So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s a total crock of sh!&. It’s also cynical and hypocritical, considering that one of the prominent peddlers of this narrative in DC (Smart Growth lobbyist Bob Ward of ANC gerrymandering fame) owns the firm that did pollling for Trump (who promised to “save” communities from affordable housing) and is the longtime biz partner of the creator of the Willie Horton ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There are many good things that have racist, sexist, ableist, or classist roots. Does that mean we should abolish them all? Our constitution comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There is a failure here of understanding correlation and causation. When zoning fist started in America it was a very racist country so every public policy decision was permeated with racism. However, zoning itself was about separating desirable and undesirable land used to improve quality of life and public health. For example, living next to a factory or a pig sty was determined to be negative for health and quality of life and residential, industrial and agricultural zones were thus separated. Keeping in mind that zoning also started after the Spanish Flu pandemic, typhoid, etc and as a result, public health was also a concern and because people were racist they thought that Black, Brown and Irish people were vectors for disease, so they tried to make policy to keep themselves away from the Irish. It’s not that complicated.

[Anonymous]

NP. I have no damn clue, OP. The debates on here are pretty funny, though. The more earnest of these sorts come off as sheltered... And dare I say, hayseeds(!), despite the city-slicker projection. Between the two, the YIMBYs are probably the worst in terms of wanting to pave every square acre and pack 'em in. The NIMBYs aren't much better, but their position is one I'm more sympathetic towards because I'm shocked on some level at the reckless development and misguided attempting at trying to attract and please all.

[Anonymous]

I’m in California and here the YIMBY movement is funded largely by gigantic developers and billionaires that are angry at the California Coastal Commission for not letting them build giant mansions right on the crumbling coastline and not letting them block public access to the coast. They are wealthy libertarians for the most part.

I am with you OP in that I wish there was a middle ground, but here in California, the YIMBYS say you are a NIMBY if you oppose any regulations about building at all, so that makes me a NIMBY I guess. Sorry, but I don’t think destroying the coastline will do anything positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have no damn clue, OP. The debates on here are pretty funny, though. The more earnest of these sorts come off as sheltered... And dare I say, hayseeds(!), despite the city-slicker projection. Between the two, the YIMBYs are probably the worst in terms of wanting to pave every square acre and pack 'em in. The NIMBYs aren't much better, but their position is one I'm more sympathetic towards because I'm shocked on some level at the reckless development and misguided attempting at trying to attract and please all.

In our experience many YIMBYs are really YIYBYs - Yes, in your back yard! Case in point are a couple of avowedly pro-Smart Growth ANC commissioners in Ward 3 who advocate density, changes to SFH zoning, etc. But when a developer proposed to build a new apartment building next to the multi family buildings where the ANC commissioners live, they opposed it. Another case in point is a prominent DC clergy member who advocates for upzoning and changes to historic preservation in the name of affordable housing. His congregation has a huge parking lot near a Metro stop that could be developed (with underground parking) for workforce housing. When the clergy person is asked why his institution won’t step up, he deflects.

[Anonymous]

Never heard either of these terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There are many good things that have racist, sexist, ableist, or classist roots. Does that mean we should abolish them all? Our constitution comes to mind.

We should definitely look at areas of the constitution that are sexist, ableist, racist, etc. What do you think the amendments for equal rights did? Let's keep that up. To form a more perfect union.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There are many good things that have racist, sexist, ableist, or classist roots. Does that mean we should abolish them all? Our constitution comes to mind.

Uh, the Constitution was created by mostly racist white men at the expense of everyone else. Our country would have been better off either if women and people of color had been at the table at the time or if we were to codify many rights that have evolved over the centuries. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There is a failure here of understanding correlation and causation. When zoning fist started in America it was a very racist country so every public policy decision was permeated with racism. However, zoning itself was about separating desirable and undesirable land used to improve quality of life and public health. For example, living next to a factory or a pig sty was determined to be negative for health and quality of life and residential, industrial and agricultural zones were thus separated. Keeping in mind that zoning also started after the Spanish Flu pandemic, typhoid, etc and as a result, public health was also a concern and because people were racist they thought that Black, Brown and Irish people were vectors for disease, so they tried to make policy to keep themselves away from the Irish. It’s not that complicated.

Yes, and take it a step further. Whose neighborhoods were insulated from the negative uses and whose neighborhoods were placed right next to them?

Get the answer to that and then we can actually have a discussion. You are sooooo close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

NP here. I didn’t even know about the NIMBY vs YIMBY debates until this thread. However, I feel confident if you wanted to know what information is out there around single family zoning history and impact on class and racial segregation you could find it. It took me less than three minutes https://www.investopedia.com/single-family-zoning-5192299. The person above did not say living in a SFH is racists they said much of the single family home zoning has racists roots.

There are many good things that have racist, sexist, ableist, or classist roots. Does that mean we should abolish them all? Our constitution comes to mind.

Uh, the Constitution was created by mostly racist white men at the expense of everyone else. Our country would have been better off either if women and people of color had been at the table at the time or if we were to codify many rights that have evolved over the centuries. Thanks for playing.

That is exactly my point you halfwit. The constitution has evolved and been amended, not entirely abolished.

[Anonymous]

So your big hangup is amending zoning codes vs abolishing them?? Who is even proposing that? Focus, person.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.