Biden Has Fully Embraced YIMBYs and Will Lose Suburban Voters

[Anonymous]

People want to live among people who are at the same SES/Education etc. All over the world same rules apply, this is basically human nature. Democrats have already ruined the cities, it’s best they stay outta the suburbs.

No, I don’t want to live among uneducated troublemakers who have nothing in common with me. Sue me!

* Aside from this sentiment, towns are not equipped to handle extra traffic, schools don’t have extra capacity, public services are simply not setup for so many extra people.For those you want to create this utopia of mixed housing, they need to address the infrastructure needs first and then talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin (in the Council of Economic Advisors report) recently announced support for a host of key YIMBY policy initiatives this week, like eliminating single-family zoning, reducing minimum lot sizes, and eliminating parking minimums a few days ago. These reforms may be popular among policy wonks, but it remains to be seen whether this will be helpful (or harmful) for Biden's election prospects among suburban voters in key swing states. There has been broad pushback against these initiatives in many states that do not neatly align with traditional partisan politics. Is this a good idea or bad idea for the Biden Admin to discuss addressing this issue so close to the 2024 election?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ERP-2024.pdf
The zoning reform discussion starts on page 163 for people that want to read it.

I didn't read all the replies, but zoning is strictly a local matter isn't it? What power does the do feds have to determine zoning and lot sizes?

The paper suggest they will try to force it on local communities by linking continued federal funding to zoning changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multifsm housing works in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Singapore because there is massive social pressure to tattle/conform and otherwise behave

In Anglo countries, individualism is considered supreme so there is no social or state coercion to behave and hence muktifsm housing is annoying to live in

YIMBYs never want to talk about the social/state pressure required to make everyone behave better

There is a reason why living in a multifam in Tokyo or Zurich or Munich is ok but then you try in dc and it sucks

This is such BS. It is the same as saying that biking as a mode of transportation works in Europe and Asia but not the US because, reasons.

It is all about leadership. Do we want to continue the failed sprawl of the 20th Century or shift to something else that virtually the entire rest of the world does? Because what we are doing here is unsustainable from a landuse standpoint.

There is some truth to what this person is saying. Americans frankly are not as considerate towards their neighbors as other places. In Japan and South Korea, at least there is some social pressure for people to behave well. In the US, not so much.

So reward poor socialization and behavior with wasteful single family homes that are more expensive and farther way than multi-family closer in?

The reality is that our SFH, far from the city and on a nice lot is much more affordable than your multi-family dwelling closer in.

What do you do to earn a living? Grow and sell cherries? Work remote? Live off the land? How scalable is your solution in terms of the number of people who could be accommodated with their "large lots farm from the city"?
Not knocking it, really, As a kid I grew up in a pretty small town with lots of time spent on grandparents' farms, a family member now operates one of those farms, visiting there I feel like urban detritus is just being released from my soul. But not practical to move there and could be tough when I got old.

I'm retired. We do some small farming.
It is a great place to live. Far enough from the city for space. Close enough for shopping/theater/restaurants/etc.
It's great to hear the roosters and cows in the morning. My idea of paradise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Biden admin (in the Council of Economic Advisors report) recently announced support for a host of key YIMBY policy initiatives this week, like eliminating single-family zoning, reducing minimum lot sizes, and eliminating parking minimums a few days ago. These reforms may be popular among policy wonks, but it remains to be seen whether this will be helpful (or harmful) for Biden's election prospects among suburban voters in key swing states. There has been broad pushback against these initiatives in many states that do not neatly align with traditional partisan politics. Is this a good idea or bad idea for the Biden Admin to discuss addressing this issue so close to the 2024 election?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ERP-2024.pdf
The zoning reform discussion starts on page 163 for people that want to read it.

I didn't read all the replies, but zoning is strictly a local matter isn't it? What power does the do feds have to determine zoning and lot sizes?

The paper suggest they will try to force it on local communities by linking continued federal funding to zoning changes.

