Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

[Anonymous]

If apartments are so amazing, why aren’t the neighborhoods filled with apartments the most expensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If apartments are so amazing, why aren’t the neighborhoods filled with apartments the most expensive?

Like Manhattan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

We all vote with our interests’ in mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

I do not want my children to be in school with children from low-income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If apartments are so amazing, why aren’t the neighborhoods filled with apartments the most expensive?

Have you seen the demographics of New York City? Of the Connecticut Avenue Corridor? Of the new Navy Yard or Wharf? Of Dupont Circle? The density in Singapore? Tokyo? London? I mean, these are among the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

I do not want my children to be in school with children from low-income families.

Your kids will be in college with them, working with them, buying things from them, will have their asses wiped by them in a hospital or nursing home. What is your damage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If apartments are so amazing, why aren’t the neighborhoods filled with apartments the most expensive?

Have you seen the demographics of New York City? Of the Connecticut Avenue Corridor? Of the new Navy Yard or Wharf? Of Dupont Circle? The density in Singapore? Tokyo? London? I mean, these are among the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world.

Can we enforce laws like Singapore? Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

We all vote with our interests’ in mind.

Of course we do. For some of us, our interests start and end with, "What's in it for me?" For others of us, our interests have a wider scope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If apartments are so amazing, why aren’t the neighborhoods filled with apartments the most expensive?

Have you seen the demographics of New York City? Of the Connecticut Avenue Corridor? Of the new Navy Yard or Wharf? Of Dupont Circle? The density in Singapore? Tokyo? London? I mean, these are among the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world.

Can we enforce laws like Singapore? Thanks

If you like authoritariansim, move to an authoritarian country.

Personally, the idea of someone getting caned for accidentally dropping a opece of gum wrapper seems excessive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

We all vote with our interests’ in mind.

And people also also express their preferences by voting with their feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a “YIMBY” neighborhood with high-performing by-right schools.

We should base our land use and housing policies on standardized test scores in schools?

Yes, of course school performance matters.

Another way to say this is: "I don't want my children to be in school with children from low-income families." Which is fine as a personal preference, I guess. But it's not the basis for sound public policy.

You don’t think children from low income families can do well in schools? That’s a pretty awful position to take. I’ll bet you think we should just have schools to prison pipeline too.