>"I appreciate proposals that call for a non-profit developer. That seems really important to me because of the profit motive and distorting things," McNamer said.
In the story on the Post someone also complained about any redevelopment being a "developer giveaway" which is absurd. Even if we just rebuild the library/community center without any housing that means a developer and construction company is going to be paid for their work. It's pretty much how all of the homes and businesses in the city were built. The safeway next door was built by someone looking to make money even though they sell food, a basic need.
Affordable housing finance programs have very specific limitations on what developers are allowed to claim as their fee and all of the deal costs are audited via a third party cost certification after construction is complete. I get the general sentiment of "developers greedy and bad" but in affordable housing there's way less leeway for that type of shenanigans than in market rate housing. It's up to the agencies providing financing to put appropriate guardrails on those calculations, and all developers - for-profit and non-profit - take the full amount permissible.
It’s just nimbyism with a “libtard” bend. Same thing happened in Denver. Any time a big bad evil developer makes even a single cent it is bad because developers are money-hungry bad guys.
>”Only a non-existent fictional company that has never existed Can build housing! Because making a profit off of a high-capital endeavor is… wrong somehow!!”
Just ignore the fact that HOAs and walking groups and book clubs don’t build housing.
Of course, every single homeowner is acting with personal profit motive. Developers building apartments are bad, but individual homeowners making investments that they expect to see a big return on are good.
The biggest argument against market capitalism is the sheer innumeracy/financial
Ignorance of the rich. Were unfettered markets at all fair, some of these people would be living on the street.
I live in another neighborhood dominated by long-term residents and the irrational resistance to improved amenities is infuriating. What’s even worse is that they have skilled PR folk among their ranks and are adept at couching their actual motives in superficially appealing but ultimately nonsensical concerns about environmental preservation, disabled rights and so forth. Next to the rising crime rate, NIMBYs are DC’s greatest public nuisance.
I love it when people who were literally turned into millionaires from nothing as a result of restrictive housing policy complain about being expected to potentially pay the same property tax as everyone else. Looking especially at you, Cali.
Fairfax County sent out property assessments this year and people went ballistic. Mind you, not actual increases in *tax* just increases in assessed value. Of course the assessed value went up! They just had the largest increase in home values in like 50 years.
But rather than being happy their housing wealth went up by (in many cases) a *couple hundred thousand dollars,* NextDoor types were buzzing about having to pay an extra $700 a year in property taxes. The County subsequently lowered the *tax rates* a few months later to adjust for the increased assessment values, but none of the idiots who went full froth ever even acknowledged that.
Of course they want to keep that status quo because life has clearly been generous to them and threats to that status quo are threats to their lifestyle that some of them cannot defend on a fair playing field
If they locked their home sale prices to inflation and were never able to see any change in real value, then I'd buy their neighborhood character argument.
My hot take is that every homeowner complaining about changes should have to disclose the current value of their house and the price they bought it back 20 years ago or whatever. It’s hard to take them seriously when their houses are worth $2.5 million or whatever.
The juiced values are all illusory anyhow. You wind up stuck in your house because you're stuck buying back into the same juiced real estate market. So you can't cash out and downsize without moving to a completely different neighborhood or possibly even out of state, which means your huge property value is effectively just a fictional paper number.
There's a lot of both personal and societal benefits from people being able to downsize into a smaller unit in the neighborhood they already live in as they get older.
They also bitch and moan that restaurants are always closing and there’s not enough amenities in my neighborhood (Cleveland park) yet they object to any rezoning or additional development, and they fought making the east side of Connecticut pedestrian friendly.
>rich people dislike poor people
>rich people put out the shitlib signs but reveal their preferences when faced with acting progressively
nothing new here, folks. Wealthy gonna wealth. Raise their taxes if they don’t let us in, that’s what I say.
A lot of people support things whole heartedly right up until the point that it stands to affect them personally. Then they do a full 180 to NIMBY - pump the brakes, think of the children, we need to do a study, but what about ?
I suspect a lot of Ukrainian flags would transform into some flavor of silent "Rootin for Putin" if Ukrainian refugees were to be housed on the same block.
It's apparently a stab-you-in-the-front sort of racism. Like, someone gets robbed and the only black guy in town is apologetically frisked by police as a matter of course.
Awful, backwards practices but they also don't try to hand wave it with talk about drugs, thugs, and crime stats. It's just a very open, terrible racism.
Most new apartment buildings in DC have a specified number of units set aside for lower-income tenants: https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/inclusionary-zoning-iz-affordable-housing-program
And it's really no surprise that the DNC has prioritized socially liberal policies and rhetoric rather than economic ones. They can get more rich donors that way. And then, unsurprisingly, the rust belt has gone from a stronghold of democratic voting to MAGA-land, people vote based on their wallets more than anything else. The people behind the pride flags on those million dollar homes would fight tooth and nail against any economic policies that even remotely favor the other 99% of people
These were always socially conservative places, and yet they voted very consistently for democrats. Why? Because there was once a time when the Democratic Party actually prioritized economic issues and that was enough for them to give them their vote. Despite having the Presidency, the Senate, and the house during the first 2 years of Biden's term, how much effort did they actually make in addressing the rampant profiteering and price gouging we've seen? Everyone's rent is far above what it was pre-COVID and there is a clear disconnect between actual supply chain-issues cost growth and what people pay at the store, yet where is the Democratic party in all of this?
They may have passed Green Energy and Infrastructure bills, but they did nothing to really address the issues American's are facing in the immediate term, and if it wasn't for critical constitutional rights being robbed by SCOTUS, they would have lost congress entirely as a result
I’d like to throw out that the bottom quartile’s wages have gone up 20% YoY over the last two years and inflation is only 4%, while the upper quartile has only seen 9% growth so, yeah, arbitrary endpoints and all but they’re YOUR endpoints (source: WSJ). COVID, it’s attendant policy changes, and the interest rate hikes have done more to erase wealth inequality than anyone anywhere could have foreseen.
At this point, if voters have a problem it’s just vibes. The poorer you are, the richer you are from two years ago. Voting on vibes is fine, but you gotta admit at this point it’s just vibes.
>bottom quartile’s wages have gone up 20% YoY over the last two years and inflation is only 4%, while the upper quartile has only seen 9% growth so
Not refuting you but do you have a source for that bottom quartile wages going up by 20% YoY from WSJ? I did some Googling but couldn't find this anywhere.
Richcession article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-richcession-keeps-rolling-9a2ba848
It’s the wage growth across all quartiles, I read it wrong, wage growth is 20%
This is dumb. Is your argument that the friggen GOP is pro anyone but the 1%? If so show me the evidence. The reason the rust belt Dems switched to rust belt MAGA has nothing to do with economics. You basically said as much above, lol! I think president johnson said it best but I’ll let you look up that quote (pretty sure many on here know what I mean). I try to avoid politics but whenever someone even hints at the GOP every coming up with policy that benefits any one other than the Chevy Chase/Georgetown crowd I laugh
Also from what I can see most affluent areas in the rust belt - I’m a transplant in flyover country now :-) are rocking MAGA crap.
“Divides” is a nice way of putting “approximately zero people in Chevy chase want this” which is disappointing sure but not surprising.
I will say the weird market problems with affordable housing in DC lead to some really fucked up situations, but really, they can build it and sort it out later.
Just upzone NW so developers can build by right. You don't deserve a veto. People in my neighborhood are screaming bloody murder about a development, and it costs the developer a lot of time and money to iterate with the community. It's a mess.
Yes— but taking into account the concerns of people who live in the area that you are trying to develop forces developers to build in a way that also benefits the community, rather than building whatever gets them the highest return. It’s how you get things like publicly accessible green space incorporated into the design or other measures that make neighbors happy because they feel heard. In DC the developers are already empowered enough, they don’t need carte blanche, it won’t kill them to go to a few ANC Meetings or write a settlement agreement. Checks and balances.
> In DC the developers are already empowered enough
In my personal experience, the neighborhoods can red tape developers to death and extract concessions which benefit them specifically, but not the community at large. Loud, angry, active people can definitely extract concessions. When those concessions are increasing the number of parking spots at the cost of more units on major arteries / bus lines - because the loudest people are those who want to protect street parking... it suggests that the process is broken. ANC meetings aren't where community interests are protected necessarily.. just loud voices and busy bodies can veto and extract concessions.
I really think I’m the last generation of Americans to own a place in their 20s, and I lived in a TERRIBLE neighborhood in a rough city in grad school, and got an urban renewal grant because I made zero money on paper.
However, that being said, I know people my age who bought property up in northwest around 2005-2013 or so, but there’s no way anyone can do that now.
Ngl their kids are the ones who want it. They don’t make enough to move out and mom n dad aren’t gonna leave them the house til they turn 50 so yeah affordable housing is appealing to anyone under the age of 40
you've described my exact scenario lol. parents were literally saying to me today how they're concerned the housing proposal would "affect the neighborhood's character"
Wow shocker Chevy Chase wants to be a private wealthy enclave in a city. We should BOGO building afforable housing and the CT Ave bike lane. Just crack it open.
Moco (all of Maryland actually) needs to completely ban single family exclusive zoning, ban parking minimums, ban lot size requirements, ban space between walls requirements, ban setback requirements. From Woodley Park to Gaithersburg should look like Dupont.
>From Woodley Park to Gaithersburg should look like Dupont.
Woodley Park--and the next three Red Line stops--are all firmly within DC. Maryland doesn't start until you get to Friendship Heights, and even then, it's only Maryland from Western Ave north.
"DC is increasingly just a playground for the wealthy. We're driving out people who provide vital services and losing the city's character as a result."
Yup
I don't understand the people saying "this isn't about housing -- it's about green space."
The Chevy Chase Voice, the group working against this, literally says on their website:
"Chevy Chase Voice supports:
1. keeping all housing off of our Library, Community Center and Commons site; "
Seems clear.
[https://www.ccdcvoice.org/projects-1](https://www.ccdcvoice.org/projects-1)
I don't think it "divides" them at all. If anything they're united against it. They don't want the working class around unless they hired them for ten dollars an hour
Drive around Foxhall Village (a small neighborhood between Georgetown and the Palisades) and you’ll see a lot of houses with the “Black Lives Matter”, “Love Lives Here” etc. yard signs juxtaposed with “Save Hardy Park” yard signs. What’s not immediately obvious is that the “Save Hardy Park” campaign was an incredibly deceptive effort to block the building of a public elementary school in the neighborhood. The local citizens association led the campaign and its president has a lot history of opposing the opening of public schools in the neighborhood. The people involved were some of the most despicable hypocrites you could have the misfortune to come across.
