What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

And the ENTIRE city has "good transit" hubs apart from Anacostia ^, which the Mayor and City Council could address with innovative transport solutions... if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You own an expensive single family house and are in favor of multi family housing. Why aren't you already living in a multi family housing unit?

If you believe in this type of living and zoning, then why is it always someone else's house that should be torn down and remade into multi units?

Also, city-owned public housing has long and mostly terrible history. I am not against public housing, but I am in favor of turning every page of the failures of public housing and not repeating them.

DP. It never is, because it's about the property owners themselves having the option to do so.

Also, the first sentence is basically the elementary-school "if you like it so much, then why don't you marry it" updated for DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Density increases land values. Cost per s.f. To build decreases with scale (but increases with regulation and government rent-seeking fees).

Building new houses in desirable areas with density limits increases land costs faster than increased building supply reduces prices.

#1: abolish, or severely reduce, zoning limits. Think Houston, TX or maybe Tokyo, JP

#2: eliminate government-associated costs of building. Require builders to be bonded to provide engineer-approved documentation of building practices.

#3: recapture the land-value increase due to density with land-value taxes. (Also works for land-value increases due to metro stations, better schools, safer parks, fun playgrounds, transportation access, public safety, convenient shopping, generous employers, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Actually, that's exactly what the young couples at the ANC meetings were voicing--that they wanted bigger / better than the apartments they were living in in Ward 3. "Affordable starter Family living without leaving the neighborhood" . And how do these studio apartments address that exactly? These young couples seemed BOTH entitled and confused in their YIMBYism.

"I like this neighborhood and would like to be able to raise a family in it" doesn't seem like an entitled statement.

As for confused - you like your neighborhood too, right? So why would that statement be confusing?

Who exactly is stopping them from being able to raise a family there?

I think you meant "what", and the answer is M O N E Y. As you well know.

OH! It's money! Thanks for that.

I want a Tesla. I cant afford it based on my salary, but I really want one for my family. My neighbor has one. It's only fair right?

bad example. there are other, more cost effective electric vehicles available on the market; one need not rely solely on being able to afford a tesla

Yeah, they completely missed the point on that one.

Hey PP, you want a Tesla but can't afford one? Imagine Elon designed a smaller, more efficient Tesla, a "Model 1" that has less range and isn't quite as fast, but only costs $15,000, which is right in your budget, but the government steps in and says "sorry, it wouldn't be fair to all the people who own a Model S to see poor people tooling around in the same brand. We're banning the sale of any Teslas cheaper than the Model 3."

THAT'S what's happening here. People aren't saying "I want a Model S but don't want to pay for one." They're literally begging to buy the car they CAN afford and the government is refusing to let Tesla make those cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Density increases land values. Cost per s.f. To build decreases with scale (but increases with regulation and government rent-seeking fees).

Building new houses in desirable areas with density limits increases land costs faster than increased building supply reduces prices.

#1: abolish, or severely reduce, zoning limits. Think Houston, TX or maybe Tokyo, JP

#2: eliminate government-associated costs of building. Require builders to be bonded to provide engineer-approved documentation of building practices.

#3: recapture the land-value increase due to density with land-value taxes. (Also works for land-value increases due to metro stations, better schools, safer parks, fun playgrounds, transportation access, public safety, convenient shopping, generous employers, etc.)

This sounds right - like YIMBY, but dealing with gentrification. It starts to go beyond my level of understanding of impacts, but I'd like the overall effect to make it more livable for people who are otherwise being pushed out, including at the expense of my property values. I have not done anything to earn doubling of the value of the land I own and I don't like that it's breaking up communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can buy a four-bedroom house for $400,000 just over the border in PG County. Seems pretty affordable to me.

Or is the argument that everyone deserves to be able to live on the South side of Eastern avenue?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

I agree- I think the extremism of some of the YIMBYs is needed to balance out the NIMBYs who come out in full force to oppose all development, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

I agree- I think the extremism of some of the YIMBYs is needed to balance out the NIMBYs who come out in full force to oppose all development, etc.

