Anonymous
08/28/2021 18:56
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When I look both ways on K and 1st NW - there are a ton of new buildings being built and/or empty lots being razed. Seems that there is quite a bit of building going on and I was told that there is a significant portion of low income housing going up. Sorry - I just don’t see the need to tear down zoning in places with trees when the need is being met in other parts of the city that need development and investment.
The need for more housing is not being met by construction on a few blocks near Union Station.
I did no say it was being "met" and quite frankly it is more than a few blocks. There is lots of dumpy space and buildings that should be torn down and built into livable homes and retail. The point is the "i don't even own a backyard -but want to destroy yours" people want to change zoning in SFH neighborhoods - which makes no sense given the availability of better locales.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 17:52
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
You're truly out to lunch if you think ~11,000 yet-to-be-delivered units in the Montgomery County pipeline solves the housing crisis. We live in a metro area of over 6 million people.
The research is sound. It'd be great if you could engage with it instead of saying something that sounds intelligent, like that it "is small N" but just reveals that you haven't actually read any of it.
Montgomery County's pipeline has 30,000 residential units in it. More than two thirds of those units were approved since 2015. You're truly out to lunch if you don't know that. Some of those units will never be built because planning allowed developers to downsize as they closed in on delivery, and some of those units became short-term rentals, again with planning's blessing. That's a lot of saying YIMBY, so saying YIMBY clearing isn't sufficient to solve the housing crisis, even though it is necessary. To solve the housing crisis, it needs to get a lot more uncomfortable for the developers sitting on these approvals. Plan validity duration should be reduced and fees for extensions should go up based on the severity of the housing crisis.
I have read the research. You overextrapolate from it. Get familiar with what's going on in this area and then comment again. It's hard to fix a market when you don't understand what's actually happening in that market.
One thing that never works is supply side economics, unless your goal is increasing the wealth gap, and then it's a great policy. There's a lot of research on that.
200k brand-new townhomes in Houston beg to differ.
Do you think pricing might have something to do with land prices and a median household income that is less than half of DC's?
Anonymous
08/28/2021 17:49
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:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
Dear lord, you keep citing this conspiracy theory that thousands of units are shovel ready. That just isn't true dude. Please cite one article or proof. I'll wait.
It makes 0 economic sense. Have you ever run a business?
DC Development Report, 2020/2021 Edition, dude. The report was produced by the Washington DC Economic Partnership. Partners included the DC Office of Planning, the mayor's office, and large DC area companies.
See Page 55:
Near-term pipeline: 19,417 units
Long-term pipeline: 47,081 units
I don't have to guess why units aren't being delivered. It says why right in the report:
"Hyper-supply in the region is the most significant threat to healthy vacancy rates in the coming years, and the apartment market in the District is under even greater pressure due to outmigration to the suburbs." (Page 51)
"The multitude of deliveries and lack of absorption over the past year have worsened the crisis. With a rapidly increasing supply of units and renters seeking more affordable options during economic volatility, the District multifamily market will continue to be highly vulnerable to fluctuating demand and heightened competition in the short-term, but prospects remain positive over the long-term for the city." (Page 52)
The report goes on to say that whether the apartment market recovers from the current downturn is dependent in part on "Postponement of some of the multifamily construction pipeline in supply-burdened submarkets to avoid further weighing down the market." (Page 53)
"Supply-burdened submarkets" makes it sound like developers have a different definition of housing crisis than urbanists. But you should the report yourself, dude.
I never said the projects were shovel ready. I said there were projects that were approved but unbuilt. Free and clear of the NIMBY hurdles, both real and imagined. Zoning isn't what's preventing construction. Not building is a choice that developers are making, probably to maximize their investments in land and to protect their rents at existing buildings. I don't think the big developers are colluding (conspiracy was your word, not mine), but the economics of their businesses are all similar, so it's not surprising they would all reach similar conclusions.
So there's your proof. Montgomery County's development pipeline and extension/amendment applications tell the same story, but it's not packaged up as nicely.
Lol. You cannot base anything on that report, as it's all covid related. Obviously.
Try again. Read the report. It accounts for COVID and is addressing trends that exited pre-COVID.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 16:51
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
You're truly out to lunch if you think ~11,000 yet-to-be-delivered units in the Montgomery County pipeline solves the housing crisis. We live in a metro area of over 6 million people.