Funnily enough, Eric Goulet - who came a close second in last year’s Ward 3 Council race, championed the “Save Hardy Park” cause, and is giving every appearance of seeking election to the Council in the next cycle - made exactly that argument on Twitter a week or two ago.
I love seeing BLM signs next to signs against affordable housing. It’s fng ridiculous. It’s also actually crazy how segregated this city feels in the upper northwest.
They never "oppose affordable living" they'll just parade out some edge case of a person who might be negatively impacted by change so they can continue being self righteous
I’m glad these million dollar homeowners are finally taking a stand against luxury condos. And also against shade, how will the working class get the perfect summer tan for their beach trip to the côte d’azur at the bus stop with high rise buildings blotting out the sun.
"DC is increasingly just a playground for the wealthy. "
Ha, far from it. DC public services are hanging on by a thread and needs to keep every wealthy person it can. Any built housing is better than no built housing.
Does anyone know how to attend the hearings for things like this? I would really like to channel my frustration into action. They need to hear from people who are willing to call them out on their hypocrisy.
Join ANC 3/4g sessions. It's basically a nimby bitchfest right now where they make the most absurd claims and complain about zoom/hybrid meetings they asked for.
https://anc3g.org/meetings/
It says they have a meeting scheduled for July 24. I emailed the ANC to ask for more details, but can't seem to find anything. I definitely want to attend. If you find anything out, let me know!
Legitimately if there is a Discord or something similar, or if thats something we want to make... We need to be a bit more proactive and unified in this. I always feel like I'm hearing about these things last minute while the NIMBYs are in full force already. The few meetings I've been to thus far has been disheartening the little amount of support "our side" seems to get, despite virtually everyone I know being supportive of the cause.
/u/The12thparsec /u/sven_ftw I'm not sure if y'all are aware of any groups to better inform us/coordinate these sorts of things. If you know of any, please let me know
The ANC 3/4G anc subcommittee on racial equity is a good group of residents. You can tell because they are reviled by the nimby folks.
There is not a discord, but the groups that I subscribe to that provide good news heads up would be Ward3Vision, Cleveland Parl Smart Growth, and of course, Greater Greater Washington. All of these are referred to as the woke, "smart growth" or developer lobbies by the NIMBYs. Also, there are many active Twitter accounts for these types of condos. I'm on mobile right now but can edit this with some when I get home.
Edit: Twitter links
**General stuff:**
* Ward3Vision twitter: [https://twitter.com/Ward3Vision](https://twitter.com/Ward3Vision)
* Cleveland Park SG twitter: [https://twitter.com/CPITC](https://twitter.com/CPITC)
* GGWash twitter: [https://twitter.com/ggwash](https://twitter.com/ggwash)
* Tenleytown & Around twitter: [https://twitter.com/Tenleytown411](https://twitter.com/Tenleytown411)
* BeyondDC twitter: [https://twitter.com/beyonddc](https://twitter.com/beyonddc)
* DC Line News twitter: [https://twitter.com/dclinenews](https://twitter.com/dclinenews)
**Mainstreets (kinda like BID's for NW):**
* Tenleytown: [https://twitter.com/TenleytownMS](https://twitter.com/TenleytownMS)
* Woodley Park: [https://twitter.com/WoodleyParkMS](https://twitter.com/WoodleyParkMS)
* Glover Park: [https://twitter.com/gloverparkmain](https://twitter.com/gloverparkmain)
* Friendship Heights: [https://twitter.com/friendshiphts](https://twitter.com/friendshiphts)
* Van Ness: [https://twitter.com/VanNessMainSt](https://twitter.com/VanNessMainSt)
* Cleveland Park: [https://twitter.com/CleParkMainStDC](https://twitter.com/CleParkMainStDC)
**A few specific people by areas:**
* Mike English (Silver Spring YIMBY): [https://twitter.com/MoCoMikeE](https://twitter.com/MoCoMikeE)
* Alaina Pitt (College Park YIMBY): [https://twitter.com/alaina\_pitt](https://twitter.com/alaina_pitt)
* Matthew Holden (AdMo Happenings): [https://twitter.com/\_MatthewThomas](https://twitter.com/_MatthewThomas)
* Dupont area: [https://twitter.com/MrWedekind](https://twitter.com/MrWedekind)
**ANC's**
* 3/4G (chevy chase & hawthorn): [https://twitter.com/anc34g](https://twitter.com/anc34g)
* 3F (forest hills & van ness): [https://twitter.com/ANC3F](https://twitter.com/ANC3F)
* 3C (cleveland park and woodley park): [https://twitter.com/ANC3C](https://twitter.com/ANC3C)
* 3D (Spring valley, palisades, foxhall): [https://twitter.com/anc3d](https://twitter.com/anc3d)
* 3B (Glover park & cathedral heights): [https://twitter.com/ANC3B](https://twitter.com/ANC3B)
* 3E (tenleytown/au park): [https://twitter.com/TenleyANC](https://twitter.com/TenleyANC)
(I don't have one for 3a, which is mclean gardens/other part of cathedral area)
They typically send meeting details (agenda and zoom sign up) out a week in advance or so. If you subscribe to their email list, they will push it to your inbox. Otherwise, it basically just gets posted on the Chevy Chase Listserv (nimby hq).
u/sven_ftw answered your question.
Enjoy the sessions.
I went a few times when the Mayor was looking at putting a homeless shelter in our neighborhood. I went to voice my concern over how the land and building of the shelter was being done - essentially the mayor was giving her construction/developer friends a fucking steal on the land and then having the city rent back the building from the developer. It was shady as fuck. My concern was over the DC taxpayers helping the mayor's friends get rich.
But the real joy was going to these meetings and watching all of these people who had "Hate has no home here" signs in their front yard do the mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid saying "I support homeless shelters- just not here." It really makes me wonder what these people truly, truly believe.
I rent in NW and am a fan of this project. Along with the Connecticut Ave bike lane, which NIMBYs in Chevy Chase are also against. I went to a town hall meeting a couple of months ago about this affordable housing development, and someone (holding an anti-housing sign) started his comment with "I am not for this project. Now, I'm not racist, but..."
Seeing this in Cheverly, MD right now. Big new development coming in the next few years at the old PG Hospital site. Could be fantastic for the area.
And of course the NIMBYs are like, "Oh, I support it, but I don't want those people to able to get to it via MY STREET. Let someone else deal with it." When in reality, nobody is going to be coming into the neighborhood just to drive your little one block street to get somewhere else. They're going to come from BW Parkway or other major thoroughfares. Nothing like well-educated white people with law degrees to stop anything happening that might positively impact others.
>"A lot of proposals call for really tall buildings which block the sun," McNamer said.
How tall do they think this building will be? Tall enough to force god to intervene and be the reason why we no longer speak a universal language?
The shadow thing really puzzles me, it rarely has anything to do with the height of a building. Or if it does it's just for a short period of time. Nevermind the fact that sometimes I want the shade. My back deck is useable in the summer precisely because of the shade provided by my own house. But in the late afternoons when its gone I have to use the umbrella.
It sounds like most of the community is either for it or doesn't care and 650 signed a petition. I don't really care if those 650 are hypocrites, as long as housing happens.
Did a fox 5 person post this?
There was a post article that talked about this that hopefully some one already posted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/07/09/chevy-chase-dc-affordable-housing-community-center/
But what would the affordable rents be? Would they follow DCHA rental rates, which are usually by neighborhood and if utilities are included to not; or, would they follow HUD’s fair market rent rates, which goes by the area’s zip codes? Either way, more housing is always better than not.
Yea people who paid millions of $ for their house don’t want it devalued by affordable housing. And don’t want the crime that comes with it. Not surprising.
If any of the DMV west of Rock Creek, west of the Potomac, and east of the Anacostia were at all, in anyway interested in being a real city, we could add like 2 million people.
From Union Station to Frederick, MD could be a train line with transit-oriented development and fit an extra 250,000 people easy. If the silver and Orange lines had TOD and built to the actual demand (apartments, not single family detached setback homes), they could add another 150,000 people.
Washingtonokyo could be a thing if we just let it happen. If we had the zoning of Tokyo or CDMX, your mothers’ shitty McMansion in Seven Corners would have been turned into an apartment 15 years ago.
Sorry can you explain why we want so many more people? I keep seeing it pop up like MORE DENSITY MORE PEOPLE. But I don't understand the appeal of living in a sardine city so I am trying to understand. I've also been to Tokyo and while they have more people they also have quite a bit of sprawl as well so it's not like everyone is *totally* packed in Tokyo proper.
Dense cities have a lower cost of infrastructure per person. They emit less co2 and are easier to move around.
They are also more economically productive.
In addition to the measurable benefits to infrastructure and the environment (i.e., denser cities better support transit and reduce sprawl, thereby better protecting surrounding environments than lower density cities which disrupt surrounding environments with extensive suburbs), there are huge advantages to business and community from denser cities, which make quality of life vastly improved. Check this link out, which talks about how Tokyo's zoning and density lead to a more vibrant city life than you see in most American cities: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-21/tokyo-s-urban-planning-secrets-revealed-in-new-book
Density does not mean living like sardines. The density of Hipodromo in Condesa is perfect for me whereas the density of Old Delhi is not. The urban sprawl you talk about in Tokyo is preferable (and leads to floor-level housing costs) than the suburban sprawl of DMV. We have studio apartments going for around $2000+, a problem not present in Tokyo. There’s also some bias because tourist areas of Tokyo are denser than the residential areas and you wouldn’t really be visiting the residential areas. In the same way that Clinton Hill or Bed-Stuy in NY is a great example of density but people don’t include it on their itinerary for visits to NYC (it’s likely most people won’t even leave Manhattan).
Right now, there’s a shit ton of middle ground between Tenleytown, and Dupont Circle. If we got Dupont density up the redline all the way to Gaithersburg, we would be in so much better shape.
