What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What developers have been sitting on approved plans for decades?

Of Montgomery's 383 active residential approvals with unbuilt units, nearly 30 percent were approved between 1995 and 2010. Most are small, but the unbuilt projects include Rock Spring (1998), and downtown Bethesda has a couple of projects that have been sitting on approvals that are more than a decade old. I fully expect the Grosvenor project to have little of the approved density built within 10 years even though it got a property tax abatement because the developer only had to get a plan approved before 2030 to qualify for the abatement. There's no deadline to build to qualify for the subsidy.

The pipeline has more than 31,000 approved unbuilt residential units (excluding Rockville and Gaithersburg). There's nothing left to do but build. There's nothing NIMBYs can do to stop construction short of chaining themselves to the worksites. Please explain how zoning and NIMBYs are preventing these units from being delivered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dan Reed lives in a HOA community where his immediate neighbors cannot change anything due to HOA rules, on a lot that included racial covenants when it was platted and he literally calls everyone that disagrees with him racist.

You're going to have to make up your mind about what to hate on him for. Either you can hate on him for living in a late 1980s townhouse community that has a common-ownership association (with rules I don't know about; how do you know about them?), OR you can hate on him for living in an area that had racial covenants when it was originally developed decades before the 1980s, but not both.

Nice strawmen. "Hate". Either this or that.

Also, every HOA has rules and the rules are always the same, specifically in regards to regulating physical changes to the exterior and aesthetics of structures. It is a fair presumption that neither he nor his neighbors can further subdivide their property based on the mutual agreement of their community.

There is no HOA there. They are bound by zoning regulations and historic preservation law.

It is governed by a "Community Association" aka HOA which has rules and for which residents pay dues.

I guess you are either Dan or a friend of Dan? Makes sense.

A community association has absolutely ZERO legal or other standing for anything of the sort. Sorry you don't know DC law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dan Reed lives in a HOA community where his immediate neighbors cannot change anything due to HOA rules, on a lot that included racial covenants when it was platted and he literally calls everyone that disagrees with him racist.

You're going to have to make up your mind about what to hate on him for. Either you can hate on him for living in a late 1980s townhouse community that has a common-ownership association (with rules I don't know about; how do you know about them?), OR you can hate on him for living in an area that had racial covenants when it was originally developed decades before the 1980s, but not both.

Nice strawmen. "Hate". Either this or that.

Also, every HOA has rules and the rules are always the same, specifically in regards to regulating physical changes to the exterior and aesthetics of structures. It is a fair presumption that neither he nor his neighbors can further subdivide their property based on the mutual agreement of their community.

That's absolutely, completely, demonstrably, obviously false.

Are you asserting that he and his fellow owners can subdivide their home into separate units so they can have more neighbors?

DP. But what is the relevance of whether or not he can do that? He's not the HOA. He doesn't make the rules. If you want to live in anything denser than an SFH, you're looking at having an HOA or a condo association that's going to have rules, including rules you may not like. That's a fact of life and it doesn't mean you secretly support those rules, anymore than living in a county that's mostly zoned for SFHs means you secretly support that zoning either.

It is irrelevant because there is no HOA.

[Anonymous]

Someone shared at an ANC meeting that McClean gardens was saved years ago (70s) from an upzoning push. Im thankful to the NIMBYs who rescued it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

Hands Reamer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

+1 I have to agree that PP has breathtakingly simplistic thinking around "we need more housing"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction?

Such a tired and ignorant argument.

Prices are going up because we aren't building nearly enough to satisfy demand. It's like you invited 100 people to a BBQ, cooked 10 meals and are demanding to know why there are still hungry people.

The bigger question is not "why are prices still expensive," it's "how much less expensive would they be if we built an adequate number of units and how much more expensive would they be if we had done nothing."

Can you point to actual evidence?

The only way that affordable rental housing has ever been constructed for low income people is when the government did it. Current “affordable” rental housing is just full depreciated structures in bad locations in need of CAPEX (which is how the market is supposed to work).

The only historical time in this country that real estate prices ever went down in real terms was due to the unique combination of two factors, a population bust combined with a mass expansion of greenfield development (ie the suburbs).

Your entire mental model is invalid and unfortunately you don’t understand that.

