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.
I tend to share your questions. Additionally, I don't know that living in a more desirable location with more amenities than you can afford is an essential social safety net.
1. Given that minimizing transportation cost is particularly important to low income people, its important that our TOD not simply push such people to places where they will be auto dependent. That doesnt necessarily mean DC, but it does mean TOD areas in the region generally.
2. Beyond that, many people who have a choice choose urban living precisely for its diversity, including socioeconomic diversity.
3. Providing SOME affordable housing for the low income somewhere is part of the social safety net (and as long as we do not address that directly through income, it makes sense to address it through housing) Again, that need not mean DC - DC probably has too large a concentration of the regions poor - but DC will need to have some share.
4. Affordable housing for the working lower middle to middle class - the teachers, plumbers, firemen, etc, etc can both add an important element to the community, and can aid in attracting needed employees.
5. Being forced out of ones neighborhood IS disruptive and that human cost would seem to me to justify some effort to enable some people to stay in the areas they were already in. Additionaly such people provide some cultural continuity.
I happen to think rent control is a particularly inefficient way to accomplish the above goals - however inclusionary zoning, for example seems like a better way. Far from slowing development, I think IZ overcomes some resistance to it. And not all ANCs are equally obstructive IIUC, and without them, I think there would be a much larger city wide backlash to change - and not just among the poor or minority by any means.
1. Given that minimizing transportation cost is particularly important to low income people, its important that our TOD not simply push such people to places where they will be auto dependent. That doesnt necessarily mean DC, but it does mean TOD areas in the region generally.
2. Beyond that, many people who have a choice choose urban living precisely for its diversity, including socioeconomic diversity.
3. Providing SOME affordable housing for the low income somewhere is part of the social safety net (and as long as we do not address that directly through income, it makes sense to address it through housing) Again, that need not mean DC - DC probably has too large a concentration of the regions poor - but DC will need to have some share.
4. Affordable housing for the working lower middle to middle class - the teachers, plumbers, firemen, etc, etc can both add an important element to the community, and can aid in attracting needed employees.
5. Being forced out of ones neighborhood IS disruptive and that human cost would seem to me to justify some effort to enable some people to stay in the areas they were already in. Additionaly such people provide some cultural continuity.
I'm not sure that makes the case for subsidizing rent being an essential social safety net to me. I spent my working life up until the last 3.5 years squarely in the very low-low HUD income limits without living in a rent controlled apartment or benefiting from a rental subsidy*. I didn't go hungry without those benefits. I didn't die without those benefits. I just suffered the daily inconvenience of a longer commute, or a small crappy place, or a lot of roommates, or a not-so-great neighborhood.
If we were using resources to house homeless that would otherwise die of exposure, I see a need that is on the same level as other important social safety nets.
*Crashed on a friend's floor in a Sec. 8 apt in MD for my first few weeks in DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
I happen to think rent control is a particularly inefficient way to accomplish the above goals - however inclusionary zoning, for example seems like a better way. Far from slowing development, I think IZ overcomes some resistance to it. And not all ANCs are equally obstructive IIUC, and without them, I think there would be a much larger city wide backlash to change - and not just among the poor or minority by any means.
I still share Geo's questions about the overall relationship between the various mechanisms used to provide affordable housing and the rental market as a whole. I agree that within the spectrum of mechanisms to provide affordable housing, IZ offers the most benefits. However, even with density incentives, IZ has an impact on the market rate units and on the decision of the developer of how/if to proceed with a project.
I do support ANCs. It is frustrating to see the community demand a pound of flesh from every single business that presents at our ANC meetings, but that's a function of the community's will. I think the formal opportunity for local political involvement is fantastic even though the votes don't go the way I think they should on a lot of issues.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 05-01-2012 at 06:23 PM..