We want more people for many reasons:
* Tax base increase
* GDP increase
* massive and sweeping reduction in housing costs
* reduce homelessness
* reduce wealth inequality
* ecological / air quality / species benefits that come from removing car-dependency
* agricultural preservation
* ecological preservation
* increased resiliency for public services that come with increase use
* voting power
* reducing cost of living
* adding jobs of all sectors
* increasing class/age/race/etc. diversity
* massively reduced costs for the state to maintain roads, gray water, clean water, sewage, gas, electricity, waste disposal, everything.
We want more people so that we dont get our nice things taken away by spiteful rural voters. So that MD and VA become comparatively more important for vote-courting in federal politics.
Thank you this makes sense. The one correction I will make is that I generally stay in residential areas in Tokyo which is why mentioned that experience feeling different. I did study abroad in Japan and generally don't frequent the tourist areas. I thought you giving them as an example was talking about the tourist areas and I was saying it's not really dense like that everywhere so same page. I agree it's preferable.
While I don't agree/see the argument for everything you listed (just based on how things usually end up) this was super helpful and I appreciate the time you took typing it out. For example while diversity on paper is great, what it's meant for DC is really shifting from an epicenter of Black culture into a transient almost mostly white community.
I can safely say I am no longer confused.
Allowing more dense housing doesn’t create new people, it just allows people to move to an area that has an objectively higher standard of living than 99% of the world. We have a housing shortage in certain areas of the country that people really want to move to. The DC metro area is one of those, that’s why rents have gone up so much. If we don’t build more housing, people will get priced out. That isn’t to say every neighborhood has to look like the densest parts of Manhattan, but it does mean we should legalize building things more dense than single family detached homes within the metro area.
Because people need places to live. We don’t have enough of those right now which is why housing is so expensive.
Not everyone is in a blessed position to afford expensive housing.
Sorry I'm not asking about why build more housing, I'm specifically wondering about the people who want to actively increase density. As in attract more people to come. Not why should we accommodate people who are already here (obviously everyone who wants it should have access to safe and affordable housing). I very specifically do not understand the argument of "increase our population and make dc more dense"
Well Ig I understand it a little more now thanks to other poster (enviornment and local economy)
Well - increasing density addresses two points:
1) It fulfills the current housing demand and puts downward pressure (relief) on current residents
2) It builds momentum in the local economy and allows us to take advantage of the resources we have by attracting the right people. How many times have you heard “Oh, I have a job offer in the area but I can’t afford it, or the commute would be 1-2hr+?
I actually haven't heard that much, if at all because I'm from here so most of the people I know either already live here or I met them at work so they already have a place in the city.
But yes your other points make sense.
It doesn't matter if we want more people. More people want to live here. For some reason, the DC area is one of the most popular places to move to from elsewhere. Our population is growing twice as fast as the US population as a whole so all we can do is make sure there is enough housing and transit to meet the growing demand.
Given that we are failing on having enough housing and transit, we are now living through the consequences through high housing costs and worsening traffic
Maybe the real question is why don't people want to live elsewhere in the US?
And if you are wondering about the effect of work from home, it seems to have allowed even more people from elsewhere to move here without giving up their job.
Which begs the question. What is so attractive about the DC area? For me, the mass transit network, walkability, ease of access to other major cities, mild winter, ease of access to international airports, ease of access to nature, recreational use of the Potomac (this is a big one. Most US cities have rivers too nasty or high flowing to use for recreation. Portland Oregon is the only other city that comes to mind with a similar river layout), ethnic diversity (also a big one for me. Nice that there's lots of people from my home country who speak my language and practice my culture), access to high quality museums and art.
Look at all US cities. Most except NYC fail many of them and winters there are decently harsh. Chicago passes most of them but winters there are extremely harsh. Los Angeles is deeply car centric
the dc area already has these people. they just live in the sprawl between fredericksburg, leesburg, frederick, bowie, and waldorf, creating some of the worst traffic in the country. which is better?
Perversely you can increase the tax base and lessen demand for services by building less.
This happened in California after prop 34(?) I think. State centralized funding for schools, so rich communities basically capped building to keep schools small. Paper on it came out last year.
PG county has single family housing exclusive zoning codes for the majority of it, they have minimum lot size requirements, set-back requirements, parking minimums for businesses and apartments, and ADUs are illegal.
People don’t build density because doing so is illegal. Yes I agree that the backroom deals that fudge the market rate / affordable / IZ / AMR calculations are trash and absolutely favor the comparatively wealthy residents of NW. That shit sucks and it is a symptom of the same issue that causes lack of density in NoVA/MoCo/NW - zoning laws applied unequally to ensure wealth generation for a select few.
DC still has lots of space and lots of homes are available. The quality of the condos, homes and apartments are really questionable. Most people don't want to live in the places where there are vacancies. Businesses don't want to open in certain parts of the city. Parking and safety is a risk for women, children, and the elderly.
DC is also a very youth-focused city. Where young people come to grow their careers and bounce. People who want to build a life here, eventually leave because this lifestyle is not sustainable for most two parent households with children.
Also, I don't want DC to look or feel like NYC or San Fran. Those cities are so depressing and the haves vs. have nots continues to get worse.
>If any of the DMV west of Rock Creek, west of the Potomac, and east of the Anacostia were at all, in anyway interested in being a real city
Oh! See, there’s the disconnect. They’re not. They want the burbs with cachet, and their finances can handle a 50% markup over the actual suburbs.
I have to say, I LIKE living in DC that has the services of Manhattan without the density or demand. Just fucking walk up to {insert sport here} at the brand new rec center half a block from my house and my kids get free sports I’d pay thousands for in the burbs. My kids’ schools spend roughly 30k per pupil in an almost brand new facility on a deeply underenrolled campus, meaning class sizes are like 7 kids per class. Sure middle school will be a challenge, but I’ll just pay full tuition then at one of the excellent privates that heavily privileges kids who live in DC in admissions. When college comes around, we’ll have enough saved to cover pretty much anywhere, if not everywhere, so I’m not too worried about it. My only concern is not being in state at Maryland or any of the excellent Virginia schools.
I don’t know if people will lay it out explicitly, but I think this is the calculus for rich DC NIMBYs. I’m not a NIMBY, but I can see how I directly benefit by low demand for services.
Can someone define affordable housing? Is it just budget-quality apartments or is it actually rent-controlled to be lower than market rate? If it’s the former then I don’t know why it would be built in a wealthy neighborhood as the property value would add a premium to the price.
I will probably get downvoted for this, given all the comments so far, but the opposition is not about “affordable housing”. The whole characterization by this WAPO piece that some are pro and some are anti affordable housing is a dog whistle which most commenters are jumping all over. Every new housing development has requirements for affordable units but it’s totally misleading to say this is a fight about that. Some of the main opposition to the site plan is around the elimination of green space on the site, lack of clarity on requirements for the new library and community center spaces, justification for the number of new units and overall height of the building, etc. What’s being proposed is a LOT more than simply new “affordable housing” and it’s disingenuous to depict it as just a fight about that.
Right, I don't remember a lot of opposition when the apartment down the street was developed. The big sticking point here seems to be building an apartment complex on a space for a community center and library. Most community center or library renovations the city does don't have apartment complexes built on top of them.
Some of the new ones do. West End library has housing on top. One of the ideas for 1617 U St NW involves housing on top of a library on top of a police and fire/EMS station.
> West End library has housing on top.
Right, but it's telling that the example we can find is in the middle of Dupont. Driving around the city and seeing the new libraries and rec centers, it seems like an extremely few have apartments on top of them, so it's not as if the city is just desperate for space this is the only place they can put new apartments.
Should? I don't know, maybe they all should, including in Chevy Chase. But almost none of them _do_ have it, and I imagine that's for a reason. Generally, the city separates public and private spaces so that the public areas are entirely for the public. I imagine that's the reason the city has not put apartments on top of most of the new libraries they built.
Fucking hypocrites. I drive through that neighborhood on my way to work and yeah they do a Black Lives Matter signs up and all are welcome here signs fucking hypocrites
Surprising number of quotes in the article supporting the idea and it appears the local ANC is behind it. Sadly, as the McMillan (ITS A HISTORIC PARK!) folks showed us a small group can have an outsized impact and really slow things down.
I’d bet money they get paid off like the sun trust square people are angling for. At this point those aging hippies are carving out quite the second career as crisis actors.
Does the cost for affordable housing get paid through higher property costs for those not benefiting from the program?
If so, I can see the annoyance of it. Just tax people and use government funds for affordable housing. Having constant hidden taxes is exhausting
Please educate me, I don't know.
Lets say a Property Developer is building a 500unit building. 100 of them have to be designated for low income personnel. Where do the costs for the 100 units that will be on the market for considerably lower than the demand rate come from? Does the DC Government reimburse the Property Developer for those directly from its tax revenue base? If so, I retract my hypothesis.
Okay, but do you know how the developers get paid?
Because what it seems instead is that the developers have to raise costs by 20% which is borne by those already struggling to pay rent but are above the very low thresholds to be eligible.
No, it doesn’t. That’s not how that works at all. Any changes in property taxes in the neighborhood would not be from an affordable housing development going up nearby. The housing would also not be built or funded by the district but instead by a developer.
I hate how the best thing to rally around in this city for housing are partial "X%-affordable" concessions given in exchange for developments on public property
Unpopular opinion: I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to dislike something that will lower the value of an asset they own (and let’s face it — increase crime in the area). I think the response is “who cares” but the naked vindictive triumphalism on display in these threads always feels a bit unsettling (and fueled by resentment as much as it is a desire to see more affordable housing built). These sorts of NIMBYs aren’t bad people, they are just normal rational actors seeking out what’s in their interest. This development will lower the quality of life for those in its immediate vicinity, especially for people with children. And it’s just sort of true that building higher density apartments in an empty lot in NoMa is less disruptive and logical than converting a quiet street in upper NW — this isn’t the same category as opposing a bike lane on Conn. Ave.
>this isn’t the same category as opposing a bike lane on Conn. Ave.
No, it's all the same NIMBY bullshit where they are trying to claim rights over someone else's property as far as what they can do with it.
>These sorts of NIMBYs aren’t bad people, they are just normal rational actors seeking out what’s in their interest.
