The Washington, DC region is great >> and it can be greater.

Posts about Demographics

Housing


How can we know if DC is building enough housing?

DC could reach almost a million people in 30 years. What does that mean for the amount of housing DC needs? Or the amount you might pay to rent or buy a place to live? Current population forecasts still don't answer a few key questions that have to be answered to plan for the future.


Photo by E. Krall on Flickr.

DC planners are starting work to amend the city's Comprehensive Plan. Among other things, the Comp Plan sets basic policies for how much new housing can be built. And a recent court case blocked new housing because a map in the Comp Plan didn't show it. That means it's very important to get the plan right.

Everyone needs to live somewhere, so a very logical first step to understanding the city's needs is forecasting how many people want to live there. That's not quite so simple, however.

Forecasting is complex

Many variables go into population forecasts. Regional data analysts disagree about many of them. Still, they've had some success. When the current Comp Plan was first written, a decade ago, it estimated the city's population in 2010 and 2015. It got the 2010 population bang on the nosealmost exactly 600,000. But for 2015, it's wasn't so accurate; the Comp Plan guessed growth would continue to 630,000, but DC actually grew much more, to about 672,000.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) puts out annual growth estimates for all of the jurisdictions in the Washington region. Here's how the Comp Plan's growth estimates track with COG's past and most recent estimates and with reality.


Actual population data from US Census and American Community Survey estimates. Projections from DC Office of Planning, DC CFO, and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

The DC Chief Financial Officer also makes some forecasts. The last one tracks closely to COG's, but in 2013 the DC CFO thought growth was about to slow. It hasn't, at least not yet.

The current forecasts answer some questions, but not all

How does COG come up with its forecasts? It calls them "cooperative forecasts" because the first step is for each local jurisdiction to estimate its own growth. Then, COG planners tweak the numbers so the totals better match the overall regional jobs picture, trends about how many children people are having, and so forth.

Those individual jurisdictional estimates mostly come from looking at how much development is in the pipeline and how much room there is under current zoning. It makes some sense—someone is not going to move to DC unless they have a place to live. If 1,000 new housing units will be created and 90% of them will fill up in 2 years with an average of 1.5 people per unit (for example), that means 1,350 new residents.

That's a pretty good way to guess the population if you want to know what's most likely to happen under current policy. It helps with budgeting for the amount of trash pickup you'll need, say, or how many schools to build.

But if you use that number to set zoning policies, you'd be making a circular argument:

  • We think developers will build x housing units.
  • X housing units hold Y people.
  • Therefore, DC will grow by Y people.
[later]
  • We said DC will grow by Y people.
  • Y people fit in X units.
  • We're building X units.
  • Therefore, we're building enough units.

Photo by Tom Magliery on Flickr.

It doesn't work that way. Let's consider a hypothetical city that really doesn't want to grow much but has a booming job market. Call it Atherton.

Atherton has about 7,500 people and very little opportunity to add new housing under zoning. It's zoned for enough new development for 100 new people and that's it. If that policy continues, the new units for those 100 people will get built in the next five years, and then perhaps nothing for many years after that.

Atherton therefore estimates its population will be 7,600 in 2035. Is that right? Well, maybe. That doesn't mean that policy makes any sense if the surrounding area has demand for thousands of new jobs a year and prices in Atherton are going through the roof (as they are, because Atherton is real!)

DC isn't Atherton, and we shouldn't be—but needs more data to avoid it

DC is, of course, not trying to stop all growth, and its forecast predicts some substantial growth. But that forecast still primarily answers the question of what the population will be under current policies. It doesn't tell us a few key things we need to know:

  1. If we don't change current policies, will prices rise faster than people's incomes can keep up?
  2. If we did change policies, what would happen? Would more people move in?
  3. What policies should we pursue if we want both new residents and longtime ones to be able to live in DC, without too-fast price rises or displacement?
These are the questions that DC must explore for the Comprehensive Plan, because the Comp Plan is the ultimate font of the policies that create the pipeline that drives the population estimates.

There aren't official numbers on most of this yet, but I've talked to forecasters who are trying to figure it out. It's not easy. If more housing was getting built, some people would move to DC who otherwise would live in another county or region entirely. Some wouldn't be displaced who otherwise would be. On the other hand, some people might not like the changes and move out.

Will DC run out of room?

