Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other cities, optional IZ could work if the government were to somehow reimburse developers for the additional cost imposed by building more/further up, something I would support.
That is in fact what Arlington does, and what Alexandria is starting to do.
No, but I will raise my family in an area that I can afford on my own, and I won't start a family until I am in a position to provide for one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
as for the longer commute, lots of people do that, adding congestion to our roads, and pollution to our air.
I understand the point you trying to make but, we don't live in a world where 1 fewer rent controlled/subsidized apartment equals one longer commute. The market distortions from subsidization affects decisions in a lot of ways.
For example, there was a study in the journal of urban economics a few years ago that looked specifically at the affect of rent controls on commute times. Counter to your point, it found a positive correlation between rent control and longer commute times:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krol and Svorny (2004)
When we examine tenant mobility, we find that rent control reduces mobility. We conclude that the relative immobility of the population underlies the observed direct relationship between rent control and commute times reported above.
The findings in this paper contribute to the accumulated evidence that rent control distorts housing markets in ways that reduce the efficient allocation of resources. Based on our findings, we can conclude that communities with rent control are likely to bear additional costs in the form of lost time in commute, gasoline, automobile wear and tear, highway maintenance and are likely to experience pollution and congestion externalities to a greater degree than otherwise.
In addition to the inefficient use of time and resources associated with extended commutes, it is not too much of a leap to postulate that a related consequence of rent control must be a decline in the quality of job matches for residents. As we find, the rent control differential is enough to keep some households from moving closer to their place of employment. For others it must limit the area in which they search and, therefore, the quality of eventual job matches. On the margin, some renters in controlled units will fail to search for or accept job matches that would otherwise improve labor market efficiency.
No, but I will raise my family in an area that I can afford on my own, and I won't start a family until I am in a position to provide for one.
sometimes life changes - a job is lost, a spouse dies or runs away, or whatever. If you want to discuss that you were able to live on little thats fine - if you want to blame others for being in the position they are in, thats a different discussion.
Quote:
"For example, there was a study in the journal of urban economics a few years ago that looked specifically at the affect of rent controls on commute times. Counter to your point, it found a positive correlation between rent control and longer commute times:
Once again, I'm not supportive of rent control as a way of achieving affordable housing. I was addressing the earlier point about why having affordable housing is desirable. Those are logically distinct questions.
sometimes life changes - a job is lost, a spouse dies or runs away, or whatever. If you want to discuss that you were able to live on little thats fine - if you want to blame others for being in the position they are in, thats a different discussion.
I gave a personal anecdote to help frame why I do not believe that affordable housing is an essential social safety net. You brought up raising a family under those circumstances; and I don't think that should change the fundamental decisions that people can make in the absence of subsidized housing. It's not about blaming people.
As I said before, if the purpose of providing housing is to protect the physical well-being of people, I find that to be an essential social safety net. If the purpose of providing affordable housing is to let select people live a few miles from where they can afford to, I do not find that to be an essential social safety net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
Once again, I'm not supportive of rent control as a way of achieving affordable housing. I was addressing the earlier point about why having affordable housing is desirable. Those are logically distinct questions.
You may object to the example, but my main point about your oversimplification stands. Stating things like 'sometimes life changes'/'long commutes pollute'/ 'people want to live near economic diversity' etc may be true, but it doesn't contemplate the disturbance to the market and the subsequent impact on overall affordability, which is the fundamental issue that I struggle with.
Whether it's rent control, direct subsidies, inclusionary zoning or some other mechanism, the effect of the policy doesn't stop at the benefit to participating individuals. There are negative effects, impacts that run counter to expectations and parties who pay the price for the policy. How it all washes out is debatable.