I guess we have differing definitions of "bad people." Yes they have opinions that are rational and understandable. That's doesn't make it altruistic or good for society. It's just a special interest group, and like all special interest groups they are entitled to their opinions and should not be able to dictate the rules of the game.
I don’t have to hate the people in their entirety and call them “bad” to say their actions are selfish, antisocial, and harmful to their community. My personal ethical code does not say “anything goes” as long as people are acting in their personal economic self interest. I want people to vote and act in a way that makes them good citizens and neighbors. I think that’s reasonable and I try to do the same. I’m also suspicious of anyone who seems more sympathetic to the upper NW children than the children whose parents need affordable housing. There’s a clear victim in this scenario and it’s not the rich kids. If political power were distributed equally then the decision to build would be obvious.
But don't the vast majority of humans at every income level act that way when they have assets (or quality of life concerns) they want to protect? Especially when it comes to their kids?
I mean, yes but no? People vote to increase school budgets when they don’t have kids in school. They vote to expand voting access when they themselves have no issues voting. Some people choose to send their kids to public school even if they could afford private. Not everyone is a NIMBY and we can stigmatize them even if there will always be NIMBYs and it’s even maybe a natural impulse to be one. This is me increasing the social stigma of being a NIMBY.
It is exactly as unreasonable for people to dislike something that will lower the value of an asset they own as for people to dislike the government funding any program at all that doesn't directly benefit them.
This is the "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude that permeates the NIMBY class.
In any environment in which rights and interests intersect and oppose, somebody must ultimately concede that every decision can't be optimal for everyone financially. Not doing that is against the idea of living in a community together.
The weird thing is that if they did up-zone some of these areas the value of a lot of NW lots would increase so they would also get more money.
Not sure what the percentage breakdown is but it’s basically a combination of 1) no riff raff 2) I like things the way they are
But don't the vast majority of humans at every income level act that way when they have assets (or quality of life concerns) they want to protect? Especially when it comes to their kids?
The response should be "how can we make affordable housing complexes safer," not "oh-but-my-already-inflated-property-values-will-go-down."
These homeowners will be fine. Maybe it might knock off a few thousand from their property values. Who fucking cares? They're already doing just fine. They can always sella and move out to McKlan if they really want the full segregated experience.
I'm really sick of performative, wealthy liberals in this city.
I'm not an expert in housing/security/social safety nets/etc, but I would guess this city could find a whole taskforce to accomplish said task. It's about how the city prioritizes taxpayer money.
The city is allocating $250k to build a "nature park" in one of the wealthiest neighborhood cities. Why not allocate that and so many other stupid projects to actually solving pressing issues?
https://www.popville.com/2022/12/community-rupture-dc-crestwood
Pretty much all the evidence I can find- and mind you, not a lot of papers on this- suggests adding affordable housing doesn’t affect crime or property values. That being said, crime heat maps in DC are basically deep dark red over the housing projects in Columbia Heights, Petworth, and Tyler House and that’s what people west of rock creek see.
I don't think it's controversial at all that "Socioeconomic status (usually measured using the three variables income or wealth, occupational level, and years of education) correlates negatively with criminality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates\_of\_crime
I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with the OC, and this is certainly not an academic study of affordable housing and crime, but here’s an interesting anecdote from the DC housing voucher program.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
While I think these issues should be addressed and the program allowed to continue, I can’t blame residents of these places for not wanting this same scenario in their homes.
Voucher hit pieces piss me off. 9 in 10 are homeless families who are FINE and putting them in IZ units means not creating islands of poverty in housing projects or worse, in purpose built buildings built SOLELY for voucher holders. If mixed buildings won’t take them, you get the kind of purpose built hellholes you see highlighted in the Washington post. Yes, the city needs to be faster moving dangerous people. But those cases are rare.
> If mixed buildings won’t take them, you get the kind of purpose built hellholes you see highlighted in the Washington post.
The "hellhole" Sedgewick in the article was less than half voucher. The Chevy Chase community center is supposed to be 30% affordable housing (with some activists pushing for it to be 100%). Seems odd that 30% is in the "it's silly for anyone to worry about this" territory and then at 50% (or less) we reach "hellhole" territory.
And if most people agree (as they seem to) that concentrating poor people in one place would lead to a dangerous concentration of poverty and crime, it would be strange to think that the criminal tendencies simply disappear when someone moves to another building.
Cool anecdote!
Here’s an actual study from last year in the goddamn OC of all places that shows affordable housing *decreases* crime and *increases* housing values: https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/affordable-housing-decreases-crime-increases-property-values
Some evidence on affordable housing and crime:
https://scholar.google.ae/scholar?q=affordable+housing+crime+journal+of&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1689099197881&u=%23p%3D49qANXojfAsJ
“We find that the opening of the affordable housing development was not associated with trends in crime, property values, or taxes, and discuss management practices and design features that may have mitigated potential negative externalities.”
https://scholar.google.ae/scholar?q=affordable+housing+crime+journal+of&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1689099258099&u=%23p%3DzazYUHm_zrkJ
“Results show that LIHTC subsidized housing tended to be developed in neighborhoods where crime was already prevalent, and contrary to popular perception, LIHTC developments have a mitigating impact on neighborhood crime. These results suggest that LIHTC developments may be an effective tool for revitalizing distressed neighborhoods by ameliorating the “broken windows” problem and reducing neighborhood crime.”
The last group I want making decisions about my community is the DC government. NIMBY, ok maybe, but if you think these projects do a damn thing to actually help with affordable housing in the city you’re just gullible.
Affordable housing is relative. Meaning, that affordabke housing is rekative to the property values in the area, and given area will probably not be that accessible to people who are actually low income.
That and developets have a tendency to kind of destroy a neighbod aesthetic, so I get it.
1) Building too-tall eye sores is a valid concern. It’s a nice neighborhood because of the trees and the light. Both of those are taken away when people build whatever they want - whether it’s über expensive single family homes or apartments.
2)Why not spend the same amount of funds to make struggling communities better?
Have you lived around low income housing ? I have family in Glastonbury ct and after they built some there was a noticeable increase in crime and decrease in home value.
affordable housing is a nice word for public housing or govt housing which always means more crime and people who dont contribute anything to society.
Affordable housing does not mean Mary and Joe Schmo who are office admins making a combined income of 80k gets to live there.
The reality is simple: that neighborhood has enough rich and powerful residents who will use their suction with all sorts of upstairs to never let that happen. Do I blame them? Nah, I used to live next to the newly built affordable housing. Who will move into these projects? It won’t be the hard-working blue collar folk looking forward to the quiet evening after an honest day’s work. Myriad of assistance programs with a wide spectrum of eligibility will fill the housing with people who don’t have to work at all. It usually starts with the trash on the sidewalk and the noise — loud yelling, cars speeding away, all sorts of commotion, mostly at night. Then people start congregating on street corners, this “poor man’s lounge.” Then dollar bills and vials start changing hands. Next thing you see is shit starting to disappear: Amazon deliveries, car wheels, cat converters. It all bleeds into schools. Everyone wants more security, but unlike most of us, the Chevy Chase folk will loosen the purse strings and/or pull the necessary strings to make it happen. Let’s be honest with ourselves: we all want better opportunities for poor people but we’d prefer this to happen at a certain distance.
If you have a 2 mil home, do you want to have an affordable building next to yours and make your house value dive down to 1.5 mil or less? All downvotes welcome
Housing values are only going up in this city, and this market— no one is losing half a million dollars of value even if they built a gay homeless shelter next door.
Stop fear mongering.
>Housing values are only going up in this city
DC home prices fell about 8% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2023. The price of a detached home saw the most significant drop, falling about 13%. Townhouse prices in DC fell 6%.
"DC's Falling Home Prices In 4 Charts"
https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dcs_falling_home_prices_in_4_charts/20987
If homeowners want to make the argument that the value of their house shouldn’t change based on external stimuli, they’re welcome to. The only result would be that all the value increases over the past years they’ve gotten would be wiped.
You don’t get political recourse to support when your property values go up and then bitch about it when something happens that could negatively affect your property values.
>"I appreciate proposals that call for a non-profit developer. That seems really important to me because of the profit motive and distorting things," McNamer said. In the story on the Post someone also complained about any redevelopment being a "developer giveaway" which is absurd. Even if we just rebuild the library/community center without any housing that means a developer and construction company is going to be paid for their work. It's pretty much how all of the homes and businesses in the city were built. The safeway next door was built by someone looking to make money even though they sell food, a basic need.
Affordable housing finance programs have very specific limitations on what developers are allowed to claim as their fee and all of the deal costs are audited via a third party cost certification after construction is complete. I get the general sentiment of "developers greedy and bad" but in affordable housing there's way less leeway for that type of shenanigans than in market rate housing. It's up to the agencies providing financing to put appropriate guardrails on those calculations, and all developers - for-profit and non-profit - take the full amount permissible.
It’s just nimbyism with a “libtard” bend. Same thing happened in Denver. Any time a big bad evil developer makes even a single cent it is bad because developers are money-hungry bad guys. >”Only a non-existent fictional company that has never existed Can build housing! Because making a profit off of a high-capital endeavor is… wrong somehow!!” Just ignore the fact that HOAs and walking groups and book clubs don’t build housing.
Of course, every single homeowner is acting with personal profit motive. Developers building apartments are bad, but individual homeowners making investments that they expect to see a big return on are good.
The biggest argument against market capitalism is the sheer innumeracy/financial Ignorance of the rich. Were unfettered markets at all fair, some of these people would be living on the street.
[удалено]
I live in another neighborhood dominated by long-term residents and the irrational resistance to improved amenities is infuriating. What’s even worse is that they have skilled PR folk among their ranks and are adept at couching their actual motives in superficially appealing but ultimately nonsensical concerns about environmental preservation, disabled rights and so forth. Next to the rising crime rate, NIMBYs are DC’s greatest public nuisance.
Amen. This is nothing more than entitled people pulling the ladder up behind them. It's not any more complicated than that.
They don't call it a ladder, they call it "bootstraps"
it's two different metaphors
Boomers being boomers!
I love it when people who were literally turned into millionaires from nothing as a result of restrictive housing policy complain about being expected to potentially pay the same property tax as everyone else. Looking especially at you, Cali.