DC (and the whole Washington region) is highly desirable, and many people would like to live here but for high and rising housing prices. Others who have lived here for many years are finding themselves priced out through rising rents or taxes associated with swelling real estate appraisals.

There's a growing body of evidence that when cities don't build enough new housing to keep up with demand, that exacerbates the price rise. In DC, proposed new buildings constantly have floors and units slashed off or have strict limits on their size in the first place.

You don't have to believe that removing regulations will magically make housing suddenly affordable for all—I don't—to worry about all the people who can't live in the units that don't get built and the displacement it can cause elsewhere.

Beyond prices rising and displacement happening today, there's reason to worry it will get worse. DC does have a number of large undeveloped sites now, like Walter Reed, McMillan, St. Elizabeths, and Hill East, which can and hopefully will provide a large portion of DC's housing need for the next decade or so. But if demand to live in the city remains strong, these will fill with housing soon; what then?

An Office of Planning 2013 report warned that DC was approaching its maximum buildable limits. The city could run out of space for new housing between 2030 and 2040, the report said.


Graph from the DC Office of Planning's Height Master Plan report, 2013.

It would be helpful for OP to update this graph based on changes since then. The zoning update allowed people to rent out basements and garages ("accessory apartments") in some zones, which added some potential housing; at the same time, DC made zoning more restrictive in many row house areas and downzoned the Lanier Heights neighborhood, which might have moved the red dotted line down somewhat.

Where are the lines now? How has the city's growth tracked against the three scenarios in the above graph? Under various assumptions, how much time is left until the problem gets even worse than it is today?

DC needs an inclusive housing strategy

DC needs a Comprehensive Plan that ensures enough housing so that prices don't rise faster than they need to. Public policies must also ensure that new housing benefits a cross-section of income levels, from the very poor to the middle class and beyond, to prevent displacement and built a city welcoming to all—as Mayor Bowser likes to say, for those who have been here for five generations or five minutes.

To get the policies right requires good data. What do you see in the above analysis? Are there other data sets you think would be helpful? Are there other questions that an updated Comprehensive Plan should address?

Government


DC has almost no white residents without college degrees. (It's a different story for black residents.)

One of FiveThirtyEight's great interactive features looks at voters in different groups (college educated whites, Hispanics, etc.) and their effect on the Electoral College. One part graphs each group and its prevalence in various states. This graph really stuck out for how unusual DC is:


Image from FiveThirtyEight.

The X axis here is how much people vote Democratic versus Republican. It's no shocker that people in DC, regardless of race or education level, overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. That's not especially relevant to this discussion. But the Y axis is how prevalent each group is in the electorate; this graph is saying that non-college-educated whites make up only 2% of DC's electorate.

Now, when you graph DC against the 50 states, it often looks like an outlier since it's far more urban than any state. Even so, that percentage of non-college-educated white voters is remarkably small. 2%???

Is that typical of other center cities? In a word, not at all. Here's the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents over 251 who lack a college degree for select center cities (since New York City is big, I included both all of New York and just Manhattan2):


Graphs by the author with data from the Census' 2012 5-year American Community Survey.

For DC, that's 11%. That's super low. Low is good—but it's not low for all groups.

There's a huge chasm between white and black when it comes to education

DC's high level of education among its white residents does not translate to African-Americans. Here is the proportions of whites and blacks without a college education in the same center cities:

These numbers are heart-breakingly high in all the cities. African-Americans, especially in center cities, lack educational opportunities at a tragic rate, perpetuating cycles of generational poverty that America has trapped them in for the nation's entire history (cf. slavery, Jim Crow, racial covenants, redlining, etc.)

To be sure, as in other center cities, DC has a significant black middle and professional class who have access to good jobs. But while most cities have some blacks with opportunity and (more) blacks without, and whites with and (fewer) without, in DC, that fourth category is basically absent.

No major center city does much better on black education levels. San Jose is a little lower, but not much, and its population is only 3.07% black. Does the racial makeup of a city seem to correlate with education levels? Not really:

What about in our region?

This effect isn't the same outside center cities. Here are the same graphs for major jurisdictions in our region2:

Again, DC has the widest gap between black and white, but Arlington isn't far behind (while being far whiter). Howard and Loudoun have the lowest percentage of black residents without bachelor's degrees; Loudoun is only 7% black, but Howard is a somewhat more respectable 17%.

