiple vehicles registered by the same owner. But I have a huge problem with developers piously assuring the public and commissioners that their new residents will take transit or bike everywhere and that no offstreet parking is necessary. Then the new residents bring their cars and overburden already overburdened street parking. That’s a classic case of shifting costs from the developer to the public. As for the argument that precluding new residents in parking-less buildings is somehow unfair, developers and smart growth advocates argue that by eliminating parking the cost of housing will go down. So if these touted cost savings are passed along to renters and purchasers, then with notice those parties can decide if the benefit overrides the disadvantage of new RPP.

Developers are passing these claimed cost savings along in the form of lower prices, aren’t they?

Terrific. Abolish mandatory parking minimums, abolish the RPP, set a market price on street parking for everybody - we're all set.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

I have no problem raising RPP fees and certainly no issue with progressively rising RPP fees for multiple vehicles registered by the same owner. But I have a huge problem with developers piously assuring the public and commissioners that their new residents will take transit or bike everywhere and that no offstreet parking is necessary. Then the new residents bring their cars and overburden already overburdened street parking. That’s a classic case of shifting costs from the developer to the public. As for the argument that precluding new residents in parking-less buildings is somehow unfair, developers and smart growth advocates argue that by eliminating parking the cost of housing will go down. So if these touted cost savings are passed along to renters and purchasers, then with notice those parties can decide if the benefit overrides the disadvantage of new RPP.

Developers are passing these claimed cost savings along in the form of lower prices, aren’t they?

Terrific. Abolish mandatory parking minimums, abolish the RPP, set a market price on street parking for everybody - we're all set.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

I have no problem raising RPP fees and certainly no issue with progressively rising RPP fees for multiple vehicles registered by the same owner. But I have a huge problem with developers piously assuring the public and commissioners that their new residents will take transit or bike everywhere and that no offstreet parking is necessary. Then the new residents bring their cars and overburden already overburdened street parking. That’s a classic case of shifting costs from the developer to the public. As for the argument that precluding new residents in parking-less buildings is somehow unfair, developers and smart growth advocates argue that by eliminating parking the cost of housing will go down. So if these touted cost savings are passed along to renters and purchasers, then with notice those parties can decide if the benefit overrides the disadvantage of new RPP.

Developers are passing these claimed cost savings along in the form of lower prices, aren’t they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.

RPPs are shifting private externalities onto the public. You're storing your private car on the public street at well below market price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people holding back more housing usually aren't residents because there's not much neighbors or even the government can actually do to restrain by-right development.

Except by right usually means too few units, (sometimes too much parking) etc. Zoning holds back by right, and the NIMBYs hold back waivers (and development on District owned land, like McMillan)

Ask the developers who want to build less parking if they will covenant that their tenants and buyers cannot apply for RPP, to avoid shifting added private externalities on to the public. Crickets will follow that question.