So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

Have you ever noticed that the only people who get pissed off by zoning are white people who are mad they can't afford houses in super white areas? Why are they so mad they can't live in mostly white neighborhoods?

heh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

WHY is it more expensive?

You are *almost* there....keep thinking...

Tree canopy, safe streets, good schools (that focus on education rather than simply being the “community” employer), neighborhood feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:builders are going to stop building because 1. mortgage rates are skyrocketing and 2. so is inflation. so you guys can argue about yimbys vs nimbys and zoning and whatever dumb red herring is the latest fad among lefties, but none of that is going to amount to a hill of beans.

This is true but YIMBYs don’t understand this and the ones that do pretend that they don’t. Because according to them the only reason housing doesn’t get built is zoning.

The reckoning is coming soon. Developers mobilized all these people with grand promises that they’ll never deliver.

It’s an ideology that cannot fail but only be failed.

Because if you follow the ridiculous logical string, all projects should eventually “pencil out” with a 25 FAR and no height limit or design standards.

How much longer do we have to waste our time with this nonsense? The housing shortage keeps getting worse and worse. Prices keep going up. It’s time to try something different.

Vibrant, equitable dense mixed use!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a difference between advocating for responsible development for example wanting to make sure there is the necessary infrastructure, amenities and livability factors including green space and community space, services et cetera needed to support the added population, versus being a "nimby" yet the obnoxious a-hole GGWash'ers and so-called "Smart Growthers" sling the "nimby" pejorative the second anyone deigns to raise a single question.

Some of DC’s “Smart Growthers” are really “Trump Growthers.”

[Anonymous]

Housing prices are coming down and they're going to continue to come down, thanks to the Federal Reserve. Amazing what skyrocketing mortgage rates will do. Jay Powell has more control over housing prices in D.C. than the D.C. government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

Have you ever noticed that the only people who get pissed off by zoning are white people who are mad they can't afford houses in super white areas? Why are they so mad they can't live in mostly white neighborhoods?

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

Upzone AU Park!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

It's just not possible to build so much housing in AU Park that it would bring down prices. The demand for housing in AU Park is effectively unlimited. I mean, there's five million people in the suburbs. Don't you think a large share of them would love to live in AU Park? It just seems like this weird fantasy that if we change the zoning laws, housing will become affordable. It will never, ever, ever happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

This is the cynical spin from Smart Growth lobbyists, like the guy from “Cleveland Park Smart Growth” and “Ward 3 Vision” who worked for Trump and Manafort and is business partners with the creator of the Willie Horton ad. “Racist”, “Classist”? - as tossed around by a Trumpist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

When I lived in NYC, I realized that I could not afford to live in a multi bedroom condo on Central Park South with views of the Park. I thought it was outrageous that I couldn't afford to do so. So, unfair.

[Anonymous]

The problem with this entire debate in DC and MD is that everyone focuses on building more housing in what apparently are considered desirable areas. Maybe, the best approach is to create more desirable areas, rather that squeezing more folks in limited space. Wards 7 and 8 residents regularly (and rightfully) complain about lack of development there. So, lets do more development there, improving their quality of life and making their neighborhoods more desirable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a GREAT podcast on the housing debate, and why we are failing to provide affordable housing in blue states in particular. A lot of it has to do with super-strict building regulation, but a lot of it is the power of NIMBYs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-jenny-schuetz.html?referringSource=articleShare

I voted Blair for jobs and public safety. I really don't care about housing.

YIMBYs are basically a libertarian, deregulation movement. Which is fine, but that’s what they are. To they extent that there is an issue with housing production, it’s not so much regulation as it is finance. After the Global Financial Crisis builders stopped building and not because they cannot, but because they are more careful now about managing supply to maximize their profits and manage downside risk. Any discussion about housing that doesn’t mention this is not an honest discussion.

YMBY is not a libertarian movement.

It is a movement that understands that the racist roots of much of the single family zoning has artificially inflated the cost of land and homes. It is a movement that recognizes that the zoning regime and historic preservation has been weaponized to maintain a classist status quo.

Of course. Racist!!! SFH are racist. People who live in them - racist! What a crock full of sh!t.

The exclusionary land use and practice of racial and religious covenants associated with the creation and construction of many DC nieghborhoods was in fact racist.

The continuing protection of the status quo of said single family neighborhoods, is, in fact, exclusionary.

These are facts.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

When I lived in NYC, I realized that I could not afford to live in a multi bedroom condo on Central Park South with views of the Park. I thought it was outrageous that I couldn't afford to do so. So, unfair.

So NYC did just what the Smart Growthers demand. They removed the height limit and built more housing and mixed use near Central Park South, the new “super tall” skyscrapers. How’s all that newly affordable housing workin’ out for ya’?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this entire debate in DC and MD is that everyone focuses on building more housing in what apparently are considered desirable areas. Maybe, the best approach is to create more desirable areas, rather that squeezing more folks in limited space. Wards 7 and 8 residents regularly (and rightfully) complain about lack of development there. So, lets do more development there, improving their quality of life and making their neighborhoods more desirable.

YIMBYs say DC needs to concentrate density in DC’s areas of “high opportunity” … for developer profit maximization.