DP. I posed this in a different thread, but increasing supply lowers prices, and is well-established in academic literature:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...=1334&context=up_workingpapers
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

I hate to "nuh-uh" you, but it's actually your mental model that's incorrect, and you can't see it.

LOL.

1. Not published or peer-reviewed
2. Broken link to “think tank” that does not publish peer reviewed work
3. A legislative report?
4. Not published or peer reviewed. Affiliated with same “think tank” as #2

Keep Googling.

Okay, it's trivial to find more papers on the link between supply and affordability. This has been thoroughly established in the literature.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf

The evidence is so overwhelming, one wonders how you have avoided it all these years. Could it be that your ignorance is willful because you're a beneficiary of restrictive land use regulations?

Also, I think it's great that you demand high-quality research that has been peer-reviewed! Where's your evidence? Besides what you've pulled from your ass, I mean.

And I love how you think that the Shiller chart is some sort of gotcha, because you've placed a nonsensical restriction that the explanation only relies on supply issues. That's absurd. That chart, however, is easily explained by the interaction of supply with demand, which is what we're all talking about to begin with.

A study of upzoning in Chicago found that it neither increased housing supply nor drove down prices. In fact, prices went up. Here's an article on that from GGW hero Richard Florida:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-31/zoning-reform-isn-t-a-silver-bullet-for-u-s-housing

Based on your logic, then, we should ban the construction of all new homes.

I guess the people moving here for jobs, population growth, etc, will just have to live under a bridge.

Seriously, take 2 seconds and think about the nonsense that you are proposing, lol. We need more housing. Prices wouldn't be high here if more people didn't wanna live here. It's really not that hard.

"your logic"? "nonsense you are proposing"?

Not the PP but it would behoove you to read that article, read the study and try to digest what an actual and truest natural experiment can bring to bear on the topic that most interests you. I think what is happening right now is that you have so wedded yourself to an ideology that it is difficult for you to accept inconvenient facts that may refute key parts of that ideology, so you shunt them aside.

Some of us prefer to live in the real world and not a world constructed of our imagination. In the real world, concepts like economic rent exist, there are land speculators and there are efficient markets. In your world, evidently there are just simplistic supply lines going up and demand lines going down looking for equilibrium. So congratulations, you made it through freshman microeconomics.

+1 I have to agree that PP has breathtakingly simplistic thinking around "we need more housing"

It's also unclear how much more housing is actually needed, because population growth in the US is decelerating and the rapid growth of cities between 2010-2105 was mainly a post GFC artifact which had a huge cohort (Millennials) graduating college and into an economic recession (there is a reason why 'megacities' are most common in developing countries). Midsized cities in the sun belt and mountain west are what's growing the fastest in the US right now (people want single family homes, convenience and they have the space).

[Anonymous]

Confession: have not read all 40 pages

However, I believe the NIMBYS are 100% myopic. You cannot just build housing without supporting the rest of the infrastructure. Yes you'll need more space for cars, because despite what the NIMBYS think, building fewer parking spots at the new, more dense developmente does not equal fewer cars. You also need more schools, police, fire, libraries and Parks. Real parks, not the pocket parks the Montgomery County Planning Department likes. and I'm sure some other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

You haven't been to Takoma Park recently if you are claiming there hasn't been a ton of new development there.

You might want to check the jurisdiction. All new development has been in TAKOMA DC. There has been no new development in TAKOMA PARK, MD for decades and currently the community is embroiled in a massive battle over building a small two-story commercial building on a parking lot. The great county YIMBY leader Hans Riemer won't even weigh in - despite how ridiculous it is - but he's happy to tell everyone else except his own neighbors that they need to accept change. Profiles in leadership and courage.

The building that Busboys is in is in Maryland. There is a new building coming in at the corner across the street from the metro station, on the MD side. The other new building across from the green is also on the MD side. I seriously have no idea what Takoma Park MD you are talking about.

Is that going to be a high rise (more than 8 stories)? Near every other Metro station in Montgomery County, Hans Riemer says we should only be building high rises. Does he take the same approach in his own neighborhood?

Hands Reamer?

So Takoma Park gets low density and low building mass. But everywhere else gets huge monstrosities? I guess that's how corruption in Montgomery County works. Thanks Hans.

DC side stays sleepy, doesn't generate additional taxes and increased the housing deficit in the region, while the Maryland side has vibrancy, better shops and restaurants and a larger tax base.

Thanks Hans!