Not sure I'm really a fan of IZ. It increases prices for everyone else, so yes, the example of having to be dual-income lawyers becomes more of a reality WITH inclusionary zoning. The extra costs are spread evenly across the rents/mortgages of non-subsidized units.

Unfortunately, the only truly affordable housing going forward will be in the outer burbs because it's becoming less desirable to live there and land is so cheap. Also, they can use surface parking lots instead of extraordinarily costly (to build) garages and cheaper quality of construction typically. This type of thing will create affordable housing though- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031803521.html

300+ foot buildings reduce the average cost per unit with economies of scale. While this isn't possible in the District, other jurisdictions should employ this strategy around transit nodes. There's plenty of "virgin" land in PG that would be perfect for high-density TOD.

by SG on Mar 19, 2009 10:48 am • link • report

@SG "only truly affordable housing going forward will be in the outer burbs because it's becoming less desirable to live there..." - why does this have to be the case? ultimately that's saying those who make below the area median income (which in dc is around $100K) have to live far away from the city core in what you've labeled essentially "undesirable" areas? i make well below 50% AMI, but i want to live in the city, and i work in the city. i don't own a car, and even if i lived in a lower rent area, there's a good chance i wouldn't be able to afford one (upkeep, gas, parking in dupont, my sanity in traffic, etc.), so the surface lots wouldn't help my situation. and if the developments in the outer burbs aren't TOD, well then i'm just SOL getting into work or would have to deal with a multi-hour commute.

comparatively, i have it easy - i have a roommate, a bike, and am able to squeak by. but what about those making well below AMI with families - those folks working service jobs in the city? this is absolutely possible in the city, desirable in fact, for all the reasons david mentioned above.

by jaime on Mar 19, 2009 11:25 am • link • report

heh. reading this yesterday would've helped me write a more eloquent rant than the above. finsihing my coffee wouldn't be a bad idea either...

For those who think a suburban life offers a cheaper alternative to urban living, think again. A report released last week by The Urban Land Institute focuses on the additional costs associated with living in the suburbs of the metropolitan D.C. area, deriving the conclusion that a regular commute quickly offsets any benefits of cheaper land and housing options in Suburbia.

and, for myriad reasons not mentioned in this WaPo article, folks aren't as interested in moving to outer 'burbs. speculatively speaking, arlington's progressive IZ couldn't have hurt it's growth:

More residents moved there from other counties than moved out during the July 2007 to July 2008 period covered by the census figures, a first for this decade. The net gain of 1,750 people, combined with a net 2,403 immigrants who moved to Arlington from overseas during that period, helped swell the county's population by 3 percent, compared with 1.6 percent growth from July 2006 to July 2007.

by jaime on Mar 19, 2009 11:43 am • link • report

Jaime, I'm not saying I want this to be the case... but just based on the height restrictions alone, land is expensive in the city, which means development costs a lot of money and those costs are passed on to the future residents. Development costs basically = land + construction + financing + approval fees + profit premium. The parts that cost a lot in the city are land (first and foremost) and construction (because you have to provide expensive underground parking which costs tens of thousands per space to provide). High density/scale can spread these costs over a much larger number of units, bringing down costs and also adding an external benefit of increasing the supply on the market which also ultimately brings down prices across the board. We need to push large-scale residential development in the urban core, but there's not much space for it nor do many rowhouse and SFH residents want these types of things "in their back yard."

As an ancillary, I will also point out that cities with rivers and parkland "taking up" much of the area near the urban center also tend to be more expensive. Not just because of the desirability of the water & parkland, but also because it diminishes the amount of developmentable land. Look at a map of DC zoomed out and you can see how much is taken up by the Potomac & Anacostia, Rock Creek park, the Arboretum, GW Park, and the various Fort parks dotted around the area. Not to mention the National Mall, federal enclaves, and existing low density single family neighborhoods that will never be replaced with a higher-density form.

by SG on Mar 19, 2009 11:50 am • link • report

But Jaime,

It sounds like you DO live in the city ... just that you're living with a roommate. I.e., it's not that you're locked out of living where you want ... just that you have to make tradeoffs based on what the market prices are. IZ doesn't really create any affordable housing, it just reallocates the cost of the housing from some folks over to other folks. What SG said about IZ pushing prices up out of reach for more folks is absolutely correct. IZ just means that a lucky few get subsidized by a not lucky many so that some politicians can go around saying they've 'created' affordable housing. They haven't. They've just stolen from Peter to pay Paul.

