Report a Comment

Ellen McCarthy- Your comments about Manna are mistaken. We never advocated for more subsidies going to the second buyer of an ADU, rather we pointed out that additional subsidies would be necessary because of these restrictions (in the form of maintenance, closing costs assistance, etc.). Manna is not a fan of that and had only attempted to highlight the unforseen cost that will fall back upon the City. I am sorry that this was not clear to you. Here is a link that might explain further the concerns we have about the unexpected costs that crop up because of these restrictions: http://www.cp-dr.com/node/1640.

I also have a list of other jurisdictions that have had similar problems with their long-term restritced programs.

Also, as some of the other commentators have alluded, Montgomery County's program should not have been a solid basis for DC to implement permanent restrictions partly because Montgomery County has only recently implemented them as well. And while there are vast differences in the volume of homeownership units produced in Montgomery and size of those units when compared to what can be produced in the District, there is no actual data supporting how these lengthy restrictions can work.

Finally, to your point about CPI increase, please read DCFPI report on incomes for low and moderate households in the District. In the past decade, neither have gone up.

I don't anyone is arguing against the creation of these units by IZ. I think the point is that many feel that this isn't a true form of homeownership because the restrictions have such severe consequences on the buyers. Permanently restricted units should be rentals. Aside from land trusts in suburban/rural parts of the country, there is no substanative data that proves this balance of wealth creation and unit preservation can be achieved in more urban settings like the District.

by Shiv Newaldass on Sep 30, 2010 9:28 am • link • report