What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because duplexes in Cleveland Park would make it functionally identical to the bombed-out parts of Beirut? Because a duplex is functionally identical to a battery recycling facility? Please PLEASE go to neighborhood meetings and say that in public, with your name attached. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because duplexes in Cleveland Park would make it functionally identical to the bombed-out parts of Beirut? Because a duplex is functionally identical to a battery recycling facility? Please PLEASE go to neighborhood meetings and say that in public, with your name attached. Please.

It’s pretty ignorant and disgraceful for you to call Beirut “bombed out”. Beirut has the Libertarian property rights that YIMBYs promote that basically allows people to build whatever they want where they want it and the result is a hellscape of concrete.

The more one digs the more racist YIMBYs get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because duplexes in Cleveland Park would make it functionally identical to the bombed-out parts of Beirut? Because a duplex is functionally identical to a battery recycling facility? Please PLEASE go to neighborhood meetings and say that in public, with your name attached. Please.

It’s pretty ignorant and disgraceful for you to call Beirut “bombed out”. Beirut has the Libertarian property rights that YIMBYs promote that basically allows people to build whatever they want where they want it and the result is a hellscape of concrete.

The more one digs the more racist YIMBYs get.

Yes, I agree. I have lived in cities in other parts of the world where, as you describe above, cities are pretty unlivable--though people live in them because they don't really have a choice. Those that can build themselves high-walled oases (single family homes actually!) as quickly as possible, and try to hide their heads in their hands from the nightmare outside their casa's walls that the rest are relegated to. When I look at many DC neighborhoods, they all already have SFHs, duplexes, and apartments--plus sidewalks, parks and commerce and low air pollution Our city is pretty good and fail to see what the YIMBY hysteria and hard-on to develop is all about. If there are things to improve upon, it would be gradual development that encompasses the whole city, more mixed transport, schooling value across the whole city (here charters have helped a lot), and parking. I know YIMBYs love to limit parking, but I prefer to offer wonderful trasnport options to entice people away. I say this as a committed pedestrian and bus user.

[Anonymous]

^ also supermarkets in "deserts"--where presumably a little more development would be a draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because duplexes in Cleveland Park would make it functionally identical to the bombed-out parts of Beirut? Because a duplex is functionally identical to a battery recycling facility? Please PLEASE go to neighborhood meetings and say that in public, with your name attached. Please.

It’s pretty ignorant and disgraceful for you to call Beirut “bombed out”. Beirut has the Libertarian property rights that YIMBYs promote that basically allows people to build whatever they want where they want it and the result is a hellscape of concrete.

The more one digs the more racist YIMBYs get.

So when you (or whoever) referred to Beirut, that was intended as a compliment and a model of a liveable city?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do need more housing, including density, for people to be able to live and work here.

But! I don't believe that trickle-down housing is any more right than trickle-down economics. We should be using construction in a way that benefits communities that have been historically marginalized. I don't want this done in a way that just boosts property values for homeowners. My house has gone up in value way more than is reasonable. I'd rather see sustainable investment in the community. I don't see how we do that without more housing.

Also, we can't just talk about housing without freaking with all the other problems our communities are facing.

White savior complex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

+100. This. My home is by far the biggest financial investment I’ve ever made, and I worked for decades to afford it. Not to mention, I care an enormous amount about raising my child in a safe and pleasant neighborhood. I’m a NIMBY, and I’m not even a little ashamed of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

This

no one has an answer to this

[Anonymous]

The only way to answer would be to have had a control area and compare two identical communities, one where the new housing was added and the other, where it wasn't, and compare the rate of change. Likely the area where no new housing was added would have a greater rate of expense than the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

This

no one has an answer to this

Because it's a stupid comment based on a flawed premise.

None of the neighborhoods in DC have had the radical zoning changes YIMBYs want. Housing in gentrifying areas gets built, but at a rate less than demand. No, housing prices didn't go down because there are still more people who want to move there than there are units to accommodate them, but if those units were never built, the prices would be even higher than they are now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's even better than that! The "missing" population lived in the exact kind of housing NIMBYs would commit seppuku rather than allow in their neighborhood:

SRO boardinghouses - single family homes and rowhouses with 5-10 unrelated people living there totally legally.

Temporary housing for war workers - they changed the zoning so they could build "shacks" ON THE NATIONAL MALL! If NIMBYs can't even handle a duplex next door to their AU Park colonial without clutching their pearls, how in the world would they put up with tar paper barracks?

Multigenerational housing - 2 or 3 generations living together in a single house, sharing bedrooms and even sleeping in living areas.

So anyone saying "well DC could handle more people in the past so we don't need to change things now" is actually arguing against themselves. We could handle those people because we implemented the exact kind of zoning and housing reform YIMBYs are asking for!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

This

no one has an answer to this

NIMBYS: "We can't allow zoning changes in my neighborhood to allow multifamily housing, it would drive down my property values!! Also, it wouldn't work anyway because building more housing doesn't decrease property values!"

So either NIMBYs are idiots who don't understand their own arguments, or it was never about "property values" in the first place and really all about keeping black and brown people out of their neighborhoods.

Actually, realistically it's probably both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

This

no one has an answer to this

Because it's a stupid comment based on a flawed premise.

None of the neighborhoods in DC have had the radical zoning changes YIMBYs want. Housing in gentrifying areas gets built, but at a rate less than demand. No, housing prices didn't go down because there are still more people who want to move there than there are units to accommodate them, but if those units were never built, the prices would be even higher than they are now.

The economics are a little more complicated than that. Adding housing units can send housing prices to the moon if it sets off a wave of development that makes the area seem more attractive to more people. Look at Navy Yard. There are way, way, way more housing units there than there were 10 years ago, and it is way, way, way more expensive than it has ever been. Condos in Navy Yard cost more than single-family homes there did just a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NIMBYS: "We can't allow zoning changes in my neighborhood to allow multifamily housing, it would drive down my property values!! Also, it wouldn't work anyway because building more housing doesn't decrease property values!"

So either NIMBYs are idiots who don't understand their own arguments, or it was never about "property values" in the first place and really all about keeping black and brown people out of their neighborhoods.

Actually, realistically it's probably both.

i mean, empirically it would increase property values, but the increased value would be from the land (because the property owner could tear down the house and put up a duplex or whatever), and people don't necessarily like the idea that they're living in a future teardown.

Plus the usual issues of multifamily housing (aka "not the kind of housing people like me live in") and renting (aka "not the kind of occupancy people like me have").

Plus, of course, they're right that it won't create decent housing that poor people can afford. It's "more-affordable housing" or "less-unaffordable housing," not "affordable housing." No matter how many zoning changes you institute, the market alone won't provide sufficient decent homes that poor people can afford.