REAL affordable housing is created when you make better use of all options available to you ... such as building out where there is cheaper land ... or building in otherwise not desireable areas where land is cheap. The upshot here is that not only are you really and truely creating affordable housing here, but you are creating a long term synergy in the process whereby that area becomes more desireable for all. Remember, the British Ambassodor used to get hardship pay for having to live in Washington (in the last century). Many folks living in nowadays desireable neighborhoods such as Dupont Circle and Capitol Hill had to put up with constant gunshots and other undesireable things as recently as 10 years ago. But they bought here because it was affordable ... and in so doing they helped make the area more desireable ... and less affordable.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 11:50 am • link • report

I agree completely with Jaime. SG's assessment just lacks vision. (sorry). It's just an easy acceptance of the pattern we've seen for the last decades without seeing past it to what was different and worked in the past; what works in other places; what can work differently in the future. This pattern is our problem. It has created so many problems. This crazy pattern does not need to remain a chief contributor to so many of our collective problems.

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 11:56 am • link • report

Could we possibly force them to comply via a lawsuit? Seems like they're willfully ignoring the law at this point.

by Sean Robertson on Mar 19, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

Bianchi, I don't lack vision, I just know the way things operate now. My vision would be to add density and scale to areas that don't have it (Ft Totten, River East, NY Ave corridor, Tenletown) to increase the supply of housing while reducing the average cost per unit. My point about the suburbs is correct- land is cheaper and it is less costly to develop because you don't always have to dig down 3-4 levels for parking. That's not saying I prefer this type of suburban development, just that it's cheaper and leads to more affordable housing.

by SG on Mar 19, 2009 12:10 pm • link • report

yes, i do live in the city. yes, i have a roommate. but what if i had children, worked in the city, and wanted to live in the city based on the income i make? lance, you've spoken about how ggw doesn't necessarily speak for all demographics in the city (apologies, i don't have the NAC article in front of me so i'm paraphrasing) - supporting IZ is one of many areas in which we can speak for a mix of folk living here, who want to continue living here, and who may want to move here.

also, mainly b/c i'm swamped today at work, i don't have the time to find hard data on how, other than due to developer greed, IZ raises the cost of housing for those who can pay market-rate. IZ doesn't ask developers to hand out free housing, just to commit a portion of their units at below market- rate.

by jaime on Mar 19, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report

The real benefit of IZ is that it reduces the concentration of poverty, a statistic that is correlated with crime more than race or poverty. A major reason tower-in-the-park housing projects are so bad is because they cluster poverty into really small, vertical areas, although the density is a greater part. More affluent areas don't have the crime problems in buildings of the same typology.

Perhaps more focused on people below the poverty line, an architect named Oscar Newman found in studies for HUD that if he moved upstanding individuals or families out of areas of heavy concentration of poverty and into more stable neighborhoods of mixed income, the new neighbors did not report any increase in crime, and the moved families generally integrated into the social networks. The delinquency rate of their children was no higher than that of the neighborhood's children, and most families figured out how to be good renters and some moved on to owning after several years.

Similar benefits would probably arise from offering middle-class families, if the correlation does reflect a real relationship

by цarьchitect on Mar 19, 2009 12:17 pm • link • report

sg: can you cite some numbers proving that IZ increases housing prices for "everyone else" (i'm assuming that you mean everyone in the city who is not a recipient of affordable-rate housing in an inclusionary-zoned unit)? without any numbers, we're just taking your word for it, and common sense tells me that you're wrong.

of course, you'd just be taking my word for that too, right? see, it's kind of weak without some data...

by IMGoph on Mar 19, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

One solution to the IZ increases density is to allow developers to opt into IZ in exchange for greater density of market rate units, to a degree that opting into IZ is more profitable. Most of DC is underdeveloped, anyway.

by цarьchitect on Mar 19, 2009 12:24 pm • link • report

SG - Why are you assuming that the affordable housing units will have underground parking? Isn't the point of affordable living near Metro that you don't have to spend all that money on a car?

by Ben Ross on Mar 19, 2009 12:25 pm • link • report

Jaime: It's not necessarily developer greed, it's just plain market forces. By requiring a portion of the units to be rented below market rate, you're reducing the amount of income the developer can make. The money comes out of either higher rents for the rest of the building, or out of developer profits. It will depend on how much the supply of buildings or the demand for high-end apartments is affected by prices.

