What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The arguments in favor of loosening zoning laws always have the same error in logic: They assume that demand for housing never changes.

They just say, "Hey if we could just add a bunch more housing units, then housing prices would fall, either in absolute terms or relative to what they would have otherwise been -- because, you know, supply and demand." And sure that's true if demand doesnt change. But why wouldnt demand go up too?

If you add a lot more housing units WOTP, for example, a lot of people who had previously written off their chances of living there will suddenly be very interested in moving there because of the schools (sorry, young white dudes hoping to move into Cleveland Park -- you will be outbid by parents). Likewise, if you add a bunch of housing units in poorer areas of the city, you will set off a wave of gentrification that will prompt a lot more people to want to live there. You'll also attract a lot more people looking to move in from the suburbs in order to have a shorter commute.

In those cases, adding housing units has no effect on housing prices. It might even make the city less affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The arguments in favor of loosening zoning laws always have the same error in logic: They assume that demand for housing never changes.

They just say, "Hey if we could just add a bunch more housing units, then housing prices would fall, either in absolute terms or relative to what they would have otherwise been -- because, you know, supply and demand." And sure that's true if demand doesnt change. But why wouldnt demand go up too?

If you add a lot more housing units WOTP, for example, a lot of people who had previously written off their chances of living there will suddenly be very interested in moving there because of the schools (sorry, young white dudes hoping to move into Cleveland Park -- you will be outbid by parents). Likewise, if you add a bunch of housing units in poorer areas of the city, you will set off a wave of gentrification that will prompt a lot more people to want to live there. You'll also attract a lot more people looking to move in from the suburbs in order to have a shorter commute.

In those cases, adding housing units has no effect on housing prices. It might even make the city less affordable.

Making it possible for more people to live in well-located neighborhoods is a feature, not a bug.

Adding housing units to address a housing shortage is also a feature, not a bug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing infill development to upzoning an existing neighborhood is more than a touch disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

What’s funny is how YIMBYs (more like YIYBY) keep shifting their arguments. They can never be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The arguments in favor of loosening zoning laws always have the same error in logic: They assume that demand for housing never changes.

They just say, "Hey if we could just add a bunch more housing units, then housing prices would fall, either in absolute terms or relative to what they would have otherwise been -- because, you know, supply and demand." And sure that's true if demand doesnt change. But why wouldnt demand go up too?

If you add a lot more housing units WOTP, for example, a lot of people who had previously written off their chances of living there will suddenly be very interested in moving there because of the schools (sorry, young white dudes hoping to move into Cleveland Park -- you will be outbid by parents). Likewise, if you add a bunch of housing units in poorer areas of the city, you will set off a wave of gentrification that will prompt a lot more people to want to live there. You'll also attract a lot more people looking to move in from the suburbs in order to have a shorter commute.

In those cases, adding housing units has no effect on housing prices. It might even make the city less affordable.

Making it possible for more people to live in well-located neighborhoods is a feature, not a bug.

Adding housing units to address a housing shortage is also a feature, not a bug.

If you want to live in New York City, go live in New York City. I like that DC is actually livable. I'd be happy if fewer people lived here. Everyone doesnt have to live in the same place. It's a big country. Lots of places will pay you to move there. West Virginia is paying people $12,000 to move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s funny is how YIMBYs (more like YIYBY) keep shifting their arguments. They can never be wrong.

I know. Their arguments are so flimsy. They're not even arguments. They're bumper sticker slogans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Tremendously ignorant and racist YIMBYs continue to keep at it. The obvious purpose of referencing Beirut is because it features the land use policies that you want to promote here. It really shows how disgustingly racist your brain is. People like you should be ashamed of yourself and unfortunately you are all too common among YIMBY types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s funny is how YIMBYs (more like YIYBY) keep shifting their arguments. They can never be wrong.

I know. Their arguments are so flimsy. They're not even arguments. They're bumper sticker slogans.

The thing is that they know they’re bullsh*tters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Tremendously ignorant and racist YIMBYs continue to keep at it. The obvious purpose of referencing Beirut is because it features the land use policies that you want to promote here. It really shows how disgustingly racist your brain is. People like you should be ashamed of yourself and unfortunately you are all too common among YIMBY types.

Please tell us about the land use policies in Beirut that characterize the city, in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to live in New York City, go live in New York City. I like that DC is actually livable. I'd be happy if fewer people lived here. Everyone doesnt have to live in the same place. It's a big country. Lots of places will pay you to move there. West Virginia is paying people $12,000 to move there.

Um.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to live in New York City, go live in New York City. I like that DC is actually livable. I'd be happy if fewer people lived here. Everyone doesnt have to live in the same place. It's a big country. Lots of places will pay you to move there. West Virginia is paying people $12,000 to move there.

Um.

There are a lot of great places in this country to live with lower housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to live in New York City, go live in New York City. I like that DC is actually livable. I'd be happy if fewer people lived here. Everyone doesnt have to live in the same place. It's a big country. Lots of places will pay you to move there. West Virginia is paying people $12,000 to move there.

Um.

There are a lot of great places in this country to live with lower housing costs.

Maybe the PP who thinks too many people live in DC should move to one of those places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to live in New York City, go live in New York City. I like that DC is actually livable. I'd be happy if fewer people lived here. Everyone doesnt have to live in the same place. It's a big country. Lots of places will pay you to move there. West Virginia is paying people $12,000 to move there.

Um.

There are a lot of great places in this country to live with lower housing costs.

Maybe the PP who thinks too many people live in DC should move to one of those places.

Or people that complain about DC housing costs should consider alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Ya’ll YIMBYs should just go to therapy to deal with whatever issues you have about your suburban upbringings and/or deal with your issues of entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The arguments in favor of loosening zoning laws always have the same error in logic: They assume that demand for housing never changes.

They just say, "Hey if we could just add a bunch more housing units, then housing prices would fall, either in absolute terms or relative to what they would have otherwise been -- because, you know, supply and demand." And sure that's true if demand doesnt change. But why wouldnt demand go up too?

If you add a lot more housing units WOTP, for example, a lot of people who had previously written off their chances of living there will suddenly be very interested in moving there because of the schools (sorry, young white dudes hoping to move into Cleveland Park -- you will be outbid by parents). Likewise, if you add a bunch of housing units in poorer areas of the city, you will set off a wave of gentrification that will prompt a lot more people to want to live there. You'll also attract a lot more people looking to move in from the suburbs in order to have a shorter commute.

In those cases, adding housing units has no effect on housing prices. It might even make the city less affordable.

And all those people moving to this area where you built new housing will be creating vacancies in the areas they left....