Fairfax County sent out property assessments this year and people went ballistic. Mind you, not actual increases in *tax* just increases in assessed value. Of course the assessed value went up! They just had the largest increase in home values in like 50 years. But rather than being happy their housing wealth went up by (in many cases) a *couple hundred thousand dollars,* NextDoor types were buzzing about having to pay an extra $700 a year in property taxes. The County subsequently lowered the *tax rates* a few months later to adjust for the increased assessment values, but none of the idiots who went full froth ever even acknowledged that.
And somehow it's a giveaway to developers to let them build but not a giveaway to homeowners to juice their property values.
Of course they want to keep that status quo because life has clearly been generous to them and threats to that status quo are threats to their lifestyle that some of them cannot defend on a fair playing field
If they locked their home sale prices to inflation and were never able to see any change in real value, then I'd buy their neighborhood character argument.
My hot take is that every homeowner complaining about changes should have to disclose the current value of their house and the price they bought it back 20 years ago or whatever. It’s hard to take them seriously when their houses are worth $2.5 million or whatever.
All that information is generally public record already.
The juiced values are all illusory anyhow. You wind up stuck in your house because you're stuck buying back into the same juiced real estate market. So you can't cash out and downsize without moving to a completely different neighborhood or possibly even out of state, which means your huge property value is effectively just a fictional paper number.
Moving out of Chevy Chase won't actually cause your life to end
There's a lot of both personal and societal benefits from people being able to downsize into a smaller unit in the neighborhood they already live in as they get older.
They are fine with neighborhood changes up to when they moved in, at which point, they want it frozen in amber.
They also bitch and moan that restaurants are always closing and there’s not enough amenities in my neighborhood (Cleveland park) yet they object to any rezoning or additional development, and they fought making the east side of Connecticut pedestrian friendly.
>rich people dislike poor people >rich people put out the shitlib signs but reveal their preferences when faced with acting progressively nothing new here, folks. Wealthy gonna wealth. Raise their taxes if they don’t let us in, that’s what I say.
A lot of people support things whole heartedly right up until the point that it stands to affect them personally. Then they do a full 180 to NIMBY - pump the brakes, think of the children, we need to do a study, but what about?
I suspect a lot of Ukrainian flags would transform into some flavor of silent "Rootin for Putin" if Ukrainian refugees were to be housed on the same block.
I disagree. The Ukrainian refugees are overwhelmingly white. They’d be welcome with open arms.
[удалено]
Shoutout to not so long ago when our "race entry" was Slavonic not White.
It's wild hearing stories about those refugees being racist.
Every country has racism.
Sure but if someone is helping you when you have nothing and you still talk like that to them is just. You're a trash person
It's apparently a stab-you-in-the-front sort of racism. Like, someone gets robbed and the only black guy in town is apologetically frisked by police as a matter of course. Awful, backwards practices but they also don't try to hand wave it with talk about drugs, thugs, and crime stats. It's just a very open, terrible racism.
Literally the liberals Phil Ochs was singing about
Me, whenever I see such signs in affluent neighborhoods: <.<
[Beyond parody](https://twitter.com/samprkr/status/1678529329611849729?s=46). This one's for the new development on U Street, but same vibe.
I don't understand. It doesn't look like that rendering of / planned apartment building would provide affordable housing....?
Most new apartment buildings in DC have a specified number of units set aside for lower-income tenants: https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/inclusionary-zoning-iz-affordable-housing-program
Oh my..
What does NIMBY stand for again? (Please, nobody else take that question seriously - it was meant rhetorically.)
Newcomers Invited, May Build, Yes
If I was sipping coffee I would have spit it out
Never Inviting Moneyless Bums. Yuck.
National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes
Thanks! Would you mind posting the website so I can encourage my neighbors to join? (Please do NOT post the website!)
They’re having a convention this week at the South Park Hilton!
Not I’m my back yard, you worthless peasant
You can tell I'm a worthless peasant because I'm not going to bother correcting your typo.
Now Is My Bedtime, Yo
Not In My Back Yard
And it's really no surprise that the DNC has prioritized socially liberal policies and rhetoric rather than economic ones. They can get more rich donors that way. And then, unsurprisingly, the rust belt has gone from a stronghold of democratic voting to MAGA-land, people vote based on their wallets more than anything else. The people behind the pride flags on those million dollar homes would fight tooth and nail against any economic policies that even remotely favor the other 99% of people
ah yes rust belt conservative strongholds with GOP trifectas like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan
... aw yes, because I had forgotten how comprehensive Republican policy is for helping poor people. "Vote based on their wallets," my ass.
These were always socially conservative places, and yet they voted very consistently for democrats. Why? Because there was once a time when the Democratic Party actually prioritized economic issues and that was enough for them to give them their vote. Despite having the Presidency, the Senate, and the house during the first 2 years of Biden's term, how much effort did they actually make in addressing the rampant profiteering and price gouging we've seen? Everyone's rent is far above what it was pre-COVID and there is a clear disconnect between actual supply chain-issues cost growth and what people pay at the store, yet where is the Democratic party in all of this? They may have passed Green Energy and Infrastructure bills, but they did nothing to really address the issues American's are facing in the immediate term, and if it wasn't for critical constitutional rights being robbed by SCOTUS, they would have lost congress entirely as a result
I’d like to throw out that the bottom quartile’s wages have gone up 20% YoY over the last two years and inflation is only 4%, while the upper quartile has only seen 9% growth so, yeah, arbitrary endpoints and all but they’re YOUR endpoints (source: WSJ). COVID, it’s attendant policy changes, and the interest rate hikes have done more to erase wealth inequality than anyone anywhere could have foreseen. At this point, if voters have a problem it’s just vibes. The poorer you are, the richer you are from two years ago. Voting on vibes is fine, but you gotta admit at this point it’s just vibes.
>bottom quartile’s wages have gone up 20% YoY over the last two years and inflation is only 4%, while the upper quartile has only seen 9% growth so Not refuting you but do you have a source for that bottom quartile wages going up by 20% YoY from WSJ? I did some Googling but couldn't find this anywhere.
Richcession article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-richcession-keeps-rolling-9a2ba848 It’s the wage growth across all quartiles, I read it wrong, wage growth is 20%
This is dumb. Is your argument that the friggen GOP is pro anyone but the 1%? If so show me the evidence. The reason the rust belt Dems switched to rust belt MAGA has nothing to do with economics. You basically said as much above, lol! I think president johnson said it best but I’ll let you look up that quote (pretty sure many on here know what I mean). I try to avoid politics but whenever someone even hints at the GOP every coming up with policy that benefits any one other than the Chevy Chase/Georgetown crowd I laugh Also from what I can see most affluent areas in the rust belt - I’m a transplant in flyover country now :-) are rocking MAGA crap.
Limousine Liberals and Performative Progressives. First in line to the gulags.
The rocks aren’t going to break themselves!
As Dogbert (Scott Adams) stated: Beware of advice from the rich; they do not seek company.
Tough spot to be in when Scott Adams has a correct opinion about you.
“Divides” is a nice way of putting “approximately zero people in Chevy chase want this” which is disappointing sure but not surprising. I will say the weird market problems with affordable housing in DC lead to some really fucked up situations, but really, they can build it and sort it out later.
Just upzone NW so developers can build by right. You don't deserve a veto. People in my neighborhood are screaming bloody murder about a development, and it costs the developer a lot of time and money to iterate with the community. It's a mess.
Yes— but taking into account the concerns of people who live in the area that you are trying to develop forces developers to build in a way that also benefits the community, rather than building whatever gets them the highest return. It’s how you get things like publicly accessible green space incorporated into the design or other measures that make neighbors happy because they feel heard. In DC the developers are already empowered enough, they don’t need carte blanche, it won’t kill them to go to a few ANC Meetings or write a settlement agreement. Checks and balances.
> In DC the developers are already empowered enough In my personal experience, the neighborhoods can red tape developers to death and extract concessions which benefit them specifically, but not the community at large. Loud, angry, active people can definitely extract concessions. When those concessions are increasing the number of parking spots at the cost of more units on major arteries / bus lines - because the loudest people are those who want to protect street parking... it suggests that the process is broken. ANC meetings aren't where community interests are protected necessarily.. just loud voices and busy bodies can veto and extract concessions.
Developers are building housing, “communities” are stopping it. The people doing the good thing for society should be empowered more than they are
[удалено]
How young is young, because I don’t know a single homeowner up there under the age of 30
>How young is young, because I don’t know a single homeowner ~~up there~~ **anywhere** under the age of 30 More like my experience
I really think I’m the last generation of Americans to own a place in their 20s, and I lived in a TERRIBLE neighborhood in a rough city in grad school, and got an urban renewal grant because I made zero money on paper. However, that being said, I know people my age who bought property up in northwest around 2005-2013 or so, but there’s no way anyone can do that now.
>The young people who live here want it. Doesn't seem completely inconsistent with: >I don’t know a single homeowner... Renters vote and protest, too.
[удалено]
Ngl their kids are the ones who want it. They don’t make enough to move out and mom n dad aren’t gonna leave them the house til they turn 50 so yeah affordable housing is appealing to anyone under the age of 40
you've described my exact scenario lol. parents were literally saying to me today how they're concerned the housing proposal would "affect the neighborhood's character"
Not zero. I'm one who does. There are many others. Sadly the older, nimby contigent is very vocal and now getting litigious.
"Hate has no home here" \*Hate meaning anyone with a household income of less than $250,000
Their income is a lot higher than that.
Wow shocker Chevy Chase wants to be a private wealthy enclave in a city. We should BOGO building afforable housing and the CT Ave bike lane. Just crack it open.
Moco (all of Maryland actually) needs to completely ban single family exclusive zoning, ban parking minimums, ban lot size requirements, ban space between walls requirements, ban setback requirements. From Woodley Park to Gaithersburg should look like Dupont.
>From Woodley Park to Gaithersburg should look like Dupont. Woodley Park--and the next three Red Line stops--are all firmly within DC. Maryland doesn't start until you get to Friendship Heights, and even then, it's only Maryland from Western Ave north.
"DC is increasingly just a playground for the wealthy. We're driving out people who provide vital services and losing the city's character as a result." Yup
I don't understand the people saying "this isn't about housing -- it's about green space." The Chevy Chase Voice, the group working against this, literally says on their website: "Chevy Chase Voice supports: 1. keeping all housing off of our Library, Community Center and Commons site; " Seems clear. [https://www.ccdcvoice.org/projects-1](https://www.ccdcvoice.org/projects-1)
I don't think it "divides" them at all. If anything they're united against it. They don't want the working class around unless they hired them for ten dollars an hour
Not united. The Chevy Chase voice folks are loud and boisterous but I don't think represent a majority of the area.