In the marginal case, it's possible that these requirements may prevent a developer from building a building that without the requirements, would be very slightly profitable.

One of the interesting aspects of some of these programs is where the developer is awarded bonus density in exchange for supplying affordable housing. I'm strongly in favor of that because it alleviates some of the market restricion that causes high housing prices, provides a benefit to the developer for their efforts, and promotes dense growth.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 19, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report

"lance, you've spoken about how ggw doesn't necessarily speak for all demographics in the city"

No, I haven't. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Jamie, it raises the cost because all costs invariably get passed on to those who pay for something. A developer doesn't develop a building or subdivision as a work of charity. They develop it to make money. When you have additional costs, such IZ brings about, while those costs may decrease some of that profit, you can bet that most (if not all) of those additional costs will get passed on to those paying. Hence making the new development even less affordable for those unlucky many who don't get those few subsidized units.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 12:36 pm • link • report

Lance i ask you what IMGoph asked SG: Do you have any data that IZ caused an increase in housing costs or is it speculating on your part? Arlington has an IZ policy. Maybe you can find some data from there.

SG, so glad to hear the current ugly pattern is not the one you'd like to see and that you'd rather see building infill or whatever it's called instead. Please accept my apology if you felt insulted. I also don't get the assumption that expensive underground parking must be included. Why?

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 1:03 pm • link • report

Lance, it's not true that invariably costs get passed on to those that pay. It depends on the situation. Sometimes the costs get passed on, sometimes they come out of the developer's profit, sometimes it makes it such that a building doesn't get built, in which case it comes out of both the developer and the purchaser who are both made worse off because now they can't trade.

Some companies and industries don't have the pricing power to just raise prices when they're hit with extra expenses. Imagine if we put a tax on only golden delicious apples, for which there are many reasonable substitutes, from oranges to red delicious apples. In this case, because a seller of golden delicious apples wouldn't be able to raise prices without driving his customers to other goods, he would not be able to recoup the cost of the tax and would likely get less profit. This might cause some golden delicious apple growers to go out of business if they are existing just at the edge of profitability.

On the flip side, imagine a (idealized) tax on all goods and services. In this case, there really aren't any other products buyers could be driven to, so the buyers would bear almost all the burden of the tax.

In this case, since the market for newly developed housing is effectively competing with the market for already built housing, I would say that the existence of close substitutes for the new units would mean that it's closer to the tax on very specific goods as opposed to the generalized tax, and therefore it's more likely to come out of profits (and thus reduce building supply at the margin) than increase rents.

I would love to see data on this but I don't know where to get it.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 19, 2009 1:21 pm • link • report

Michael, I agree with you. (See my second post where I said it can also come out of profit to a certain extent.)

I think the problem here though is that oftentimes people think profit is a bottom-less pit. Despite what we're seeing in the news of late regarding a handful of bankers and traders making obscene profits, most people and entities don't make anymore "profit" than most of make "salaries". So yeah, the council can ask someone to absorb the extra costs ... but most developers won't be any more willing or able than we as salaried persons would be willing or able to lower our salaries to help out in similar fashion. Most developers (or businesses in general) don't have the bottom-less pit profits that people think they have. And as you aptly pointed out, the consequences don't play out in a vacuum ... there are a lot of unintended consequences when you start to distort market mechanisms. Bottom line is that it makes much more sense to take actions that will make better use of existing resources and help develop new ones. We know what happens when people start playing with the market ... just look at today's Wall Street fiasco and the results of getting away from the basics and trying to create assets by way of semantics vs. "the old fashioned way" ... hard and smart work.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report

lance, my apologies for the mix-up.

still, i'd like to see data showing that the cost is passed along to those who don't qualify for IZ rates. and, michael, my "developer greed" statement was made in haste, but i know you can agree that frequently the "market-rate" is above what many of us can afford. often developers (not all, for the record) will charge as much as they think they can get away with, or what the"market" will allow, in order to boost profit margins. sure, it's absolutely their right to get as much profit from their work as they can, but i'm just not sure i believe that income "lost" on IZ units is passed along to the cost of the other units, particularly if the developer is granted more density as a part of the deal.

by jaime on Mar 19, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report

"but i'm just not sure i believe that income "lost" on IZ units is passed along to the cost of the other units, particularly if the developer is granted more density as a part of the deal.