Still, as the scatter plot here shows (and which won't be much surprise to many of you), there are really only three counties in the region with large black populations, and they're geographically adjacent.

The two besides DC—Prince George's and Charles—have little difference in the educational attainment level between blacks and whites (and same for the least diverse county in this list, Frederick). In DC, there's a great gulf.

If you want to play with the data, you can download the Census tables for white, black, and total population for the selected cities; and white, black, and total population for regional jurisdictions.

What do you notice?

1 The Census uses the population over 25 for this, presumably because many people under 25 don't yet have college degrees only due to their age.
2 Aka New York County, NY.
3 Sorry, small independent cities of Northern Virginia; in this analysis, you're not different enough from your adjacent counties to warrant inclusion.

Demographics


No plan today could ignore rising housing costs. Ten years ago, that wasn't the top issue.

Greater Greater Washington readers are reading DC's Comprehensive Plan, a document that lays out how we build our city, and discussing it as we go. Each week, we'll post a summary of the chapter we most recently read, along with some highlights of what our book club participants think about how the plan could change in the upcoming amendment process.

DC's Comprehensive Plan set out to help the city "grow inclusively." In its second chapter, it outlines how to do that. But, looking at it from 2016, people immediately noticed that it didn't really talk much about the central planning challenge of our era: how to keep housing prices from spiraling out of reach.


Photo by Images Money on Flickr.

Last week, members of the book club read the first half of chapter 2, Framework (up to page 2-21). That section lays out the then-current trends DC: A 50-year population decline turning around, but DC still growing slower than suburban and exurban neighbors; a gradual loss of federal jobs; and shrinking family sizes as people marry and have kids later in life.

It says:

In 1950, Washington had 802,000 residents and was the 9th largest
city in America. By 2000, Washington's population had dropped to 572,000 and it ranked 21st in size among U.S. cities. Between 1970 and 2000 alone, the number of people living in the District of Columbia dropped by almost 25 percent. ...

Unlike the experience of other major cities, the loss of population in Washington was not the result of "white flight." In fact, between 1980 and 2000, African-Americans registered the largest decrease among the city's racial groups, dropping in population by almost 100,000. This drop was partially offset by increases in the city's Hispanic and Asian populations.

While population loss after 1950 was significant, the decline in the number of households has been much less dramatic. The number of households in the District declined by just 2 percent between 1980 and 2000, standing at 248,000 in 2000. Thus, population loss in the late 1900s was less a function of housing being abandoned and more a result of larger households being replaced by smaller households. In fact, the average household in Washington contained 2.16 persons in 2000, down from 2.72 in 1970. Middle-class families left the city in large numbers during this period and the number of school-aged children dropped dramatically.

Looking forward, the city expects household size to continue falling through 2010, and then stabilize. According to the US Census, the percentage of seniors is expected to increase as "baby-boomers" retire, and the percentage of foreign-born residents, particularly those of Hispanic origin, is expected to rise. The District is expected to continue to be a magnet for the region's young professionals and empty nesters. Its ability to attract families with children rests largely on its ability to improve the quality of public education and address basic issues like crime, service provision, and housing affordability.

Corey Holman calculated the numbers and found that household size may or may not have dropped depending on which Census survey you look at, while the percentages of baby boomers and Latinos have NOT risen.


We might be adding more families, and they'll need a place they can afford to live. Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

What about costs?

The 2006 plan forecasts a lot about DC, but not housing costs. It mentions the danger of displacement as housing costs rise, but actually explores that quite scantily. Many of the members of the book club noticed this gap.

Stephanie Thomas said, "An honest assessment of housing costs is key, and I hope that the updated plan will focus more on what DC can do to control costs and contribute towards its stated goal of an inclusive city."

Cheryl Cort added, "Using an approach that looks at low, medium, and high growth projections rather than a 'right number' approach to forecasting population growth would better serve the region's and city's goals to be more sustainable, and better address housing demand." Education, too, didn't come up as strongly as some expected.

Yuki Kato observed that the plan "does mention that income divide as 'the biggest challenge facing the District as it planned for its future' (p. 2-5), but it is not clear in what ways ... this is going to be addressed."

Growth where?

Perhaps one reason rising costs became a big challenge is DC actually built 13% less housing than the plan predicted.