The problem with the school system (which is really nationwide) is that it seems more of a 12 step program more than an actual education. Most of the stuff you learn in High School is a joke. I've noticed you don't really start getting educated until you reach college. Personally though, in a city like DC, the schools should take initiatives to offer programs that can put students on the track to success beyond high school. I know Fairfax County and Arlington County in Virginia do this. They have "elective courses" which tie in to careers. You choose a class that teaches you the basics and it opens the door to actually get certified or pursue a career in what you studied. I've seen some schools in Virginia offer classes like let's say... Cosmetology,where the student learn the basics of beauty and as time goes on, the students compete or take tests which lead to their ultimate certification or boost to pursue the career beyond H.S. I've seen the same thing done with automotive technology, or child development, etc. DC is a city with a vast amount of resources, and they should use them to their advantage. I mean if DC schools could actually (as an example) get their students to pursue politics, we wouldn't see the issue where there is no motivation and the subsequent "bad school system". Where I'm trying to get at is young people in the city see the streets as a better source of income and a better lifestyle than one that comes with an education. I mean lets be real, one of the main things people like to put school aside for; drug dealing is portrayed as an easy way to make enough money to buy a luxurious car, get as many dates as one wants, the power that comes with it, the flash, etc and that becomes more attractive than learning algebra and world history. While it's good to know those things, the truth of the matter is that nobody starts using those things right off the bat after receiving their diploma, that's where the issue really lies in. They say education opens doors, but there's really no other motivation since you're told, get through high school to get to college, complete your associates to get your bachelors, and so on till you get your PhD. But then what? At this point you're 30 years old looking for employment. The streets all you have to do is be savvy. Of course that issue shows up. The system doesn't show the students that there's opportunities in education, of course the streets will show them opportunities, even if it is illegal. It's just how life works. If that ever gets fixed, then the school issue wouldn't get to be a big deal but if we keep the system where school is nothing but standardized tests and the better the school does, the more money it gets, then this will never get fixed and of course the DC Charter schools will be doing better than DCPS because the Charter schools get more money to begin with.
One thing I've been thinking about is what happens to affordable housing in DC? That one is pretty scarce right now.
Is DC destined to become like Arlington where the majority of the middle class is priced out?
Shorter paragraphs please! Haha sorry I edit documentation for a living and its slow. I hear ya but this is where parental involvement becomes important. I hated school and school hated me. Even my teachers were encouraging me to drop out. I kid you not tenth grade told to just get my GED when I turned 16. Yet I knew that was not an option because my mama said so. Simple as that. I'm sorry I'm not into this making them want to go to school stuff. Kids need a swift and firm hand that reminds them that dropping out is not an option.
I do agree that more charter schools are needed. However, there needs to be options for the unmotivated student who won't get anything out of a specialized charter school. Also some students are motivated but they don't what they want yet.
There are still options in Arlington. South Arlington is a little rough around the edges but all the schools are great and you can still buy a little duplex in Nauck for $300K. Although when I say little I mean just that. Boy oh boy but a roof is a roof.
I gave a personal anecdote to help frame why I do not believe that affordable housing is an essential social safety net. You brought up raising a family under those circumstances; and I don't think that should change the fundamental decisions that people can make in the absence of subsidized housing. It's not about blaming people.
As I said before, if the purpose of providing housing is to protect the physical well-being of people, I find that to be an essential social safety net. If the purpose of providing affordable housing is to let select people live a few miles from where they can afford to, I do not find that to be an essential social safety net..
I believe that a social safety net in a society with the resources ours has should be about making possible a decent life, and not simply preventing imminent threats to safety. That suggests a standard for housing in terms of space, light and air, etc that may exceed that needed for survival.
The question of location is different of course. I think that gets to issues of transportation, as well as to desired neighborhood diversity.
Quote:
but it doesn't contemplate the disturbance to the market and the subsequent impact on overall affordability, which is the fundamental issue that I struggle with.
There are few cost free policies, and Im not sure this is the place for a full cost benefit analysis of each potential policy. Earlier someone asked why someone would even be concerned about having affordable housing in DC, and I gave a response, which I think was correct. Its certainly possible that despite it being desirable, theres no policy to achieve it that would pass a cost benefit test. Thats not my belief, but its possible.
4. An increase of 250,000 residents represents a major percentage increase in population for DC (An increase to 868,000 residents from the current population is a 29% increase).