Jaime, it's passed along to the other units in the form of "more crowded conditions" ... i.e., more neighbors to share the elevator with, more neighbors to fight over parking with etc. etc. And, it's passed along to adjoining properties in the sense of other externalities such as blocking their air and light (from having an extra floor two).

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 2:05 pm • link • report

Jaime ... just to clarify ... I was referring to a situation where the developer still gets to get his same (or even greater) profits out of the project by being allowed extra density/height.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 2:07 pm • link • report

lance: but if we're talking transit-oriented development here, there's a good chance that there's no car that would necessitate a fight for parking with the neighbors. in addition, if an elevator is to serve (for argument's sake) 55 units in an apartment building, and because of IZ, we've increased this hypothetical building to 60 units (an approximate 10% density increase), sure, you might have to spend a little more time in an elevator with an extra person now and then. but really, that seems beyond trivial, don't you think?

by IMGoph on Mar 19, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

The biggest cost that gets passed on to neighbors when transit-oriented development is approved is the psychic cost of loss of exclusivity. One is no longer able to pretend one lives in a suburb.

Read Veblen. It's like a potlatch. One gains psychic benefit by showing that one's neighborhood is so rich and powerful that it can exclude new development. The more urban fabric one can destroy, the more cachet the neighborhood gains. Why else would anyone think an empty plaza in front of an office building is an "amenity?" The empty plaza serves the same function as the liveried butler served a century ago - to display wealth through "conspicuous consumption" that serves no useful purpose.

by tt on Mar 19, 2009 2:28 pm • link • report

More crowded conditions do have some benefits, for instance the potential to attract desirable retail to an area. Though this hasn't really worked on U-Street which can't get good (convenient) restaurants to save it's life.

(I assume posters here already agree that the other two ways of creating more affordable housing in in walkable areas should also be pursued, namely: more efficient use of the land near the metro stations we have and building out more quality transit [read rail] from the current network.)

by Steve on Mar 19, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report

Lance, living in a dense area isn't all negative.

By having density, a greater variety of goods and services can be supported in a compact area, and the demand for services like transit can be higher, which would justify running transit more frequently or with higher quality vehicles.

Steve: I'm with you on that. Keep building more transit, and more living and working buildings near transit.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 19, 2009 2:42 pm • link • report

Simple solution. Remove or reduce the heights restrictions outside the Monumental core. Especially in less developed and uglier areas around Metro. For example, the mess around Rhode Island Avenue by all the train tracks. Or the NY Ave area which is already getting a lot of tall (for DC) buildings.

Contrary to the hysteria about them, we have natural barriers to these showing up everywhere. DC is built in a river valley on swampland. A significant area simply can't take large buildings due to the underlying geology. But those areas which can should be able to, within the restrictions of existing development.

by John on Mar 19, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

What exactly constitutes "affordable" in DC? For instance, I make well below DC's median income and I own a one bedroom condo in NW near the green line that is not breaking my budget, but this situation would obviously change if I had a kid (hello detroit!). I'm just not sure that reducing new market rate supply would do any more than drive up prices for those like me who would probably barely miss being qualified or for those who can't get off the waiting list. Wouldn't 'rent control' make things worse?

The situation would be exacerbated in the rental market, as people would have more of incentive to stay in a unit that does not get more expensive, nor would landlords have a reason to maintain a property. I know San Fran and NYC struggle with this problem, but the difference is that unlike DC, they exempt new construction. Here, we'd be exempting existing construction, which seems like it provides an incentive to build elsewhere (or to build less). I could be way off.