A part of the framework chapter forecasts growth by "planning area," large sections of the city. Here's a graphic of the housing projections:


Graphic by Peter Dovak.

Payton Chung pointed out last year that the growth hasn't actually followed this plan. Much more of it was in "Central Washington," basically downtown and NoMA; Southwest Waterfront; and the ballpark area. And the total fell short of the plan's estimates.

Chung wrote, "The District's other policies to 'conserve single-family residential neighborhoods' are doing too good of a job at keeping new housing out of the neighborhoods that were supposed to accommodate 70% of future housing growth—and keeping the District as a whole well below its housing growth projections."

Yuki Kato worried about how this would affect areas with lower incomes and lower levels of education. She said, "More urgency could have been placed on these projections to seek ways in which the Comp Plan can ease the concentrated burden on some of the areas."

The framework chapter also talks little about transportation, and book club members noticed that too. This is because, Cort said, "In 2006, there was no city transportation plan, and DDOT has only been around for a few years at that point (established by DC Council in 2002)." DC now has created the MoveDC plan, and the current Comprehensive Plan amendment process will incorporate MoveDC (all or in parts—specifics aren't out yet).

This half of the Framework chapter looked at trends and projections. The second half is where the plan starts taking a stand, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. We'll be discussing that next, followed by the Land Use chapter, which is similarly pivotal. If you want to be a part of the book club, fill out the form below!



Demographics


DC's population is exploding

DC's population is growing, and it's likely to surpass the all-time high in the next decade. It's also getting whiter overall, and seeing more international immigrants and childbirths. These are some of the key takeaways from a population trends study that the Office of Planning published in April.


DC's population growth is forecasted to continue in the decades to come. All images from the Office of Planning.

DC will likely surpass its all-time high population within the next decade

Between 2000 and 2015, the District's population grew by approximately 100,000 people. This meant a reversal of a downward trend in population, which had been happening since the 1950s, when the city's population peaked at around 800,000.

There aren't any signs that population growth will slow down. In fact, the study projects the District's population will exceed the old high of 800,000 within the next ten years.

DC will continue to become whiter and more affluent

Since bottoming out in the 1980s, the District's white population has grown steadily, with a sharp increase around the turn of the century. Conversely, the rate of the black population growth has steadily declined since its peak in the 1970s.

As DC's white population continues to increase, wealth and affluence will likely increase as a corollary. Currently, pockets of wealth and affluence are unevenly concentrated in Wards 1, 2, and 3. By contrast, Wards 7 and 8 contain a disproportionate amount of poverty when compared to the other wards.


As can be seen in the images above, the educated and affluent are primarily white and heavily concentrated in northwest and central DC (Wards 1, 2, 3, and 6).


Median income in the District, 2010-2014.

International immigration and child births fuel population growth

Between 2000 and 2007, more people migrated out of the District than migrated in. Since 2007, though, the migrant population in the District has consistently remained a net positive - more people are migrating into the District than out of it.

It is worth noting that even before 2007, the influx of international migrants remained consistently positive despite the overall trend of people moving out of the District.

When taken into consideration relative to the overall migration trends of the 2000s, international immigration has accounted for a significant portion of the population increase in the city.

As more immigrants move into the District and start or expand their families, they account for an increased proportion of the population growth in the city.


Migration trends in the District since 2001.

The number of school-aged children will boom in the next 10 years

Between 2000 and 2010, a specific subgroup - youths aged 5-10 years old - saw a steep drop off in population, accounting for 36% of the overall youth population loss. But this same group saw a 16% population increase between 2010 and 2014.

The attraction and retention of households with children is projected to grow in the years to come, which means the population of school-aged children will likely continue to increase.


Declines in the District's youth population between 2000 and 2010 have been reversed.

What are the policy implications?

As the District looks to the future, population growth and demographic projections clearly highlight opportunities for more sustainable growth.

Wealth and poverty are distributed unevenly in distinct sections of the city, and policy decisions have the potential to affect a shift in this reality as the District prepares for future population expansion.

With a projected increase in school-aged youth and retention of families, education and housing policy specifically could present a significant opportunity for reversing the trends towards an increased opportunity gap.

Demographics


Who are DC's 1,000 "new residents per month?"

You may have heard that DC's population is increasing by approximately 1,000 per month. That's a true popular statistic. But it's not really true to say that 1,000 people are moving into DC each month. What is really driving this number?