FWIW, the existing MWCOG population forecasts (last updated in 2010):
2035 city population: 760,400 (2010: 610,700*)
2035 city employment: 931,600 (2010: 788,200)
2035 region population: 6,639,400 (2010: 5,266,300)
2035 region employment: 4,381,500 (2010: 3,279,200)
* 2010 actual: 601,723
The forecasts can be wrong, of course, and the point of the Plan is to shape policy in order to alter the forecasts. Setting a goal of 250,000 net new residents would require that the District absorb 18% (rather than 11%) of the region's population growth.
You know, there is another elephant in the room other than the school system: Where are these people going to work? I mean do we think the government is going to expand more or contractors and law firm going to increase their hiring by this much. You know many of these jobs are in Maryland and Virginia. I just don't see, with the way things are currently going, a increase in population of that much in 20 years. I mean you guys do see a bunch of "pseudo-cities" popping up everywhere because they plan to have jobs there. I work in Courthouse and those guys are building up Apartment complexes and condo complexes all over the place. Gaithersburg and Rockville are ramping up their little cities because of the potential boom in the medical industry. What is DC going to offer other than nightlife? Also what will happen to the metro system with 250k extra people. I mean we presume that most of these people will be working right? I mean have you guys seen the metro during rush hour. Also if the 250k happens, then what of the surrounding areas? I'm sure they will expand accordingly. How will the traffic situation be taken care of then?
As for the schools, Ha! My wife actually works in the school system. The gentrifiers need to stop pulling their kids out by 3rd grade to send them to a charter school or private if you hope to improve the school.
You know, there is another elephant in the room other than the school system: Where are these people going to work?
To put some more context around what I posted just above (direct link to PDF), the MWCOG (well, specifically its TPB) is the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The USDOT requires that each metro area have an MPO to do long-range population, employment, and travel demand forecasts, and therefore to plan for what transportation infrastructure will be needed in order to handle the projected growth. These are the forecasts that have been used by WMATA, DDOT, and others to plan for projects like new subways, bus lanes, and streetcar lines.
Of course, it's up to the local governments to actually fund such improvements, but if you note my post you'll see that employment in DC is also projected to grow. Their charts forecast that almost none of the new jobs will be directly for the federal government or military:
For the lower graph, "Central" is "the diamond," i.e., DC/Arlington/Alexandria. "Inner suburbs" add the counties (and associated independent cities) that are partly inside the Beltway, i.e., Prince George's, Montgomery, and Fairfax.
Dense urban sites can accommodate a lot of growth on small parcels. Just NoMa in DC, which is about half built, will eventually house almost as much development as the entire Rosslyn-Ballston corridor has today, and 50% more than is proposed at Gaithersburg's Science City.
Anyhow, point is, the people whose job it is to plan for 2030-2040 are well aware that the city, and the entire region, will be growing substantially. Just read that the Washington-Baltimore region should pass metro Chicago in population by 2020 or 2030 -- it's about time that the city participated in this growth.
Also what will happen to the metro system with 250k extra people. I mean we presume that most of these people will be working right? I mean have you guys seen the metro during rush hour. Also if the 250k happens, then what of the surrounding areas? I'm sure they will expand accordingly. How will the traffic situation be taken care of then?
actually DC is probably in a better position to provide alternatives to metro rail than the suburbs are - much of central DC is close enough to walk or bike to major employment centers, and the new street cars will add transit capacity. The suburbs are probably more dependent on metro, at least for folks coummiting into DC.
As for the ohter jurisdictions, as Payton has shown, they are projected to grow anyway. Faster population growth in DC won't accelerate that - in fact it might even slow it down a bit - certainly DC's growth is more achievable if the inner suburbs and nonDC core jurisdictions fail to take advantage of densification possibilities, and the backlash in Alex, the problems faced by Columbia Pike Light rail, etc indicate that might happen. How the suburbs deal with traffic will depend on many things - what the pattern of their growth is, and how much political will there is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