For as left wing as I am on most stuff, I've always believed there has got to be a better way to incentivize affordable construction than top-down regulation, however well intentioned it may be. I know that cooltown studios provides a lot of good info on crowdsourcing affordable homes in urban areas (they focus on DC a lot as well)

To drive down costs, the city should streamline the development process, remove (some) preservationist and other bureaucratic barricades, and encourage architects and developers to think about alternative family homes (i.e., small, functional spaces in underused buildings, both residential and commercial ones). I would take it a step further and encourage the city to provide incentives to groups of prospective owners and renters who work with developers to build attainable housing, as livegreen is apparently doing. There are other examples too, such as that group getting sub 200k condos built on H street (can't find the site). As an example, A group of prospectives are exempt from two years of property taxes, and the developer gets increased density rights, or whatever.

I am a firm believer in government using its ability tax to encourage appropriate behavior. IZ, rent control and the like seem to me to distort the market, and may stifle new development choices. This would help out a few at the expense of many. I don't see that as a good use of government power. Two cents...

by JTS on Mar 19, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

Steve, sorry, didn't see your comment before I started writing. Same idea as you though. In suburbs and car-dependent places, density = bad. In walkable and transit dependent areas, density = good.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 19, 2009 2:50 pm • link • report

Lance, the market currently is already distorted b/c the greatest demand is for housing below the 100% area mean (or median?) income (AMI). If the "market" were truly a magical self-acting entity that if left alone met our needs by self-correcting to create supply where there is demand there wouldn't be this distortion/imbalance in demand. Our culture accepts that housing builders/landlords will get the very most profit they can; if there's a dollar to be made it's just not American to forgo it in favor of some other value, like giving back to the community. The "market" is a human creation; -it is not an autonomus magical enitity. If we value a more equitable, healthy (human health) and environmentally sustainable "market" model there is only one way to achieve that - design it so. That requires giving up the notion that the market is not a creation of humans. It is. If it were "self-correcting" there wouldn't be a bulging demand on one end of it. (x-rated implication not intended)The "correction" can only take place if we decide to make it so.

Part of the correction can be achieved with raising the minimum wage thus taking some pressure off demand for homeless shelters -the very bottom of the housing market.

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 2:52 pm • link • report

http://beardenarts.ning.com/

found it. Here's the link on the group pushing for affordable housing on H Street.

by JTS on Mar 19, 2009 2:56 pm • link • report

We need housing programs in DC to ensure our neighborhoods don't all become like central Manhattan or Paris, where the only residents are either very wealthy or young enough to be able to live in tiny studio apartments. Healthy neighborhoods need a mix of housing types and income levels.

You make a good point. I own a small row house in the city. I can't imagine how I'd feel if Fenty allowed DC to devolve into a shit-hole like Paris. The very thought has me in a cold sweat.

Ok, enough snark. I think some housing should be set aside for essential personnel--the sort of subsidization you're talking about. Teachers, firemen, police, etc... It should be a perk that helps us attract the best and brightest to those professions.

Other than that, I say let the market decide.

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 2:59 pm • link • report

i make well below 50% AMI, but i want to live in the city, and i work in the city.

I'd like a Van Gough to hang in my (tiny) living room. Save your ducats. Also, fine cheeses are far too expensive for me to afford. It is time for those prices to come down.

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 3:07 pm • link • report

Michael Perkins:

I think your golden delicious analogy is flawed, and that IZ must, in fact, raise housing prices.

Consider a special tax on golden delcious apples. There are two plausible scenarios that could result:

1) Many producers of golden delicious apples could shift to produce other varieties of apples not subject to the tax. Since the total number of apples produced remains the same and demand for apples is unchanged, there's no reason to expect apple prices to rise. And because other apples are good subsitutes for golden delcious apples, the remaining golden delicious producers wouldn't be able to push the tax onto consumers; we'd expect them to bear its entire cost.

2) Or, maybe golden delicious producers can't easily shift to produce other kinds of apples, perhaps because it takes several years to grow an apple tree that is mature enough to yield saleable fruit. Those golden delicious producers who can't sell apples at a profit with the new tax shut down, and aren't offset by extra production of other apples.