Not officially one of the new residents. Photo by Smithsonian's National Zoo on Flickr.

In short: people being born and dying, and large numbers of people moving in and out of DC. On balance, if you add up all of these numbers, you get about 1,000 a month.

Births: Some of DC's new residents are babies. 9,593 humans were born in DC from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, according to the US Census' 2015 "Vintage Population Estimates," or about 800 a month.

Deaths: Meanwhile, some people die. In that same time span, it was 5,218, or about 435 a month. Together, that makes the net "natural population change" 365 people a month.

Domestic migration: Other people move into or out of DC. The Census also estimates that DC had a net domestic migration of 311 people a month. In other words, the number of people who moved to DC from other parts of the US was 311 people more than the number who moved the other way.

International migration: Finally, people move to and from DC from other countries as well. There was a net of 379 such people a month from 2014-2015. As you can see from the graph below, that number has stayed more consistent than the net domestic migration:


Data from US Census Vintage 2015 Population Estimates. Numbers do not include pandas.
* Residual is where the estimates for individual components don't quite add up to the total population change.

This graph shows, with some variation, that roughly a third of the population change is natural, a third domestic migration, and a third international. However, it'd be very inaccurate to say the three are about equal.

That's because the net domestic migration number, in particular, conceals a huge amount of "churn." Remember how, above, we said that 800 babies are born a month and 435 people die? Since those are almost entirely not the same people, there aren't 365 people coming into the world a month; instead, nearly 1,235 people total either enter or leave this life.

The corresponding number of people who moved between DC and another part of the US was between 7,000 and 8,000 a month in either direction, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and the Census's American Community Survey.


Purple bars from US Census Vintage 2015 Population Estimates. Red and green bars are very rough estimates extrapolated from IRS and American Community Survey data.

This graph shows the rough magnitude of the churn in each category. The domestic migration comes out to a net of about 400 a month over the last five years, but that's two large numbers balancing out to one small one. The size of those components is partly why the domestic number fluctuates more from year to year.

It also makes it hard to drill down. We'd love to know how many of the 8,000 movers per month are going to or from the immediate metro area versus elsewhere in the US. Unfortunately, according to Jeannette Chapman of George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis (who provided the data for this post), the available public data sources have limitations.

The Census' American Community Survey uses a small sample that's only good enough to conclude that net domestic migration was somewhere between -13,000 and +7,500 in 2014.1 The IRS has data on people who filed taxes in one jurisdiction and then changed to another, but not everyone can be matched over two years and not everyone files taxes.2 Both of these data sources can tell us a lot about movers, but doesn't completely nail down "the" absolute number.

But the overall net population change numbers are more solid, and in the end, some more people are born than die, and more people come into DC from around the nation and the world than leave.

The people moving domestically and internationally, in general, need housing units; the people born don't right away, but most of their families eventually need larger housing spaces. DC has added approximately 10,000 new jobs per year over the last five years, and many of those job holders will live in the city.

How much housing DC is adding, and how much it needs to build to meet the need, will be the subject of a future post.

1 If you estimate the domestic migration using the ACS and IRS data, as Chapman did, they actually show a net negative domestic migration—more people moving out of DC than in. But, Chapman said, that likely doesn't mean more people actually moved out of DC; the Census' Population Estimates show an increase, and they incorporate more data sets and sophisticated modeling to come to these numbers.

2 The data set only covers people who file taxes and do so by the April 15 deadline. That excludes
many lower-income people, higher-income people, and misses some, like young people, who may still be using another address like their parents'. New filers (like recently-married or first-time jobholders) also don't have two years of history to compare. In 2013, about 15% of people who filed federal taxes (either as the filer or a dependent) couldn't be matched to 2012.

Government


Had Maryland annexed Virginia, here's what demographics would look like

Had an 1861 proposal come to fruition, much of Virginia would have become Maryland, much of Maryland would have become Delaware, and West Virginia would have simply remained Virginia. Here's what their demographics would look like today if all that had happened, and a look at what that might have meant for the 2012 presidential election.

First, a look at these states' boundaries today:


Images by the author.

This includes the population totals and some demographic information from the 2010 Census, as well as the electoral votes allocated based on that census.

What's below shows the "new" states, along with the current state boundaries.

