So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

The fortunate thing about the majority of these loud YIMBY hive on twitter, is the vast majority of voters do not agree with them at all when they use phrasing like

"segregated schools"

or the "why cant anyone of any income level, live wherever they want"

Normal, sensible people hear that kind of trope and say "what?! hold on a minute"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I own two SFHs in CCDC close to Connecticut I don't think the government should have any role in helping poor or working class people become my literal next-door neighbors because unfair.

Thinking more about what I want next door in CCDC, I really don't believe the Bowser administration should snowplow the way for Patrick the Potomac-based Developer to make bank from his stupid "farmhouse" 4-plexes that list for $2m per unit.

Why am I bankrolling Patrick's club membership after he blocked all the light that used to shine in my windows? Patrick's shady LLC killed all the mature trees on his lot, along with one mature street tree and another big tree on our lot line.

I guess you don't know anything about redlining, GI Bill and other programs that paved the way for people who chartered AU Park and CCDC to be white enclaves of single family homes. The Federal Government literally bulldozed black homes in Ft Reno to make way for what we have now.

Irony is just dead.

PP here. I know plenty about redlining and specifically about the activities of Francis Newlands 130 years ago in developing Chevy Chase, including racial and religious covenants in the deeds. I don't support reparations in the form of subsidized housing that will lower the value of my assets. That would be a taking, without compensation. As you should know, the feds paid the unwilling black and white property owners of Ft. Reno for their homes.

If Bowser proposes to compensate me for the diminution in value of my property associated with a poor house next door, I might be amenable. Of course, that won't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this entire debate in DC and MD is that everyone focuses on building more housing in what apparently are considered desirable areas. Maybe, the best approach is to create more desirable areas, rather that squeezing more folks in limited space. Wards 7 and 8 residents regularly (and rightfully) complain about lack of development there. So, lets do more development there, improving their quality of life and making their neighborhoods more desirable.

Have you been to Anacostia, Congress Heights, Deanwood or Hillcrest recently? Because your suggestion demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what is going on on the ground in those Ward 7 and Wad 8 neighborhoods.

You can buy a house in Anacostia for $450,000. All the entitled white guys whining about zoning laws want to live though in Ward 3, not Anacostia, and I think we all know why.

They are the same young, white men and women in Arlington who want to up-zone Arlington because they feel "shut out" of the opportunity to live in the best neighborhoods in Arlington.
Rather than going to County meetings, YIMBY meetups at the Eden Center, and all the other networking they do, the YIMBYs should get a second job so that they can save the money to live in Arlington. That's what my DH and I did for 8 years until we saved $200,000 for a downpayment and bought in 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

Because maybe people who live in those areas do not share your "vision." Moreover, by focusing on those areas, you are not improving the areas that really need improvement. Improving the less "desirable" areas thru better infrastructure and better housing makes more sense. Bring up the rear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

Because maybe people who live in those areas do not share your "vision." Moreover, by focusing on those areas, you are not improving the areas that really need improvement. Improving the less "desirable" areas thru better infrastructure and better housing makes more sense. Bring up the rear!

Yes, I'd love to see better housing and better infrastructure everywhere, especially if there are guarantees in place that people who already live in "the less 'desirable' areas" that you call the rear are able to remain in their homes if they'd like to even after significant investment there. But would you believe it's actually possible to build new housing in more than one place at a time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

Because maybe people who live in those areas do not share your "vision." Moreover, by focusing on those areas, you are not improving the areas that really need improvement. Improving the less "desirable" areas thru better infrastructure and better housing makes more sense. Bring up the rear!

Yes, I'd love to see better housing and better infrastructure everywhere, especially if there are guarantees in place that people who already live in "the less 'desirable' areas" that you call the rear are able to remain in their homes if they'd like to even after significant investment there. But would you believe it's actually possible to build new housing in more than one place at a time?

Not according to YIMBYs. Y’all whine so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much longer do we have to waste our time with this nonsense? The housing shortage keeps getting worse and worse. Prices keep going up. It’s time to try something different.

Housing prices have been going up because it is an inflation hedge. Also DC because of the gigantic govt' milk flow is counter cyclical and not expected to suffer as much as the rest of the country from the stagflation we are seeing.

these calls to build more and more density are just lobbying by developers and their adovacy groups. The evidence is that people with choice don't want higher density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

I like my neighbors a lot. I like them so much, in fact, that I think more people should also have the chance to be their neighbors, too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

The median home sale price in AU Park is nearly $1.6 million. I think it's safe to call it rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

The median home sale price in AU Park is nearly $1.6 million. I think it's safe to call it rich.

You need to get out more because you seem to have a poor understanding of “rich”. It’s an average neighborhood to purchase a home.

Same median sales price as all of Chevy Chase-DC and Colonial Village. Also significantly cheaper than Capitol Hill, Spring Valley, Cathedral Heights or Foxhall. Bloomingdale rowhouses also sell for the same.

If you somehow harbor liberal guilt because you now live in a neighborhood you think is rich, but don’t want to move. Why not donate to charity or volunteer your time? Trying to social engineer your new community because you feel bad about yourself seems like a weird response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

I like my neighbors a lot. I like them so much, in fact, that I think more people should also have the chance to be their neighbors, too!

Why do you want to foist your undesirables on our neighbors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

AU Park isn’t even “rich”. But you choose to live there in its current condition. Now you complain that you don’t like your neighbors. There are lots of other neighborhoods you can choose from where I am sure that you will like your neighbors better. The world doesn’t revolve around you, you know.

I like my neighbors a lot. I like them so much, in fact, that I think more people should also have the chance to be their neighbors, too!

You don’t seem to like them enough to care what their opinion is. If you like and respect them and you are committed to this policy, the obvious thing to do would be to organize them to support the policy instead of wanting to impose upon them. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. While the history may be right, no neighborhoods are exclusionary. Folks of all colors can live wherever they can afford to.

And as we all know, there is absolutely no correlation in this country between race and income/wealth, so definitely high housing prices have no effect on the demographics of the neighborhood.

(The term exclusionary zoning isn't necessarily only referring to race, anyway; the point is that it excludes all but a certain income level.)

This is pure nonsense that the GGW/YIMBY/developer stans peddle, when regular people dont even have issue with it.

"I'd like a 5 bedroom in Bethesda, but I make 60,000/yr, therefore Bethesda is "exclusionary". Give me a f-ing break.

Anyone with the money to live there, can live there. Same as any other neighborhood in 2022. Peddle your race baiting, developer carrying water elsewhere, please.

I think housing should be a right, not an investment or a commodity, and I'd rather that affordable housing was built and owned by the city, with no profit for developers, so I'm not carrying water for the construction or real estate industries, But it's a simple fact that saying "anyone with the money to live there can live there" ignores massive disparities in wealth and income tied to race. And zoning that only allows construction of single-family homes that sell for close to $2 million excludes a lot of people.

So what? Go live somewhere else. No one owes you a home in Bethesda.

I own a house in AU Park. I just don't think only people who have as much money as I do should be able to afford to do the same.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with less affluent people why not just move to a less affluent area?

I’m confused why you think the answer is to remake a whole neighborhood to fit your pet interest instead of you moving. One thing seems a lot easier than the other.

It's not that living in mixed-income neighborhoods is my hobby; I have lived in lower-income neighborhoods before this one. It's that I think it would be better for society as a whole if this neighborhood wasn't the exclusive domain of rich people, and if housing affordability wasn't largely a function of the market.

I wish that unicorns were real.