It remains true that golden delicious producers won't be able to charge a premium over other apples due to the tax. However, because the total number of apples produced has fallen, and the demand curve for apples is presumably unchanged, apple prices (including for non-golden delicious) must rise to reduce the quantity demanded to match the new quantity supplied. In this case, the tax is borne partly by golden delicious producers, and partly by consumers of *all* apples; meanwhile, producers of other apples actually get a profit boost because market prices rise and they don't pay any of the tax.

Housing is more analagous to the second case. This is because, when an IZ requirement is imposed on new housing stock, developers cannot shift to produce already-built housing stock. If IZ (an implicit tax) reduces the number of new units built, it must reduce the total number of units.

Since the demand curve is not affected by the IZ requirement, and supply is reduced, housing prices must rise compared to the non-IZ case, for both new and already-built units. This means the IZ "tax" will be borne partly by developers, and partly by renters or buyers of *all* kinds of housing. And, as in the apple case, owners of existing building stock receive an extra profit, as they benefit from the price-boosting effects of IZ without having to pay any of its costs.

by Josh Barro on Mar 19, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report

"let the market decide". Does the market have a will? "Market" is just a name for what we allow to be bought and sold. the "market" is already highly regulated. Someone can't build a tannery next to your condo building b/c zoning regs don't allow it. The "market" is controlled by human activity, it s human creation, it doesn't have a will of it's own, it's not an autonomous entity. The buying and selling of goods happens within culturally accepted boundaries. If environmentally sustainable housing and transportation is what we decide we value then those are the cultural boundaries we set for "the market".

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report

Great. So you're going to build condos that have a "targeted" sales price of $200k. What happens if that price is bid up to $350k? Is it still affordable?

"Affordable housing" is meaningless unless we're talking about price caps or subsidies. Now if you want to talk about "more tiny housing" fine...

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 3:50 pm • link • report

ibc, Some of it will be sold to lottery winners, who will buy units at large discounts below market price, with some unenforceable conditions about resale and subletting.

For other locations, the target prices are below or close to the price of market-rate housing--after all, as mentioned above 80% of area median income is high relative to the DC's median income and there are plenty of neighborhoods where residents who apparently can afford housing have much lower incomes, so the developer will not find that many people will want to buy the units that involve more restrictions and paperwork, but involve no discount from market rate units.

The IZ proposal was not well conceived and wouldn't have worked even in the recent housing bubble, but now, the warts are even more apparent.

Had the proposal instead encouraged the production and renovation of units that are less costly, that might have made sense, that would be "affordable" at market rates, or offered and encouraged acceptance of housing vouchers.

Or it might have offered subsidies to the groups mentioned above, but there is no need for that, since DC already has such programs, for example, home purchase assistance program (HPAP), grants and loans up to $11,500 for DC Government employees who are first time homebuyers, financial incentives for DC police officers, the homestead housing preservation program, mortgage assistance for purchases within a half-mile of a Metro station or a quarter-mile of a bus stop, and the first time homebuyer tax credit, as well as programs aimed at developers of rental housing.

by Andy on Mar 19, 2009 4:24 pm • link • report

ibc: thanks for the words of wisdom. again, i do live in the city, and it's in large part b/c i'm able to manage my money. glad you own a small rowhouse - if you're looking for more space in a larger bungalow in NE, i own one that i'd love to sell so my ex can move on with his life and i have a few dollars left over after i pay my rent in shaw.

how does your snarky response to my situation jive with:

"I think some housing should be set aside for essential personnel--the sort of subsidization you're talking about. Teachers, firemen, police, etc... It should be a perk that helps us attract the best and brightest to those professions."?

along those lines - and perhaps part of a different discussion, teachers, police, and firefighters are often used as the poster-children for "affordable housing." yes, we need them and it's great if they live in the city they serve, but are we then devaluing the service industry folks (transportation, health care, grocery clerks, waste mgmt., etc. etc.) whom we also rely on on a day-to-day basis by not including them in those equations?

by jaime on Mar 19, 2009 4:34 pm • link • report

"along those lines - and perhaps part of a different discussion, teachers, police, and firefighters are often used as the poster-children for "affordable housing." yes, we need them and it's great if they live in the city they serve, but are we then devaluing the service industry folks (transportation, health care, grocery clerks, waste mgmt., etc. etc.) whom we also rely on on a day-to-day basis by not including them in those equations?"