I happen to think rent control is a particularly inefficient way to accomplish the above goals - however inclusionary zoning, for example seems like a better way. Far from slowing development, I think IZ overcomes some resistance to it. And not all ANCs are equally obstructive IIUC, and without them, I think there would be a much larger city wide backlash to change - and not just among the poor or minority by any means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KStreetQB
I still share Geo's questions about the overall relationship between the various mechanisms used to provide affordable housing and the rental market as a whole. I agree that within the spectrum of mechanisms to provide affordable housing, IZ offers the most benefits. However, even with density incentives, IZ has an impact on the market rate units and on the decision of the developer of how/if to proceed with a project.
I disagree with IZ for the same reasons as rent control, which KStreetQB pointed out: it still distorts the market. Now I try to avoid being a Cato-like overly libertarian "market solves everything" kind of person because I know that in many cases it doesn't, but this is one case where time and time again we see that intervention simply makes things more complicated than they need to be, ultimately hurting more people than helping.
Now I'm not as averse to optional or incentivised IZ/AH through FAR bonuses, tax breaks, and other means, but there's one problem: it won't work in DC. Because we're so limited on height and lot size in most cases, there's no way to really "add on." Any sort of IZ would cut into the market-rate section of the project unless that section were incredibly small, which we all know wouldn't happen because it's not profitable. The best we can do is require that development on major corridors reach maximum height and density as well as alter zoning codes to require maximum achievable density, even with neighborhood/historic preservation objections (I'm sorry, but JBG having to scale down its Florida Avenue parcels is absurd considering its location, and that's coming from a proponent of historic preservation). That's not a sneaky way of saying that I want the height restriction gone as I support it, but it's a matter of fact issue. 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.
It's fun to think about us living in a pure market-driven circumstance, but the reality is that there is "demand" for DC to have a mixture of many different types of people. I don't think there's much demand for all the perpetrators of violence, but I also don't think most people - even the yuppies watching their big screen TVs in front of ceiling to floor windows overlooking the street - actually want DC to become the Ballston corridor with worse schools.
In order to supply that demand, it sometimes takes intervention in a market that would more naturally just go for top dollar every time. If you expand the concept of the market beyond just the push and pull of dollars and include the push and pull of policies that cover elements that fall through the raw economy's cracks as well as the normal market, subsidized or inclusionary housing fits in to keep housing for the old standbys in these discussions, firefighters and teachers and all the rest.
I've been around a lot of people from a lot of walks of life. I'm yet to see one group more or less greedy than another. Some people have more money so the impact of their behavior is more pronounced, but if a person with nothing who suddenly has money to burn, more often than not they act the same.
I've been around a lot of people from a lot of walks of life. I'm yet to see one group more or less greedy than another. Some people have more money so the impact of their behavior is more pronounced, but if a person with nothing who suddenly has money to burn, more often than not they act the same.
I agree on this one. Money doesn't change people, just amplifies who they already are
I'm not sure that makes the case for subsidizing rent being an essential social safety net to me. I spent my working life up until the last 3.5 years squarely in the very low-low HUD income limits without living in a rent controlled apartment or benefiting from a rental subsidy*. I didn't go hungry without those benefits. I didn't die without those benefits. I just suffered the daily inconvenience of a longer commute, or a small crappy place, or a lot of roommates, or a not-so-great neighborhood.
did you raise a family that way?
as for the longer commute, lots of people do that, adding congestion to our roads, and pollution to our air.
Now I'm not as averse to optional or incentivised IZ/AH through FAR bonuses, tax breaks, and other means, but there's one problem: it won't work in DC. Because we're so limited on height .
It's fun to think about us living in a pure market-driven circumstance, but the reality is that there is "demand" for DC to have a mixture of many different types of people. I don't think there's much demand for all the perpetrators of violence, but I also don't think most people - even the yuppies watching their big screen TVs in front of ceiling to floor windows overlooking the street - actually want DC to become the Ballston corridor with worse schools. .
just to be clear, Arlington County has a signficant number of poor people (if fewer than DC) and it has an affordable housing program (with no height limit, and Dillon rule preventing requiring IZ from as of right developers, they trade affordable units for density bonuses)
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.
