Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you can't answer even basic questions about your theories, why should anyone take them seriously?

the basic answer is you're wrong. because you do not understand the nature of demand and how it interacts with price. You don't know how demand comes from what economists call utility curves, or how prices acts as a bound on utility.

This stuff has been analyzed, across different goods and services, for generations. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for one particular product.

FIRST learn the basic concepts, then you can try to make a claim for why there are exceptions. But your questions are not even close enough to logical now - I would have to restate them for you, and doing so is boring and frustrating. You wouldn't even be able to follow the restatement.

Maybe one day I will teach intro micro - but only if I get paid for it.

THIS IS SO PATHETIC. You can't even explain the first thing about your own theory? "How does that work?" is not some impossible trick question.

BTW, the Federal Reserve says you're wrong. Here's a paper where they conclude that adding to the housing supply in places considered desirable to live does almost nothing to reduce housing prices because it just encourages more people to move there:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf

Emphasis on a paper.

Now, tell us the assumptions and limitations of the study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great read: https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/30/oregon-just-voted-to-legalize-duplexes-on-almost-every-city-lot/

I'm not necessarily opposed to duplex homes...but the state should allow each county to create their own zoning laws regarding duplex homes - for example, duplex homes should be required to have driveways on both sides or large enough driveway for both homes on one side. If done right with proper zoning regulations....but another issues....

....aside from building "new" duplex homes on lots...what happens if you want to renovate your existing large home into a duplex structure where rather than side by side, it's upstairs/downstairs? Would that be a duplex or a multi-family home? What's the difference? Would this new zoning include multi-family homes?

This is where affordable housing comes in....someone who owns a McMansion could renovate and turn it into a duplex/multi-family home...they would rent the 2nd living space to a family with rent lower than what it would be for the entire house, thus making it more affordable.

I just don't think it's likely anyone would renovate a McMansion into a duplex. You at least need to add a kitchen. If you were struggling to make the payments on your McMansion, you aren't going to be able to afford the renovation. And that's the problem with any of the arguments that this will benefit anyone but developers. And if a developer does the renovation, they aren't going to create affordable housing.

Where it is legal individuals do create ADUs, granny flats etc.

And most of the affordable homes and apts in this region were built by developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in favor of property owners being allowed to build duplexes, and I find it difficult to think of any policy argument against it.

The following are not policy arguments:

-I don't want to live near a duplex.
-A duplex would be bad for my property value.
-Ew, duplexes.

That's because you're not thinking hard enough.

What happens if you're a homeowner in Virginia, and you know a developer sniffing around your place can now put a duplex on your lot? Answer: Your asking price just went way, way up. Why should the developer capture all the additional profits from suddenly being allowed to build duplexes on single-family home lots? If I'm a homeowner, I want some of that windfall money too.

But if the developer has to now pay a lot more for my place, he's going to make that up somewhere. Where do you think that might be? Ding, ding! That's right, he makes it up by charging way more for the units in the duplex he builds, which means housing prices go way up, which defeats the whole purpose of allowing duplexes in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you can't answer even basic questions about your theories, why should anyone take them seriously?

the basic answer is you're wrong. because you do not understand the nature of demand and how it interacts with price. You don't know how demand comes from what economists call utility curves, or how prices acts as a bound on utility.

This stuff has been analyzed, across different goods and services, for generations. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for one particular product.

FIRST learn the basic concepts, then you can try to make a claim for why there are exceptions. But your questions are not even close enough to logical now - I would have to restate them for you, and doing so is boring and frustrating. You wouldn't even be able to follow the restatement.

Maybe one day I will teach intro micro - but only if I get paid for it.

THIS IS SO PATHETIC. You can't even explain the first thing about your own theory? "How does that work?" is not some impossible trick question.

BTW, the Federal Reserve says you're wrong. Here's a paper where they conclude that adding to the housing supply in places considered desirable to live does almost nothing to reduce housing prices because it just encourages more people to move there:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Most people living in SFH in Fairfax County do not live on one acre lots. They live on .25 to .5 acre lots zoned for sfh. Putting duplexes on these lots --where the infrastructure does not presently exist--will dramatically change neighborhoods, put additional cost to schools, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

If you can't answer even basic questions about your theories, why should anyone take them seriously?

the basic answer is you're wrong. because you do not understand the nature of demand and how it interacts with price. You don't know how demand comes from what economists call utility curves, or how prices acts as a bound on utility.

