What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some of us YIMBYs actually live in the suburbs and are trying to get YIMBY policies adopted in the suburbs we live in.

[Anonymous]

It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

Anything but believe that people are sincere in their advocacy, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some of us YIMBYs actually live in the suburbs and are trying to get YIMBY policies adopted in the suburbs we live in.

This is what I’m talking about. You live in the suburbs but it’s not your thing, then move to a place that fits your desires. Instead you want to change the suburbs? A bit entitled no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

Anything but believe that people are sincere in their advocacy, I guess.

You might be sincere in your advocacy, but it’s interesting how few of you are concerned about being stooges for developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

Anything but believe that people are sincere in their advocacy, I guess.

You might be sincere in your advocacy, but it’s interesting how few of you are concerned about being stooges for developers.

Eh? You're right, I'm not concerned about being a stooge for a developer, because I'm not a stooge for a developer. If it's not about me, I don't make it about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some of us YIMBYs actually live in the suburbs and are trying to get YIMBY policies adopted in the suburbs we live in.

This is what I’m talking about. You live in the suburbs but it’s not your thing, then move to a place that fits your desires. Instead you want to change the suburbs? A bit entitled no?

What are you talking about? Suburbs can (and do) have duplexes. Suburbs can (and do) have garden apartments. Suburbs even can (and do) have big, tall apartment or condo buildings! None of these things are antithetical to suburbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

Anything but believe that people are sincere in their advocacy, I guess.

When someone's literal livlihood is inherently based in new development that they are advocating for? Yes that is a conflict of interest, and not pure advocacy for it's own sake. That isnt hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

Of course. So there will be plenty of places for you to live in Manassas.

[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 maybe the people who think DC is too expensive should move somewhere that's more within their budgets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 maybe the people who think DC is too expensive should move somewhere that's more within their budgets?

Well, that's the "DC, love it or leave it" approach, which actually also applies to you. One part of DC is people advocating for more housing in your neighborhood. If you don't love that, then you can move somewhere where there aren't people doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's telling how many of the loudest pro development YIMBYS are employed by or own development companies. SO there is a massive conflict of self interest behind all these "build, build, build" plans, skirted by a supposed love of urbanization and upzoning.

Anything but believe that people are sincere in their advocacy, I guess.

When someone's literal livlihood is inherently based in new development that they are advocating for? Yes that is a conflict of interest, and not pure advocacy for it's own sake. That isnt hard.

I know lots of YIMBYs that doesn't apply to, so we're good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 maybe the people who think DC is too expensive should move somewhere that's more within their budgets?

Well, that's the "DC, love it or leave it" approach, which actually also applies to you. One part of DC is people advocating for more housing in your neighborhood. If you don't love that, then you can move somewhere where there aren't people doing that.

This is some curious logic. So if I'm happy with how DC is, then I should leave? And the people who aren't happy with how DC is -- they should stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Some of us YIMBYs actually live in the suburbs and are trying to get YIMBY policies adopted in the suburbs we live in.

This is what I’m talking about. You live in the suburbs but it’s not your thing, then move to a place that fits your desires. Instead you want to change the suburbs? A bit entitled no?

Many of us live in a suburb or with a level of density that is currently illegal to replicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can buy a four-bedroom house for $400,000 just over the border in PG County. Seems pretty affordable to me.

Or is the argument that everyone deserves to be able to live on the South side of Eastern avenue?

+1