Yeah, right now liberal cities are dominated by extremists in terms of development. A little bit of a pendulum swing would help balance things out. Honestly, it isn't going to kill someone to add a bike line or a couple apartment buildings (on land the a current home owner is willing to sell to a willing developer, so both can profit).

I'm not a YIMBY, but I find NIMBYs insufferable. It is the same reason (in a completely different context), I'm ok with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Not the biggest fan of her politics, but she annoys the hell out of extremists on the other side. She makes extremists literally start frothing and babbling gibberish. Just like YIMBYs make it clear for NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it's super to have extremists drowning out reasonable arguments because that creates some sort of balance. If we have seen nothing else in the past four years, extremism is just what we need!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

I agree- I think the extremism of some of the YIMBYs is needed to balance out the NIMBYs who come out in full force to oppose all development, etc.

DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in America. There are parts of the District that are more densely populated than parts of Manhattan. And it's been getting more densely populated for decades. No one *ever* tears down condo buildings or apartment buildings to make way for single family homes. That process only goes in the other direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in America. There are parts of the District that are more densely populated than parts of Manhattan. And it's been getting more densely populated for decades. No one *ever* tears down condo buildings or apartment buildings to make way for single family homes. That process only goes in the other direction.

What an odd comparison.

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that property owners should not be allowed to replace their single-unit buildings with multiple-unit buildings because the supply of single-unit buildings in DC must be protected and preserved?

Some historical data about the population of DC:

1930 486,869
1940 663,091
1950 802,178
1960 763,956
1970 756,510
1980 638,333
1990 606,900
2000 572,059
2010 601,723
2019 705,749

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

I agree- I think the extremism of some of the YIMBYs is needed to balance out the NIMBYs who come out in full force to oppose all development, etc.

DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in America. There are parts of the District that are more densely populated than parts of Manhattan. And it's been getting more densely populated for decades. No one *ever* tears down condo buildings or apartment buildings to make way for single family homes. That process only goes in the other direction.

DC isn't even as densely populated as it was mid twentieth century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can buy a four-bedroom house for $400,000 just over the border in PG County. Seems pretty affordable to me.

Or is the argument that everyone deserves to be able to live on the South side of Eastern avenue?

Here's your argument: Want to live in my neighborhood AND have a family? Too bad. Pick one or the other, I don't want to let you have both, it would ruin my quality of life.

Why do you consider yourself too good or special to live in Hyattsville?

Why did you decide not to live in Hyattsville?

I don’t live in Hyattsville because I can afford not to. When I had little money, I lived where I could afford instead of demanding someone give me something. That meant I had to live in undesirable locations. It’s not idea but you do what you have to do. If Hyattsville was all I can afford then I would have no problem living there. I was even shopping for a house near the W. Hyattsville Metro station for a time back in 2006 before I decided to keep renting in Trinidad which had police checkpoints at the time due to a gang war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

I agree- I think the extremism of some of the YIMBYs is needed to balance out the NIMBYs who come out in full force to oppose all development, etc.

DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in America. There are parts of the District that are more densely populated than parts of Manhattan. And it's been getting more densely populated for decades. No one *ever* tears down condo buildings or apartment buildings to make way for single family homes. That process only goes in the other direction.

DC isn't even as densely populated as it was mid twentieth century.

What a dumb statement. The “missing” population was a temporal growth in baby boomer babies, not adults. And once those kids got older those families moved to the suburbs for more space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You own an expensive single family house and are in favor of multi family housing. Why aren't you already living in a multi family housing unit?

If you believe in this type of living and zoning, then why is it always someone else's house that should be torn down and remade into multi units?

Also, city-owned public housing has long and mostly terrible history. I am not against public housing, but I am in favor of turning every page of the failures of public housing and not repeating them.

DP. It never is, because it's about the property owners themselves having the option to do so.

Also, the first sentence is basically the elementary-school "if you like it so much, then why don't you marry it" updated for DCUM.

YIMBYs are funny. They promote a vision of Amsterdam when in fact their policies are what you see in places like Beirut.

Why does “exclusionary zoning” only refer to type of housing and not type of land use? It’s also exclusionary that I’m not allowed to turn my current residential property into a battery recycling facility, despite the fact that these will be needed very soon for a low carbon future to mitigate climate change.