DC region needs 35,000 housing units by 2035

Emily Mekinc, Editorial Assistant- Washington Business Journal, as published Tuesday, September 18, 2012, writes that as "many as 35,000 housing units will be needed by 2030 for all new workers in the Washington region, local economic expert Stephen Fuller said Tuesday."

Emily Mekinc

Stephen Fuller

According to Emily Mekinc, "Stephen Fuller, faculty chair and professor at George Mason University, also said the region needs more affordable housing, noting that a lack of housing supply across the price spectrum could threaten the area's economic vitality and increase traffic congestion."

He was speaking at a Multifamily Development Symposium.

So, if Stephen Fuller's projection is sound, how should development/construction of these units be spread out between now and 2035? A developer would need a trend-line analysis and to be out front of others taking out building/rehab, etc., permits. That would require deep pockets and a willingness to handle vacancies if the area were to be overbuilt relative to that trend line mentioned above. In our eyes, such projects should always be viewed with the long-term in mind.

Read Emily's whole article here: Stephen Fuller: D.C. region needs 35,000 more housing units – Washington Business Journal.

If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.

Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.

Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.

Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.

Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.

We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.

If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.

The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?

For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.

We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.

We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.