Comments on: D.C.’s Designated Affordable Condos Are Great—Just Don’t Move Any Time Soon

By: A Realist

A Realist — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:35:27 +0000

It's not just her that's affected by this. Everyone who lives under these restrictions have uniquely different situations. The only thing that is consistent is the fact that they do not have the freedom that others do whenever a pressing situation comes up. I guarantee you that she wouldn't be able to sell right now, not even to a Market rate buyer. And I'm not advocating for no resale restrictions at all. I think there should be some; 20 years is just way too long. Average American is in and out of a home every 7-8 years. Why limit a person to such a lengthy period. 10 years is more than reasonable and it ensures that this person is "commited" and not a "flipper". And if the goal is preserving the unit, after 20 years, it's gone anyhow, so what difference does it make if you reduce the time to a more reasonable period.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:23:22 +0000

@A Realist - what future? Under your system she'd sell to a market rate buyer now.

@BennyRed - something tells me you have a very small dick. Your way of coping with your anger about over this shortcoming is acting like a big tough man on the internet.

By: BennyRed

BennyRed — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:12:17 +0000

Jason- you're a fucking dick and the sooner you know this, the better off the world will be. All this bullshit your spewing about your personal struggles while at the same time bashing the fuck out of others for their struggles, doesn't make you right either. You sound like a prick, regardless of your upbringing, and that won't change son. So keep up the hard work and the close mind. I need companions.

By: A Realist

A Realist — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:03:53 +0000

I'm not talking about now man. I'm talking about in the future. I'm not implying that they will tear up the place and it's pretty sad that you interpret like that. It has nothing to with the pride of ownership. It has to do with the economics of it all. They are restricted from using their equity. If something breaks down the road in their unit that isn't covered by condo fees, they can't go out and take a Line of credit to fix it like a regular homebuyer. You're married to this notion that these individuals are taking advantage of this situation, and should be grateful for what they have, even if it's not something you yourself would (this implies choice) do. So as much as this doesn't make financial sense for anyone, especially the owners of these units, it's impossible to reason with someone who just simply does not care. Separate but equal was a policy that many held to be true and beneficial for people not like them. This seems to be true in this case as well.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:32:47 +0000

>> ? By restricting what she can do with the appreciation, she has no real incentive to maintain the home. Normal wear and tear will result in a property that is substandard (these units aren’t up to the regular market to begin with). What will the City do then? It will fall back on her, so she will in effect be subsidizing the unit for the City.

That's ridiculous. Kenyon Square and City Vista are new buildings. Very little maintenance is required on a new unit and the condo fees will pay for the maintanance of the common areas and structural systems. If affordable housing owners are going to trash the inside of their condo simply because they don't have the economic incentive of appreciation gains then it just shows they have no pride.

By: A Realist

A Realist — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:58:24 +0000

Jason- Why shouldn't she be entitled to any appreciation? She took on all of risks like anyone else, maintained a responsible mortgage, paid her utilities, condo fees, etc., like everyone else did. She doesn't want to be in the situation forever and by purposely limiting what she is entitled to earn, is just wrong. The problem with affordable housing policies is that there is so much emphasis on the units.

Do you guys ever think what it's really costing the City to maintain these units over the long run? By restricting what she can do with the appreciation, she has no real incentive to maintain the home. Normal wear and tear will result in a property that is substandard (these units aren't up to the regular market to begin with). What will the City do then? It will fall back on her, so she will in effect be subsidizing the unit for the City.

Uneven housing policies is the reason why many minorities in the US have a tenth of the net worth of white Americans. The effects of redlining devastated generations of blacks in the US while empowering generations of whites.

I just don't see the hang-ups on trying to allow people like her to move up the economic ladder and out of poverty.

Just to note, Columbia Heights is not going to maintain these levels of value for long. So, even though, she might have gotten a "discount" at the height of the boom, she would have been better off purchasing a non-restrictive unit today for the same price.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:05:45 +0000

@A Realist - I understand the economics and that she won't earn the 150K that was part of the subsidy in your scenario. But I see no reason for her to benefit from the appreciation above that amount if it means selling at market rate. If she outgrows the unit and needs to move on then the unit should go to the next wave of people who need a low income unit of this size. To me affordable housing is about providing housing that won't break the budget of the individual - not a wealth transfer.

@BennyRed - My father has been dead since I was three. I worked 40 hours a week as a grocery clerk while I was in high school and worked at Sbarros during college. Apparently your just an intellectual dimwit since all your responses are belittling commenters rather than focusing on the actual topic...

By: Slope

Slope — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:54:27 +0000

Jacks making stupid decisions alwaays want a bail out.

By: dcav8r

dcav8r — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:53:54 +0000

Actually, I live in NE, we don't have a coffee shop, gym or any of that mess. I bought my house knowing the terms, and Manna actually built a two unit townhouse next to me. I actually lived in Columbia Heights when there was nothing but crack whores and crack heads. So, Benny, YOU shouldn't judge. The 'war zone' you refer to is a few blocks down from hers, mine is right outside my front door. No one told this woman to take in a stranger that obviously belongs in a mental home. She knew the terms when she bought it, she has to live with it. Poor her, living right next to Target, and all kind of shops. We don't have any of that in Ward 5 (well, we are getting a Forman Mills ya-hoo). And its a two bedroom-- if she tosses out the basket case, then her and her husband and new child have a perfect place. Additionally, that is a great area to raise a kid, not to mention because of the housing requirement, it will afford stability in their kids life during the growing years. If you ask me, she should be thankful she is stuck there.

By: BennyRed

BennyRed — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:31:34 +0000

Jason is just bitter that his daddy made him pay for some of his college bill and room with three other yuppies in Logan Circle. He thinks that working hard means metroing to a office job on the Hill every weekday from 9 to 5. He's responsible because he can take that additional money from his arduous job and set it aside every month. He has it bad. He's cut back on starbucks- three days a week now and eats out at Nando's only a few times a month. His life is very rough and he doesn't see why all of you ghettofied people are complaining. Pull your boots up, you welfare cry-babbies... Be a real man like Jason.