Good point Jaime! Additionally, if we have a problem attracting teachers, police, firefighters, etc. to work in highcost areas like the District, it simply means we aren't paying them enough. (Just like the non-government employees you mention.) Rather than subsidize their housing costs, wouldn't it be fairer just to pay these public employees more and let THEM decide where they prefer to live? Maybe they have a reason to live in less expensive SE than in more expensive NW. Maybe they don't need to have their housing subsidized because they are living with a parent or friend ... or whatever. Why should WE be telling them they have to take a part of their compensation in the form of subsidized housing? Why? ... Because then the politicians who voted in such programs can then go around screaming that they've "helped" these folks. They haven't really. But, to those voters who haven't though it through, it sounds like they really have.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 4:49 pm • link • report

Sure, my point was that if we're going to be giving people incentives to live in DC (which is what we're debating) we should give them to folks who contribute the most, rather than giving them to people who just "really, really want to live in DC but can't afford to" by lottery, or whatever.

You can make the argument that "Everyone contributes equally, from the 'Teacher of the Year' to the anti-social guy making sandwiches at Subway" but I don't think you'll have many takers.

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 5:01 pm • link • report

Lance i agree one way to relieve some pressure for housing is with wages/salaries.

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 5:03 pm • link • report

To IBC, et al: Is it really the role of government to decide which individuals are the most morally worthy of subsidized housing? I'm not a fan of IZ in general, but it strikes me as preferable to hand it out in an income-based lottery than to ask elected officials and/or bureaucrats to engage in a series of value judgments about which professions are the most selfless and deserving.

by Josh Barro on Mar 19, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

Look at it this way: Is it really the role of government to decide whether one city employee is morally worthy of a higher salary than another. That's not a yes-or-no question.

That doesn't sound quite right, because it has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with self-interestedly assigning scarce resources to those who make the greatest contribution to the common good.

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 5:18 pm • link • report

If the government wants to pay its employees more, it can do so directly, and place the burden on taxpayers broadly. There's no reason to mandate favorable treatment for government employees by private landowners in the city. Plus, since many teachers don't work for the government, not everybody in the occupations you identified fall within the set of people whose compensation is ordinarily set by the government.

by Josh Barro on Mar 19, 2009 5:21 pm • link • report

lance: i disagree. though i think you're thinking along the right lines (compensation for people in some of these fields is far too low considering the importance of their work), they are not being forced to live somewhere they don't want if they are given the option of an IZ unit in a more pricey part of town. rather, they're given a choice, a choice that they may not have had beforehand.

i think IZ would/is easier to work out than getting minimum wages raised high enough to afford current market rates for housing. just fighting the battle to get the minimum wage raised nationally from just over 5 to just over 7 dollars/hour was hard enough. i think we'd all agree that it would be a fool's challenge to get the minimum wage raised a couple hundred percent.

attempting to raise wages across the board would be so difficult. the nature of the "market" that so many seem to revere is that its job is to drive down wages. pay people as little as possible to do as much work as possible for the highest profit possible.

just like people here are arguing that no developer is going to sell property for less than the absolute most they can make out of the goodness of their heart, it's also true that no business is going to pay people more than the least necessary out of the goodness of their heart either.

(sorry if this rambles, but i wrote this in parts over some 45 minutes)

by IMGoph on Mar 19, 2009 5:26 pm • link • report

"just like people here are arguing that no developer is going to sell property for less than the absolute most they can make out of the goodness of their heart, it's also true that no business is going to pay people more than the least necessary out of the goodness of their heart either."

The difference is that the business (or government in this case) won't be doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They'll be doing it out of a business interest. If you want to be able to attract "good and qualified" employees, you'll pay them a living wage ... or you find other means of paying that living wage ... such as pushing to costs off on other taxpayers and/or developers. Bottom line is that that District has it within its authority to simply raise the pay of these folks ... and let them decide where/how they want to live. Otherwise, it's all shadows and mirrors ... people are definitely getting "taxed" to pay these public servants this 'extra compensation' ... 'cept there's little transparancy as to how the money get 'taxed' nor how it gets allocated it. The whole process we have in place for taxing and paying for government services gets bypassed ... and with it all its transparency, safeguards, and measures aimed at ensuring equal and fair treatment. And the poor public servant doesn't even get to choose how he/she gets to spend their money. Some politician or bureaucrat does ... and, unbelievably, gets credit for 'helping' them ... with someone else's money ... !