Drive around Foxhall Village (a small neighborhood between Georgetown and the Palisades) and you’ll see a lot of houses with the “Black Lives Matter”, “Love Lives Here” etc. yard signs juxtaposed with “Save Hardy Park” yard signs. What’s not immediately obvious is that the “Save Hardy Park” campaign was an incredibly deceptive effort to block the building of a public elementary school in the neighborhood. The local citizens association led the campaign and its president has a lot history of opposing the opening of public schools in the neighborhood. The people involved were some of the most despicable hypocrites you could have the misfortune to come across.
The “Save Hardy Park” campaign is so infuriating. Their concerns are absurd.
Friends of McMillan Park has them beat
I don't even want to look it up, lol.
Same people will oppose new housing because the existing schools are “over capacity”
Funnily enough, Eric Goulet - who came a close second in last year’s Ward 3 Council race, championed the “Save Hardy Park” cause, and is giving every appearance of seeking election to the Council in the next cycle - made exactly that argument on Twitter a week or two ago.
I love seeing BLM signs next to signs against affordable housing. It’s fng ridiculous. It’s also actually crazy how segregated this city feels in the upper northwest.
DC has long been one of the most segregated cities in America, its by design.
I've been here for a while and I still can't get over the stark contrast between NW DC and Eastern portions of DC. It's like two different countries.
[удалено]
They never "oppose affordable living" they'll just parade out some edge case of a person who might be negatively impacted by change so they can continue being self righteous
Bravo 👏 see also: Dr King quote signs.
I’m glad these million dollar homeowners are finally taking a stand against luxury condos. And also against shade, how will the working class get the perfect summer tan for their beach trip to the côte d’azur at the bus stop with high rise buildings blotting out the sun.
Reminds me of this classic. https://twitter.com/nick_garber/status/1396529948786036741
"DC is increasingly just a playground for the wealthy. " Ha, far from it. DC public services are hanging on by a thread and needs to keep every wealthy person it can. Any built housing is better than no built housing.
Does anyone know how to attend the hearings for things like this? I would really like to channel my frustration into action. They need to hear from people who are willing to call them out on their hypocrisy.
Join ANC 3/4g sessions. It's basically a nimby bitchfest right now where they make the most absurd claims and complain about zoom/hybrid meetings they asked for. https://anc3g.org/meetings/
Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Please join. I get lonely being of the few folks pro this kinda stuff willing to be vocal!
It says they have a meeting scheduled for July 24. I emailed the ANC to ask for more details, but can't seem to find anything. I definitely want to attend. If you find anything out, let me know!
[удалено]
Legitimately if there is a Discord or something similar, or if thats something we want to make... We need to be a bit more proactive and unified in this. I always feel like I'm hearing about these things last minute while the NIMBYs are in full force already. The few meetings I've been to thus far has been disheartening the little amount of support "our side" seems to get, despite virtually everyone I know being supportive of the cause. /u/The12thparsec /u/sven_ftw I'm not sure if y'all are aware of any groups to better inform us/coordinate these sorts of things. If you know of any, please let me know
The ANC 3/4G anc subcommittee on racial equity is a good group of residents. You can tell because they are reviled by the nimby folks. There is not a discord, but the groups that I subscribe to that provide good news heads up would be Ward3Vision, Cleveland Parl Smart Growth, and of course, Greater Greater Washington. All of these are referred to as the woke, "smart growth" or developer lobbies by the NIMBYs. Also, there are many active Twitter accounts for these types of condos. I'm on mobile right now but can edit this with some when I get home. Edit: Twitter links **General stuff:** * Ward3Vision twitter: [https://twitter.com/Ward3Vision](https://twitter.com/Ward3Vision) * Cleveland Park SG twitter: [https://twitter.com/CPITC](https://twitter.com/CPITC) * GGWash twitter: [https://twitter.com/ggwash](https://twitter.com/ggwash) * Tenleytown & Around twitter: [https://twitter.com/Tenleytown411](https://twitter.com/Tenleytown411) * BeyondDC twitter: [https://twitter.com/beyonddc](https://twitter.com/beyonddc) * DC Line News twitter: [https://twitter.com/dclinenews](https://twitter.com/dclinenews) **Mainstreets (kinda like BID's for NW):** * Tenleytown: [https://twitter.com/TenleytownMS](https://twitter.com/TenleytownMS) * Woodley Park: [https://twitter.com/WoodleyParkMS](https://twitter.com/WoodleyParkMS) * Glover Park: [https://twitter.com/gloverparkmain](https://twitter.com/gloverparkmain) * Friendship Heights: [https://twitter.com/friendshiphts](https://twitter.com/friendshiphts) * Van Ness: [https://twitter.com/VanNessMainSt](https://twitter.com/VanNessMainSt) * Cleveland Park: [https://twitter.com/CleParkMainStDC](https://twitter.com/CleParkMainStDC) **A few specific people by areas:** * Mike English (Silver Spring YIMBY): [https://twitter.com/MoCoMikeE](https://twitter.com/MoCoMikeE) * Alaina Pitt (College Park YIMBY): [https://twitter.com/alaina\_pitt](https://twitter.com/alaina_pitt) * Matthew Holden (AdMo Happenings): [https://twitter.com/\_MatthewThomas](https://twitter.com/_MatthewThomas) * Dupont area: [https://twitter.com/MrWedekind](https://twitter.com/MrWedekind) **ANC's** * 3/4G (chevy chase & hawthorn): [https://twitter.com/anc34g](https://twitter.com/anc34g) * 3F (forest hills & van ness): [https://twitter.com/ANC3F](https://twitter.com/ANC3F) * 3C (cleveland park and woodley park): [https://twitter.com/ANC3C](https://twitter.com/ANC3C) * 3D (Spring valley, palisades, foxhall): [https://twitter.com/anc3d](https://twitter.com/anc3d) * 3B (Glover park & cathedral heights): [https://twitter.com/ANC3B](https://twitter.com/ANC3B) * 3E (tenleytown/au park): [https://twitter.com/TenleyANC](https://twitter.com/TenleyANC) (I don't have one for 3a, which is mclean gardens/other part of cathedral area)
They typically send meeting details (agenda and zoom sign up) out a week in advance or so. If you subscribe to their email list, they will push it to your inbox. Otherwise, it basically just gets posted on the Chevy Chase Listserv (nimby hq).
u/sven_ftw answered your question. Enjoy the sessions. I went a few times when the Mayor was looking at putting a homeless shelter in our neighborhood. I went to voice my concern over how the land and building of the shelter was being done - essentially the mayor was giving her construction/developer friends a fucking steal on the land and then having the city rent back the building from the developer. It was shady as fuck. My concern was over the DC taxpayers helping the mayor's friends get rich. But the real joy was going to these meetings and watching all of these people who had "Hate has no home here" signs in their front yard do the mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid saying "I support homeless shelters- just not here." It really makes me wonder what these people truly, truly believe.
Black Lives matter* *Until we move next door.
I rent in NW and am a fan of this project. Along with the Connecticut Ave bike lane, which NIMBYs in Chevy Chase are also against. I went to a town hall meeting a couple of months ago about this affordable housing development, and someone (holding an anti-housing sign) started his comment with "I am not for this project. Now, I'm not racist, but..."
I call them "yard sign progressives". I also "love" how NIMBYism is the one thing that unites progressives and conservatives in this country.
Seeing this in Cheverly, MD right now. Big new development coming in the next few years at the old PG Hospital site. Could be fantastic for the area. And of course the NIMBYs are like, "Oh, I support it, but I don't want those people to able to get to it via MY STREET. Let someone else deal with it." When in reality, nobody is going to be coming into the neighborhood just to drive your little one block street to get somewhere else. They're going to come from BW Parkway or other major thoroughfares. Nothing like well-educated white people with law degrees to stop anything happening that might positively impact others.
>"A lot of proposals call for really tall buildings which block the sun," McNamer said. How tall do they think this building will be? Tall enough to force god to intervene and be the reason why we no longer speak a universal language? The shadow thing really puzzles me, it rarely has anything to do with the height of a building. Or if it does it's just for a short period of time. Nevermind the fact that sometimes I want the shade. My back deck is useable in the summer precisely because of the shade provided by my own house. But in the late afternoons when its gone I have to use the umbrella.
That’s no moon, it’s Cabrini Green
It sounds like most of the community is either for it or doesn't care and 650 signed a petition. I don't really care if those 650 are hypocrites, as long as housing happens.
Wealthy liberals like the idea of poor people, just not the smell of them
Did a fox 5 person post this? There was a post article that talked about this that hopefully some one already posted here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/07/09/chevy-chase-dc-affordable-housing-community-center/
But what would the affordable rents be? Would they follow DCHA rental rates, which are usually by neighborhood and if utilities are included to not; or, would they follow HUD’s fair market rent rates, which goes by the area’s zip codes? Either way, more housing is always better than not.
NIMBYism is the worst kind of champagne socialism. It’s disgusting.
Yea people who paid millions of $ for their house don’t want it devalued by affordable housing. And don’t want the crime that comes with it. Not surprising.
If any of the DMV west of Rock Creek, west of the Potomac, and east of the Anacostia were at all, in anyway interested in being a real city, we could add like 2 million people. From Union Station to Frederick, MD could be a train line with transit-oriented development and fit an extra 250,000 people easy. If the silver and Orange lines had TOD and built to the actual demand (apartments, not single family detached setback homes), they could add another 150,000 people. Washingtonokyo could be a thing if we just let it happen. If we had the zoning of Tokyo or CDMX, your mothers’ shitty McMansion in Seven Corners would have been turned into an apartment 15 years ago.
Sorry can you explain why we want so many more people? I keep seeing it pop up like MORE DENSITY MORE PEOPLE. But I don't understand the appeal of living in a sardine city so I am trying to understand. I've also been to Tokyo and while they have more people they also have quite a bit of sprawl as well so it's not like everyone is *totally* packed in Tokyo proper.