The research is sound. It'd be great if you could engage with it instead of saying something that sounds intelligent, like that it "is small N" but just reveals that you haven't actually read any of it.
Montgomery County's pipeline has 30,000 residential units in it. More than two thirds of those units were approved since 2015. You're truly out to lunch if you don't know that. Some of those units will never be built because planning allowed developers to downsize as they closed in on delivery, and some of those units became short-term rentals, again with planning's blessing. That's a lot of saying YIMBY, so saying YIMBY clearing isn't sufficient to solve the housing crisis, even though it is necessary. To solve the housing crisis, it needs to get a lot more uncomfortable for the developers sitting on these approvals. Plan validity duration should be reduced and fees for extensions should go up based on the severity of the housing crisis.
I have read the research. You overextrapolate from it. Get familiar with what's going on in this area and then comment again. It's hard to fix a market when you don't understand what's actually happening in that market.
One thing that never works is supply side economics, unless your goal is increasing the wealth gap, and then it's a great policy. There's a lot of research on that.
200k brand-new townhomes in Houston beg to differ.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 16:50
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
Dear lord, you keep citing this conspiracy theory that thousands of units are shovel ready. That just isn't true dude. Please cite one article or proof. I'll wait.
It makes 0 economic sense. Have you ever run a business?
DC Development Report, 2020/2021 Edition, dude. The report was produced by the Washington DC Economic Partnership. Partners included the DC Office of Planning, the mayor's office, and large DC area companies.
See Page 55:
Near-term pipeline: 19,417 units
Long-term pipeline: 47,081 units
I don't have to guess why units aren't being delivered. It says why right in the report:
"Hyper-supply in the region is the most significant threat to healthy vacancy rates in the coming years, and the apartment market in the District is under even greater pressure due to outmigration to the suburbs." (Page 51)
"The multitude of deliveries and lack of absorption over the past year have worsened the crisis. With a rapidly increasing supply of units and renters seeking more affordable options during economic volatility, the District multifamily market will continue to be highly vulnerable to fluctuating demand and heightened competition in the short-term, but prospects remain positive over the long-term for the city." (Page 52)
The report goes on to say that whether the apartment market recovers from the current downturn is dependent in part on "Postponement of some of the multifamily construction pipeline in supply-burdened submarkets to avoid further weighing down the market." (Page 53)
"Supply-burdened submarkets" makes it sound like developers have a different definition of housing crisis than urbanists. But you should the report yourself, dude.
I never said the projects were shovel ready. I said there were projects that were approved but unbuilt. Free and clear of the NIMBY hurdles, both real and imagined. Zoning isn't what's preventing construction. Not building is a choice that developers are making, probably to maximize their investments in land and to protect their rents at existing buildings. I don't think the big developers are colluding (conspiracy was your word, not mine), but the economics of their businesses are all similar, so it's not surprising they would all reach similar conclusions.
So there's your proof. Montgomery County's development pipeline and extension/amendment applications tell the same story, but it's not packaged up as nicely.
Lol. You cannot base anything on that report, as it's all covid related. Obviously.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 16:12
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
Dear lord, you keep citing this conspiracy theory that thousands of units are shovel ready. That just isn't true dude. Please cite one article or proof. I'll wait.
It makes 0 economic sense. Have you ever run a business?
DC Development Report, 2020/2021 Edition, dude. The report was produced by the Washington DC Economic Partnership. Partners included the DC Office of Planning, the mayor's office, and large DC area companies.
See Page 55:
Near-term pipeline: 19,417 units
Long-term pipeline: 47,081 units
I don't have to guess why units aren't being delivered. It says why right in the report:
"Hyper-supply in the region is the most significant threat to healthy vacancy rates in the coming years, and the apartment market in the District is under even greater pressure due to outmigration to the suburbs." (Page 51)
"The multitude of deliveries and lack of absorption over the past year have worsened the crisis. With a rapidly increasing supply of units and renters seeking more affordable options during economic volatility, the District multifamily market will continue to be highly vulnerable to fluctuating demand and heightened competition in the short-term, but prospects remain positive over the long-term for the city." (Page 52)
The report goes on to say that whether the apartment market recovers from the current downturn is dependent in part on "Postponement of some of the multifamily construction pipeline in supply-burdened submarkets to avoid further weighing down the market." (Page 53)
"Supply-burdened submarkets" makes it sound like developers have a different definition of housing crisis than urbanists. But you should the report yourself, dude.