Like I said earlier, the District just needs to pay what the market determines must be paid to attract good and qualified labor. Then everything works. No, that public servant may still not be able to live where they want, but very few of us can. I'd love to live in one of those beautiful $XX million mansions for sale in Georgetown at the moment ... but I can't. And I don't need some bureaucrat or politician taking money out of another taxpayer's pocket so that I can.

by Lance on Mar 19, 2009 5:49 pm • link • report

IMGoph, I agree and you articulated what I was trying to get at. The "market" is amoral (without morality-good nor bad.) We people have morals and we can and do impose our morals on selling and buying actvities, "the market", all the time across the board. IZ is just one more expression of that. If we want environmentally sustainable, healthy and equitable communities we guide the market so those goals are achieved. We guide the market so pressure for the greatest demand is relieved -housing below the AMI in walkable communities near transit. At the same time we create more TOD. there is plenty of money and profit to be made.

There is huge demand, therefore there is potential for profit. Coupling profit with a sense of social responsibility is something even Walmart has embraced.

by Bianchi on Mar 19, 2009 5:52 pm • link • report

There's no reason to mandate favorable treatment for government employees by private landowners in the city.

Or for anyone else for that matter, many would argue...

If we want environmentally sustainable, healthy and equitable communities we guide the market so those goals are achieved.

I'm with you on 1 & 2. Your argument needs a little bolstering when you get to the moral imperative to provide lucky winners with cheap housing. Not obvious why that should be the case.

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 6:01 pm • link • report

This discussion is just another example of smart-growthers trying to have it both ways. Do you want greater development of housing units near urban cores and transit so that more people in the DC area can live low carbon-footprint, transit-oriented lives? Or do you want developers to have to comply with lots of onerous rules in order to build, so you can sculpt the exact city you dreamed of?

Every grand idea about perfecting the style of development in DC make it more expensive to build here, whether it's the height limit; an IZ requirement; a parking minimum OR maximum; one of those absurd micro-level restrictions on the variety of retail tenants within certain districts (OH NOEZ! TOO MANY RESTAURANTS!); a Kafkaesque design review process that takes 18 months to turn out an acceptable Apple store; or what have you. Each of these regulations tips the cost balance in the direction of adding development in Loudoun County instead of in the district.

If we were in Loudoun County, you could promote more regulation at the same time as promoting smart growth. But when you're talking about the core jurisdiction of an urban area, adding regulation (and therefore cost) tends to push development out to the less-regulated, less-dense jurisdictions. The result is not consistent with smart growth: it means less development here, and more development elsewhere.

/rant

by Josh Barro on Mar 19, 2009 6:03 pm • link • report

I don't need some bureaucrat or politician taking money out of another taxpayer's pocket so that I can.

So, Lance, you still haven't told us where you stand on the "force property owners to eat 20% of the market price, and bestow that money on random luck-lottery winners".

I'm guessing you're "For", right?

by ibc on Mar 19, 2009 6:06 pm • link • report

I'm conflicted about IZ. I agree with the concept that concentrated poverty is bad and that mixed income is desirable for social benefit. However the logistics of implementation are a mystery to me. How does IZ impact the people who run these buildings long after the developer has moved on? For condos does it put more strain on the HOA - both in terms administrative tasks and risk of having individuals who are more likely to have issues paying the condo fees? Until I'm educated a little more about the impact of IZ on condos I'm inclined to say it really only makes sense for apartments where additional headaches can be absorbed by a property management company and evictions for those who cause trouble are easier.

by Paul on Mar 20, 2009 10:22 am • link • report

good discussion.

by Bianchi on Mar 20, 2009 10:38 am • link • report

Surprised that no one pointed out that this whole discussion became predicated on an inaccuracy by the first poster. AMI is close to $100k/year for A FAMILY OF FOUR. Not for 1 person. It steps up/down ~$10K per person.

by Sir Spicious on Mar 31, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report