This stuff has been analyzed, across different goods and services, for generations. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for one particular product.

FIRST learn the basic concepts, then you can try to make a claim for why there are exceptions. But your questions are not even close enough to logical now - I would have to restate them for you, and doing so is boring and frustrating. You wouldn't even be able to follow the restatement.

Maybe one day I will teach intro micro - but only if I get paid for it.

I just don't think it's likely anyone would renovate a McMansion into a duplex. You at least need to add a kitchen. If you were struggling to make the payments on your McMansion, you aren't going to be able to afford the renovation. And that's the problem with any of the arguments that this will benefit anyone but developers. And if a developer does the renovation, they aren't going to create affordable housing.

If you can't answer even basic questions about your theories, why should anyone take them seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want a serious answer, go study "elasticity of demand"

GREAT NON-ANSWER!

It's funny no one can actually explain how any of this is supposed to work.

Go study elasticity of demand is a perfect answer. Clearly you have never done so.

Why should I waste my time on BS rhetoric with someone who won't bother with basic microeconomics? It takes pages to explain (and multiple misunderstandings) what can be answered in one sentence to someone who knows micro.

Please. You obviously don't have an answer. Telling people to google economic terms you vaguely remember from high school is not an explanation. If you can't answer even basic questions about your theories, why should anyone take them seriously? All you have is empty rhetoric.

Anonymous wrote:

If you want a serious answer, go study "elasticity of demand"

GREAT NON-ANSWER!

It's funny no one can actually explain how any of this is supposed to work.

Go study elasticity of demand is a perfect answer. Clearly you have never done so.

Why should I waste my time on BS rhetoric with someone who won't bother with basic microeconomics? It takes pages to explain (and multiple misunderstandings) what can be answered in one sentence to someone who knows micro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great read: https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/30/oregon-just-voted-to-legalize-duplexes-on-almost-every-city-lot/

I'm not necessarily opposed to duplex homes...but the state should allow each county to create their own zoning laws regarding duplex homes - for example, duplex homes should be required to have driveways on both sides or large enough driveway for both homes on one side. If done right with proper zoning regulations....but another issues....

....aside from building "new" duplex homes on lots...what happens if you want to renovate your existing large home into a duplex structure where rather than side by side, it's upstairs/downstairs? Would that be a duplex or a multi-family home? What's the difference? Would this new zoning include multi-family homes?

This is where affordable housing comes in....someone who owns a McMansion could renovate and turn it into a duplex/multi-family home...they would rent the 2nd living space to a family with rent lower than what it would be for the entire house, thus making it more affordable.

I just don't think it's likely anyone would renovate a McMansion into a duplex. You at least need to add a kitchen. If you were struggling to make the payments on your McMansion, you aren't going to be able to afford the renovation. And that's the problem with any of the arguments that this will benefit anyone but developers. And if a developer does the renovation, they aren't going to create affordable housing.

If you want a serious answer, go study "elasticity of demand"

GREAT NON-ANSWER!

It's funny no one can actually explain how any of this is supposed to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copying this question from another thread (it refers specifically to DC but you can swap in Arlington, for example, if you prefer):


Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

1. It was answered on that thread, but you seem to think spamming us with the same debunked arguments is persuasive

2. Its particularly stupid on this thread which is about a proposal that, as written, would impact state wide, not just Arlington

what was the answer? no one ever answered it.

The answers I saw fell into three categories:

1. It won't do anything for affordability and this whole thing is a lie designed to make developers richer.

2. It won't do anything for affordability but that's okay because there are other reasons to support more density.

3. I don't like this question and I'm going to change the subject.

Obviously there are arguments that responded to it (whether you agree with those or not) The claim its a lie was obviously not a response but rhetoric, for which your question was a set up.

If you want a serious answer, go study "elasticity of demand"