What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs in my neighborhood (within 1 mile of a metro station, so would be affected by the proposed zoning change) tend to be older, with with kids in high school or out of school altogether. They don’t have to worry about their kids sitting in overcrowded portables when, inevitably, school capacity fails to keep up with population growth. I’m not anti-development by any means, but careful planning is needed to ensure that services increase proportionately.

That is a school boundary issue, not a development/density issue.

There is NO reason that the school boundaries cannot be adjusted to reflect reality, rather than create artificial barriers to progress.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

There's no law. What PP is referring to are public companies and the theories of Milton Friedman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs in my neighborhood (within 1 mile of a metro station, so would be affected by the proposed zoning change) tend to be older, with with kids in high school or out of school altogether. They don’t have to worry about their kids sitting in overcrowded portables when, inevitably, school capacity fails to keep up with population growth. I’m not anti-development by any means, but careful planning is needed to ensure that services increase proportionately.

I agree. Increasing density without increasing schools is a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

[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.

You're right-it's old liberal NIMBYS vx much smarter young liberal (in name only--they worship the almight $) YIMBYs. The old liberal NIMBYs don't realize they are being eaten alive by the baby YIMBYs at these meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

Is DC really unaffordable to most? I took a drive around town today and there appears to be PLENTY of affordable housing neighborhoods. Just sayin'. Do you mean "parts of DC" by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

Cities have also been destroyed by change. They built a freeway through Hartford and it was never the same again. It died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

Is DC really unaffordable to most? I took a drive around town today and there appears to be PLENTY of affordable housing neighborhoods. Just sayin'. Do you mean "parts of DC" by any chance?

You'd think it was affordable by how run down it is. And yet, the median price of a home (including condos) in dc is $630K now. Which isn't particularly affordable for most people looking to buy a home, especially for the first time.

[Anonymous]

I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

[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.

You're right-it's old liberal NIMBYS vx much smarter young liberal (in name only--they worship the almight $) YIMBYs. The old liberal NIMBYs don't realize they are being eaten alive by the baby YIMBYs at these meetings.

Mostly because the old NIMBYs are simply wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

how do you preserve the things that made the neighborhood attractive in the first place - often ample parking, pristine blocks of original houses, trees, etc? Ie, low density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

Is DC really unaffordable to most? I took a drive around town today and there appears to be PLENTY of affordable housing neighborhoods. Just sayin'. Do you mean "parts of DC" by any chance?

You'd think it was affordable by how run down it is. And yet, the median price of a home (including condos) in dc is $630K now. Which isn't particularly affordable for most people looking to buy a home, especially for the first time.

That actually doesnt seem that bad, since median meana there are units priced well below that as well. Should housing be free? Maybe focus on loans, like DC offers teachers. There appears to be lots of stock.

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm a YIMBY only because the extreme NIMBYs annoy the heck out of me. In my neighborhood they act like cutting down a single tree is tantamount to a murder. "Save McMillan Park?" It's not even a park! The space has been closed to the public since WW2. Or the accessory dwelling debate in Arlington which I think is thinly veiled racism (cheaper accessory dwellings = more middle/lower income residents = more minorities in majority white neighborhoods).

Also, I get that DC is not cheap per se but there is literally housing available to BUY in the region at almost every price point. Sure, you might not be in your first choice neighborhood but there's something for everyone within a reasonable commuting distance of the District. Try doing that in LA...you can't. Compared to most world-class cities, DC does not have expensive real estate. The complaints fall flat on me.