Good. Inefficient zoning and other housing regs absolutely knocks off points of national gdp

If local areas want to be inefficient, they should bear the full costs (direct Or opportunity costs) of doing so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

Modern farms are mostly not economically viable without very large parcels of land (100’s -1,000s of acres). Farmers need to mass produce large volumes of a crop to average out the cost of highly specialized equipment used for specific crop. There is no realistic way that we can move away from “monocultures” unless we want to pay substantially more for food. This is largely irrelevant to the discussion about YIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People want to live among people who are at the same SES/Education etc. All over the world same rules apply, this is basically human nature. Democrats have already ruined the cities, it’s best they stay outta the suburbs.

No, I don’t want to live among uneducated troublemakers who have nothing in common with me. Sue me!

* Aside from this sentiment, towns are not equipped to handle extra traffic, schools don’t have extra capacity, public services are simply not setup for so many extra people.For those you want to create this utopia of mixed housing, they need to address the infrastructure needs first and then talk.

Towns grow into cities. Cities grow into metropolises. That is what happens. Unless there is a big event that wipes out half the earth's population, we will continue to grow, And, as we grow, we build more infrastructure, more schools etc.

So we can either continue to grow as we have over the last century, which is really inefficient from a land use and transportation standpoint, or we can do something different based on what we have learned. And really, none of this is going to impact you. You and I will be long gone by the time anything material changes to your precious single family home.

[Anonymous]

Um, have you read the population trends and demographic reports ? It’s not a single one time event.

[Anonymous]

I live in the suburbs and I’m voting for Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

Modern farms are mostly not economically viable without very large parcels of land (100’s -1,000s of acres). Farmers need to mass produce large volumes of a crop to average out the cost of highly specialized equipment used for specific crop. There is no realistic way that we can move away from “monocultures” unless we want to pay substantially more for food. This is largely irrelevant to the discussion about YIMBYs.

How ya gonna pollinate those thousands of acres when the pollinators have died off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

Modern farms are mostly not economically viable without very large parcels of land (100’s -1,000s of acres). Farmers need to mass produce large volumes of a crop to average out the cost of highly specialized equipment used for specific crop. There is no realistic way that we can move away from “monocultures” unless we want to pay substantially more for food. This is largely irrelevant to the discussion about YIMBYs.

How ya gonna pollinate those thousands of acres when the pollinators have died off?

They are dying off because of the pollution and pesticides. The GOP eliminates those "pesky" regulations which are at the root of the destruction. And yet, rural communities continue to vote for the GOP.

Ponderous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

Modern farms are mostly not economically viable without very large parcels of land (100’s -1,000s of acres). Farmers need to mass produce large volumes of a crop to average out the cost of highly specialized equipment used for specific crop. There is no realistic way that we can move away from “monocultures” unless we want to pay substantially more for food. This is largely irrelevant to the discussion about YIMBYs.

How ya gonna pollinate those thousands of acres when the pollinators have died off?

They are dying off because of the pollution and pesticides. The GOP eliminates those "pesky" regulations which are at the root of the destruction. And yet, rural communities continue to vote for the GOP.

Ponderous.

Chemtrails, anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

Well, modern conservatives are the ones who say shit like "This is MURICA and y'all cain't come along and tell me what I can and can't do with MAH land!" while completely ignoring the fact that documented land use controls go all the way back to the Puritan conservatives of the Plymouth colony in the 1620s - partly lessons learned from the clusterf*ck of Jamestown 1607-1610 that was more of a poorly-planned free-for-all that failed.

You're citing the failure of Jamestown as a critique against more permissive governance of land use.....?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

Modern farms are mostly not economically viable without very large parcels of land (100’s -1,000s of acres). Farmers need to mass produce large volumes of a crop to average out the cost of highly specialized equipment used for specific crop. There is no realistic way that we can move away from “monocultures” unless we want to pay substantially more for food. This is largely irrelevant to the discussion about YIMBYs.

How ya gonna pollinate those thousands of acres when the pollinators have died off?

They are dying off because of the pollution and pesticides. The GOP eliminates those "pesky" regulations which are at the root of the destruction. And yet, rural communities continue to vote for the GOP.

Ponderous.

Cancer rates have increased while the regulatory burden has increased. The data doesn't say what you want it to.