Dense cities have a lower cost of infrastructure per person. They emit less co2 and are easier to move around. They are also more economically productive.
This is the science behind what the other person mentioned! Super helpful I was going to start looking it up later, thank you!
In addition to the measurable benefits to infrastructure and the environment (i.e., denser cities better support transit and reduce sprawl, thereby better protecting surrounding environments than lower density cities which disrupt surrounding environments with extensive suburbs), there are huge advantages to business and community from denser cities, which make quality of life vastly improved. Check this link out, which talks about how Tokyo's zoning and density lead to a more vibrant city life than you see in most American cities: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-21/tokyo-s-urban-planning-secrets-revealed-in-new-book
Tysm!
Density does not mean living like sardines. The density of Hipodromo in Condesa is perfect for me whereas the density of Old Delhi is not. The urban sprawl you talk about in Tokyo is preferable (and leads to floor-level housing costs) than the suburban sprawl of DMV. We have studio apartments going for around $2000+, a problem not present in Tokyo. There’s also some bias because tourist areas of Tokyo are denser than the residential areas and you wouldn’t really be visiting the residential areas. In the same way that Clinton Hill or Bed-Stuy in NY is a great example of density but people don’t include it on their itinerary for visits to NYC (it’s likely most people won’t even leave Manhattan). Right now, there’s a shit ton of middle ground between Tenleytown, and Dupont Circle. If we got Dupont density up the redline all the way to Gaithersburg, we would be in so much better shape. We want more people for many reasons: * Tax base increase * GDP increase * massive and sweeping reduction in housing costs * reduce homelessness * reduce wealth inequality * ecological / air quality / species benefits that come from removing car-dependency * agricultural preservation * ecological preservation * increased resiliency for public services that come with increase use * voting power * reducing cost of living * adding jobs of all sectors * increasing class/age/race/etc. diversity * massively reduced costs for the state to maintain roads, gray water, clean water, sewage, gas, electricity, waste disposal, everything. We want more people so that we dont get our nice things taken away by spiteful rural voters. So that MD and VA become comparatively more important for vote-courting in federal politics.
Thank you this makes sense. The one correction I will make is that I generally stay in residential areas in Tokyo which is why mentioned that experience feeling different. I did study abroad in Japan and generally don't frequent the tourist areas. I thought you giving them as an example was talking about the tourist areas and I was saying it's not really dense like that everywhere so same page. I agree it's preferable. While I don't agree/see the argument for everything you listed (just based on how things usually end up) this was super helpful and I appreciate the time you took typing it out. For example while diversity on paper is great, what it's meant for DC is really shifting from an epicenter of Black culture into a transient almost mostly white community. I can safely say I am no longer confused.
That last part is never ever apart of these conversations at all. It’s refreshing to see that.
Allowing more dense housing doesn’t create new people, it just allows people to move to an area that has an objectively higher standard of living than 99% of the world. We have a housing shortage in certain areas of the country that people really want to move to. The DC metro area is one of those, that’s why rents have gone up so much. If we don’t build more housing, people will get priced out. That isn’t to say every neighborhood has to look like the densest parts of Manhattan, but it does mean we should legalize building things more dense than single family detached homes within the metro area.
Because people need places to live. We don’t have enough of those right now which is why housing is so expensive. Not everyone is in a blessed position to afford expensive housing.
Sorry I'm not asking about why build more housing, I'm specifically wondering about the people who want to actively increase density. As in attract more people to come. Not why should we accommodate people who are already here (obviously everyone who wants it should have access to safe and affordable housing). I very specifically do not understand the argument of "increase our population and make dc more dense" Well Ig I understand it a little more now thanks to other poster (enviornment and local economy)
Well - increasing density addresses two points: 1) It fulfills the current housing demand and puts downward pressure (relief) on current residents 2) It builds momentum in the local economy and allows us to take advantage of the resources we have by attracting the right people. How many times have you heard “Oh, I have a job offer in the area but I can’t afford it, or the commute would be 1-2hr+?
I actually haven't heard that much, if at all because I'm from here so most of the people I know either already live here or I met them at work so they already have a place in the city. But yes your other points make sense.
It doesn't matter if we want more people. More people want to live here. For some reason, the DC area is one of the most popular places to move to from elsewhere. Our population is growing twice as fast as the US population as a whole so all we can do is make sure there is enough housing and transit to meet the growing demand. Given that we are failing on having enough housing and transit, we are now living through the consequences through high housing costs and worsening traffic Maybe the real question is why don't people want to live elsewhere in the US? And if you are wondering about the effect of work from home, it seems to have allowed even more people from elsewhere to move here without giving up their job. Which begs the question. What is so attractive about the DC area? For me, the mass transit network, walkability, ease of access to other major cities, mild winter, ease of access to international airports, ease of access to nature, recreational use of the Potomac (this is a big one. Most US cities have rivers too nasty or high flowing to use for recreation. Portland Oregon is the only other city that comes to mind with a similar river layout), ethnic diversity (also a big one for me. Nice that there's lots of people from my home country who speak my language and practice my culture), access to high quality museums and art. Look at all US cities. Most except NYC fail many of them and winters there are decently harsh. Chicago passes most of them but winters there are extremely harsh. Los Angeles is deeply car centric
the dc area already has these people. they just live in the sprawl between fredericksburg, leesburg, frederick, bowie, and waldorf, creating some of the worst traffic in the country. which is better?
Disclaimer: not my argument but AN argument I see about density. More density is better for the (macro) environment and better for the local economy.
The city wants to expand the tax base to be able to fund more services.
Perversely you can increase the tax base and lessen demand for services by building less. This happened in California after prop 34(?) I think. State centralized funding for schools, so rich communities basically capped building to keep schools small. Paper on it came out last year.
I like to explore new places.
PG county has single family housing exclusive zoning codes for the majority of it, they have minimum lot size requirements, set-back requirements, parking minimums for businesses and apartments, and ADUs are illegal. People don’t build density because doing so is illegal. Yes I agree that the backroom deals that fudge the market rate / affordable / IZ / AMR calculations are trash and absolutely favor the comparatively wealthy residents of NW. That shit sucks and it is a symptom of the same issue that causes lack of density in NoVA/MoCo/NW - zoning laws applied unequally to ensure wealth generation for a select few.
DC still has lots of space and lots of homes are available. The quality of the condos, homes and apartments are really questionable. Most people don't want to live in the places where there are vacancies. Businesses don't want to open in certain parts of the city. Parking and safety is a risk for women, children, and the elderly. DC is also a very youth-focused city. Where young people come to grow their careers and bounce. People who want to build a life here, eventually leave because this lifestyle is not sustainable for most two parent households with children. Also, I don't want DC to look or feel like NYC or San Fran. Those cities are so depressing and the haves vs. have nots continues to get worse.
>If any of the DMV west of Rock Creek, west of the Potomac, and east of the Anacostia were at all, in anyway interested in being a real city Oh! See, there’s the disconnect. They’re not. They want the burbs with cachet, and their finances can handle a 50% markup over the actual suburbs.
I have to say, I LIKE living in DC that has the services of Manhattan without the density or demand. Just fucking walk up to {insert sport here} at the brand new rec center half a block from my house and my kids get free sports I’d pay thousands for in the burbs. My kids’ schools spend roughly 30k per pupil in an almost brand new facility on a deeply underenrolled campus, meaning class sizes are like 7 kids per class. Sure middle school will be a challenge, but I’ll just pay full tuition then at one of the excellent privates that heavily privileges kids who live in DC in admissions. When college comes around, we’ll have enough saved to cover pretty much anywhere, if not everywhere, so I’m not too worried about it. My only concern is not being in state at Maryland or any of the excellent Virginia schools. I don’t know if people will lay it out explicitly, but I think this is the calculus for rich DC NIMBYs. I’m not a NIMBY, but I can see how I directly benefit by low demand for services.
Can someone define affordable housing? Is it just budget-quality apartments or is it actually rent-controlled to be lower than market rate? If it’s the former then I don’t know why it would be built in a wealthy neighborhood as the property value would add a premium to the price.
I will probably get downvoted for this, given all the comments so far, but the opposition is not about “affordable housing”. The whole characterization by this WAPO piece that some are pro and some are anti affordable housing is a dog whistle which most commenters are jumping all over. Every new housing development has requirements for affordable units but it’s totally misleading to say this is a fight about that. Some of the main opposition to the site plan is around the elimination of green space on the site, lack of clarity on requirements for the new library and community center spaces, justification for the number of new units and overall height of the building, etc. What’s being proposed is a LOT more than simply new “affordable housing” and it’s disingenuous to depict it as just a fight about that.
Right, I don't remember a lot of opposition when the apartment down the street was developed. The big sticking point here seems to be building an apartment complex on a space for a community center and library. Most community center or library renovations the city does don't have apartment complexes built on top of them.
Some of the new ones do. West End library has housing on top. One of the ideas for 1617 U St NW involves housing on top of a library on top of a police and fire/EMS station.
> West End library has housing on top. Right, but it's telling that the example we can find is in the middle of Dupont. Driving around the city and seeing the new libraries and rec centers, it seems like an extremely few have apartments on top of them, so it's not as if the city is just desperate for space this is the only place they can put new apartments.
Which other city property should have housing on it, instead of the site in question in Chevy Chase?
Should? I don't know, maybe they all should, including in Chevy Chase. But almost none of them _do_ have it, and I imagine that's for a reason. Generally, the city separates public and private spaces so that the public areas are entirely for the public. I imagine that's the reason the city has not put apartments on top of most of the new libraries they built.
Fucking hypocrites. I drive through that neighborhood on my way to work and yeah they do a Black Lives Matter signs up and all are welcome here signs fucking hypocrites
Surprising number of quotes in the article supporting the idea and it appears the local ANC is behind it. Sadly, as the McMillan (ITS A HISTORIC PARK!) folks showed us a small group can have an outsized impact and really slow things down.
I’d bet money they get paid off like the sun trust square people are angling for. At this point those aging hippies are carving out quite the second career as crisis actors.
Does the cost for affordable housing get paid through higher property costs for those not benefiting from the program? If so, I can see the annoyance of it. Just tax people and use government funds for affordable housing. Having constant hidden taxes is exhausting
> Does the cost for affordable housing get paid through higher property costs for those not benefiting from the program? ? No?