I never said the projects were shovel ready. I said there were projects that were approved but unbuilt. Free and clear of the NIMBY hurdles, both real and imagined. Zoning isn't what's preventing construction. Not building is a choice that developers are making, probably to maximize their investments in land and to protect their rents at existing buildings. I don't think the big developers are colluding (conspiracy was your word, not mine), but the economics of their businesses are all similar, so it's not surprising they would all reach similar conclusions.
So there's your proof. Montgomery County's development pipeline and extension/amendment applications tell the same story, but it's not packaged up as nicely.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 15:44
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
You're truly out to lunch if you think ~11,000 yet-to-be-delivered units in the Montgomery County pipeline solves the housing crisis. We live in a metro area of over 6 million people.
The research is sound. It'd be great if you could engage with it instead of saying something that sounds intelligent, like that it "is small N" but just reveals that you haven't actually read any of it.
Montgomery County's pipeline has 30,000 residential units in it. More than two thirds of those units were approved since 2015. You're truly out to lunch if you don't know that. Some of those units will never be built because planning allowed developers to downsize as they closed in on delivery, and some of those units became short-term rentals, again with planning's blessing. That's a lot of saying YIMBY, so saying YIMBY clearing isn't sufficient to solve the housing crisis, even though it is necessary. To solve the housing crisis, it needs to get a lot more uncomfortable for the developers sitting on these approvals. Plan validity duration should be reduced and fees for extensions should go up based on the severity of the housing crisis.
I have read the research. You overextrapolate from it. Get familiar with what's going on in this area and then comment again. It's hard to fix a market when you don't understand what's actually happening in that market.
One thing that never works is supply side economics, unless your goal is increasing the wealth gap, and then it's a great policy. There's a lot of research on that.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 14:32
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:When I look both ways on K and 1st NW - there are a ton of new buildings being built and/or empty lots being razed. Seems that there is quite a bit of building going on and I was told that there is a significant portion of low income housing going up. Sorry - I just don’t see the need to tear down zoning in places with trees when the need is being met in other parts of the city that need development and investment.
The need for more housing is not being met by construction on a few blocks near Union Station.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 14:21
Subject: Re:We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
When I look both ways on K and 1st NW - there are a ton of new buildings being built and/or empty lots being razed. Seems that there is quite a bit of building going on and I was told that there is a significant portion of low income housing going up. Sorry - I just don’t see the need to tear down zoning in places with trees when the need is being met in other parts of the city that need development and investment.
Anonymous
08/28/2021 13:32
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
Dear lord, you keep citing this conspiracy theory that thousands of units are shovel ready. That just isn't true dude. Please cite one article or proof. I'll wait.
It makes 0 economic sense. Have you ever run a business?
Anonymous
08/28/2021 13:25
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:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
You're truly out to lunch if you think ~11,000 yet-to-be-delivered units in the Montgomery County pipeline solves the housing crisis. We live in a metro area of over 6 million people.
The research is sound. It'd be great if you could engage with it instead of saying something that sounds intelligent, like that it "is small N" but just reveals that you haven't actually read any of it.
Anonymous
08/27/2021 22:11
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Just like the urbanists scuttle away when it’s pointed out that developers have approvals for tens of thousands units that they’re just sitting on. Build those, housing crisis solved.
The research cited is small N, and urbanists overextend the arguments. I say this as someone who believes upzoning is necessary but not sufficient.
Anonymous
08/27/2021 20:54
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.
It most certainly does, and has been posted numerous times in several similar threads. It's very interesting how people who take your position scuttle away whenever it's posted, only to pop back up in another thread spouting the same nonsense like it never happened.
Anonymous
08/27/2021 19:35
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
“You can’t build your way to affordable housing!” I tweet from my brand new $285K townhome in Houston.
https://twitter.com/AaronGuhreen/status/1431354280900915200/photo/1
Go away NIMBYs!
https://twitter.com/AaronGuhreen/status/1431354280900915200/photo/1
Go away NIMBYs!
Anonymous
08/27/2021 17:12
Subject: We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I hate hate hate these Upzoning ideas. These developers are brilliant for turning these folks into their third party validators.
Upzoning and reducing land use restrictions is sound policy validated by years of high-quality research, no matter how many times you post the same brainless rants and raves.
Actually it’s not and the best research on the subject doesn’t support this conclusion.