With a population of over 11 million, New Maryland would be the 8th most populous state in the 2010 Census. Despite having a couple of hundred thousand less people than #7 Ohio, it would have the same 18 electoral votes as the Buckeye State. New Delaware's extra population would add an electoral vote to what Delaware has, and New Virginia would have two more electoral votes than West Virginia.

Even if the 23rd Amendment didn't limit DC (and presumably New DC!) to no more electors than the least population state, the almost-million residents in New DC would not be enough to get it an additional elector.

When it comes to race, Delaware and New Delaware (as well as West Virginia and New Virginia) have very similar compositions, and New Maryland's numbers are similar to Maryland. Clearly, Virginia's eastern population is racially similar to Maryland. With the addition of Arlington and Alexandria, New DC's racial population percentages are almost exactly swapped. (Although not shown here, New DC's Hispanic population would be double that of DC.)

Here's how I made the new map

I used current county/city jurisdictional boundaries when creating the new states. While these boundaries may be different from those in 1861, the general analysis presented here would be relatively unaffected. (The most noticeable boundary difference would be modern Alexandria, which has expanded beyond the original DC "diamond.")

The post that inspired mine states that the Blue Ridge Mountains would be the boundary between New Virginia and New Maryland. I georeferenced the 1861 map onto a current and geographically accurate map to determine which current jurisdictions would fall into each state.

Alexandria and Arlington would return (or "be retro-retroceded"??) to New DC. New Delaware would inherit all of the Delmarva Peninsula. And, the three counties in the panhandle of Maryland would move to New Virginia.

I re-calculated the electoral votes for each "new" state based on the populations shown in the second image (and assuming there are only 49 states since West Virginia is no more). Overall, the proposed multi-state area would lose two electoral votes, as there is one fewer state in the calculation.

2012 election would have been different, but not that different

I also decided to take a look at how the reconfiguration of the region may have impacted a recent election. The image below shows the 2012 election results (by county/city), along with the aggregated totals (and electoral votes) of the new states.

In the actual election, Obama took 29 electoral votes in the region and Romney took West Virginia's five votes. Under the new configuration, Obama would have received 25 electoral votes while Romney would have garnered New Virginia's 7 votes.

This very brief analysis doesn't show any earth-shattering differences between the current state configuration and the proposed one. It doesn't touch on economic issues like Gross State Product, employment, personal net worth, salaries, etc. Redrawing state boundaries would not have changed the result of the 2012 election, but can you think of an election where it might have made a difference?

Another point of interest: An overwhelming majority of Metro stations would be in New DC, so would New DC even bother trying to participate a multi-jurisdictional hydrid commuter-subway system like Metro, or would it have just decided to create a District-only system and had New Maryland feed commuters into the Metro via a New Maryland MARC?

What else do you think could be different, for better or worse, if these were our state borders?

Events


Can you name this neighborhood? If so, come to our party! (If not, come to our party too!)

Millennials are flocking to this neighborhood outside DC, where the percentage of adults 20-34 has more than doubled since 1980 to 71%, making it one of the region's youngest. What is it?


Photo by Martin Pettitt on Flickr. (Not in the neighborhood in the question.)

Repeat: it's not in the District. Can you guess? Post your answer in the comments.

This is an example of a question for the trivia contest at our 8th birthday party, Tuesday, March 8 at Vendetta, 1212 H Street NE in DC.

Most of the party will be a fun chance to mingle with your fellow urbanists, readers, commenters, contributors, journalists, government officials, and many more. Around 7:45, we'll have a short trivia game for those who want to play (and those who don't can keep socializing on the other side of the bar!). Participants can win prizes from Capital Bikeshare/goDCgo and Island Press, and we ask for a $5 donation to play.

If you can come to the party, please let us know here since there's a limit on how many people can fit at Vendetta.

And please help us hit our $25,000 goal for our reader drive before the party!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Thank also to our sponsors who are making it possible to throw the party and keep Greater Greater Washington going:

Meanwhile, I've hidden comments for this post so you can post your guesses there and not see spoilers. Everyone who guesses correctly gets a free ticket to the party! (And since it's a free party, so does everyone else, too!) But either way, you still need to RSVP. See you there!

Support Us
DC Maryland Virginia Arlington Alexandria Montgomery Prince George's Fairfax Charles Prince William Loudoun Howard Anne Arundel Frederick Tysons Corner Baltimore Falls Church Fairfax City
CC BY-NC