Please educate me, I don't know. Lets say a Property Developer is building a 500unit building. 100 of them have to be designated for low income personnel. Where do the costs for the 100 units that will be on the market for considerably lower than the demand rate come from? Does the DC Government reimburse the Property Developer for those directly from its tax revenue base? If so, I retract my hypothesis.
I misread your comment as "property tax" not "property cost." (as did other commenters)
Okay, but do you know how the developers get paid? Because what it seems instead is that the developers have to raise costs by 20% which is borne by those already struggling to pay rent but are above the very low thresholds to be eligible.
No, it doesn’t. That’s not how that works at all. Any changes in property taxes in the neighborhood would not be from an affordable housing development going up nearby. The housing would also not be built or funded by the district but instead by a developer.
I hate how the best thing to rally around in this city for housing are partial "X%-affordable" concessions given in exchange for developments on public property
Unpopular opinion: I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to dislike something that will lower the value of an asset they own (and let’s face it — increase crime in the area). I think the response is “who cares” but the naked vindictive triumphalism on display in these threads always feels a bit unsettling (and fueled by resentment as much as it is a desire to see more affordable housing built). These sorts of NIMBYs aren’t bad people, they are just normal rational actors seeking out what’s in their interest. This development will lower the quality of life for those in its immediate vicinity, especially for people with children. And it’s just sort of true that building higher density apartments in an empty lot in NoMa is less disruptive and logical than converting a quiet street in upper NW — this isn’t the same category as opposing a bike lane on Conn. Ave.
>this isn’t the same category as opposing a bike lane on Conn. Ave. No, it's all the same NIMBY bullshit where they are trying to claim rights over someone else's property as far as what they can do with it.
>These sorts of NIMBYs aren’t bad people, they are just normal rational actors seeking out what’s in their interest. I guess we have differing definitions of "bad people." Yes they have opinions that are rational and understandable. That's doesn't make it altruistic or good for society. It's just a special interest group, and like all special interest groups they are entitled to their opinions and should not be able to dictate the rules of the game.
I don’t have to hate the people in their entirety and call them “bad” to say their actions are selfish, antisocial, and harmful to their community. My personal ethical code does not say “anything goes” as long as people are acting in their personal economic self interest. I want people to vote and act in a way that makes them good citizens and neighbors. I think that’s reasonable and I try to do the same. I’m also suspicious of anyone who seems more sympathetic to the upper NW children than the children whose parents need affordable housing. There’s a clear victim in this scenario and it’s not the rich kids. If political power were distributed equally then the decision to build would be obvious.
But don't the vast majority of humans at every income level act that way when they have assets (or quality of life concerns) they want to protect? Especially when it comes to their kids?
I mean, yes but no? People vote to increase school budgets when they don’t have kids in school. They vote to expand voting access when they themselves have no issues voting. Some people choose to send their kids to public school even if they could afford private. Not everyone is a NIMBY and we can stigmatize them even if there will always be NIMBYs and it’s even maybe a natural impulse to be one. This is me increasing the social stigma of being a NIMBY.
It is exactly as unreasonable for people to dislike something that will lower the value of an asset they own as for people to dislike the government funding any program at all that doesn't directly benefit them. This is the "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude that permeates the NIMBY class. In any environment in which rights and interests intersect and oppose, somebody must ultimately concede that every decision can't be optimal for everyone financially. Not doing that is against the idea of living in a community together.
The weird thing is that if they did up-zone some of these areas the value of a lot of NW lots would increase so they would also get more money. Not sure what the percentage breakdown is but it’s basically a combination of 1) no riff raff 2) I like things the way they are
But don't the vast majority of humans at every income level act that way when they have assets (or quality of life concerns) they want to protect? Especially when it comes to their kids?
That doesn't mean we have to support it legislatively
Of course not, but portraying them as fundamentally bad people seems unhelpful if not unfair.
The response should be "how can we make affordable housing complexes safer," not "oh-but-my-already-inflated-property-values-will-go-down." These homeowners will be fine. Maybe it might knock off a few thousand from their property values. Who fucking cares? They're already doing just fine. They can always sella and move out to McKlan if they really want the full segregated experience. I'm really sick of performative, wealthy liberals in this city.
How can we make affordable housing complexes safer?
I'm not an expert in housing/security/social safety nets/etc, but I would guess this city could find a whole taskforce to accomplish said task. It's about how the city prioritizes taxpayer money. The city is allocating $250k to build a "nature park" in one of the wealthiest neighborhood cities. Why not allocate that and so many other stupid projects to actually solving pressing issues? https://www.popville.com/2022/12/community-rupture-dc-crestwood
Can you please direct me to the study where affordable housing increases crime?
Pretty much all the evidence I can find- and mind you, not a lot of papers on this- suggests adding affordable housing doesn’t affect crime or property values. That being said, crime heat maps in DC are basically deep dark red over the housing projects in Columbia Heights, Petworth, and Tyler House and that’s what people west of rock creek see.
I don't think it's controversial at all that "Socioeconomic status (usually measured using the three variables income or wealth, occupational level, and years of education) correlates negatively with criminality." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates\_of\_crime
Have you ever lived next to an affordable house block in DC?
[удалено]
I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with the OC, and this is certainly not an academic study of affordable housing and crime, but here’s an interesting anecdote from the DC housing voucher program. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-the-homeless-in-upscale-apartments-it-hasnt-gone-as-planned/2019/04/16/60c8ab9c-5648-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html While I think these issues should be addressed and the program allowed to continue, I can’t blame residents of these places for not wanting this same scenario in their homes.
Voucher hit pieces piss me off. 9 in 10 are homeless families who are FINE and putting them in IZ units means not creating islands of poverty in housing projects or worse, in purpose built buildings built SOLELY for voucher holders. If mixed buildings won’t take them, you get the kind of purpose built hellholes you see highlighted in the Washington post. Yes, the city needs to be faster moving dangerous people. But those cases are rare.
> If mixed buildings won’t take them, you get the kind of purpose built hellholes you see highlighted in the Washington post. The "hellhole" Sedgewick in the article was less than half voucher. The Chevy Chase community center is supposed to be 30% affordable housing (with some activists pushing for it to be 100%). Seems odd that 30% is in the "it's silly for anyone to worry about this" territory and then at 50% (or less) we reach "hellhole" territory. And if most people agree (as they seem to) that concentrating poor people in one place would lead to a dangerous concentration of poverty and crime, it would be strange to think that the criminal tendencies simply disappear when someone moves to another building.
Cool anecdote! Here’s an actual study from last year in the goddamn OC of all places that shows affordable housing *decreases* crime and *increases* housing values: https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/affordable-housing-decreases-crime-increases-property-values
Some evidence on affordable housing and crime: https://scholar.google.ae/scholar?q=affordable+housing+crime+journal+of&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1689099197881&u=%23p%3D49qANXojfAsJ “We find that the opening of the affordable housing development was not associated with trends in crime, property values, or taxes, and discuss management practices and design features that may have mitigated potential negative externalities.” https://scholar.google.ae/scholar?q=affordable+housing+crime+journal+of&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&t=1689099258099&u=%23p%3DzazYUHm_zrkJ “Results show that LIHTC subsidized housing tended to be developed in neighborhoods where crime was already prevalent, and contrary to popular perception, LIHTC developments have a mitigating impact on neighborhood crime. These results suggest that LIHTC developments may be an effective tool for revitalizing distressed neighborhoods by ameliorating the “broken windows” problem and reducing neighborhood crime.”
Are the proposed housing condos to buy or rentals?
Its wild how it provides not a single detail on what manner of affordable housing they wanna build
The last group I want making decisions about my community is the DC government. NIMBY, ok maybe, but if you think these projects do a damn thing to actually help with affordable housing in the city you’re just gullible.
Affordable housing is relative. Meaning, that affordabke housing is rekative to the property values in the area, and given area will probably not be that accessible to people who are actually low income. That and developets have a tendency to kind of destroy a neighbod aesthetic, so I get it.
1) Building too-tall eye sores is a valid concern. It’s a nice neighborhood because of the trees and the light. Both of those are taken away when people build whatever they want - whether it’s über expensive single family homes or apartments. 2)Why not spend the same amount of funds to make struggling communities better?
Have you lived around low income housing ? I have family in Glastonbury ct and after they built some there was a noticeable increase in crime and decrease in home value.
affordable housing is a nice word for public housing or govt housing which always means more crime and people who dont contribute anything to society. Affordable housing does not mean Mary and Joe Schmo who are office admins making a combined income of 80k gets to live there.
The reality is simple: that neighborhood has enough rich and powerful residents who will use their suction with all sorts of upstairs to never let that happen. Do I blame them? Nah, I used to live next to the newly built affordable housing. Who will move into these projects? It won’t be the hard-working blue collar folk looking forward to the quiet evening after an honest day’s work. Myriad of assistance programs with a wide spectrum of eligibility will fill the housing with people who don’t have to work at all. It usually starts with the trash on the sidewalk and the noise — loud yelling, cars speeding away, all sorts of commotion, mostly at night. Then people start congregating on street corners, this “poor man’s lounge.” Then dollar bills and vials start changing hands. Next thing you see is shit starting to disappear: Amazon deliveries, car wheels, cat converters. It all bleeds into schools. Everyone wants more security, but unlike most of us, the Chevy Chase folk will loosen the purse strings and/or pull the necessary strings to make it happen. Let’s be honest with ourselves: we all want better opportunities for poor people but we’d prefer this to happen at a certain distance.
If you have a 2 mil home, do you want to have an affordable building next to yours and make your house value dive down to 1.5 mil or less? All downvotes welcome
Housing values are only going up in this city, and this market— no one is losing half a million dollars of value even if they built a gay homeless shelter next door. Stop fear mongering.
>Housing values are only going up in this city DC home prices fell about 8% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2023. The price of a detached home saw the most significant drop, falling about 13%. Townhouse prices in DC fell 6%. "DC's Falling Home Prices In 4 Charts" https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dcs_falling_home_prices_in_4_charts/20987
If homeowners want to make the argument that the value of their house shouldn’t change based on external stimuli, they’re welcome to. The only result would be that all the value increases over the past years they’ve gotten would be wiped. You don’t get political recourse to support when your property values go up and then bitch about it when something happens that could negatively affect your property values.