So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[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!

And some people just understand that there will also be those folks who work super hard and can have nicer stuff, or they inherit money and can have nicer stuff that way, and they just want to buy a house in a safe nice place, and aren’t super jazzed when policies get cooked up that kind of foist a bunch of poor folks with bad manners and habits into the nice area they live. I think humans are preprogrammed to root for the underdog. I just root for letting things naturally happen. If rich people want to live in nice places and fight against their neighborhood taking on a bunch of section 8, that should be okay. I feel like there is always such tumult and forcing on people things that “should work if we keep trying!” But simply don’t work because people who have their sht together will simply seek to live with other people who have their sht together. I’m glad you feel virtuous by pushing the downtrodden or whatever to live in ritzy areas, but I think it’s natural there will be backlash.

Look at Res 13, they done screwed that all up. Social activist protestors got involved and now it’s like 2/3rds super low ami and naturally crime will follow. There will be people milling around smoking we’re doing who knows what. Sometime you need to root for the rich or the middle class or even the builders. The whole country is up in arms acting social justice warriors without a clue. And then they enact these reflexive policies that exacerbate the housing probelwms (topa, rent control, etc).

[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.

I wish that unicorns were real.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

[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.

I wish that unicorns were real.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

[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:

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.

Pretty big difference between wanting something to happen/arguing on DCUM that it would be better vs. actually imposing anything on anyone. I don’t see how it’s harmful to any neighbors for me to spout off here about what policies I’d prefer — especially since I know the city is in no danger of actually implementing them.

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Well I live in DC and work for the DC Government and know that the re-development of RFK stadium is an unrealistic dream.

[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:

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.

Pretty big difference between wanting something to happen/arguing on DCUM that it would be better vs. actually imposing anything on anyone. I don’t see how it’s harmful to any neighbors for me to spout off here about what policies I’d prefer — especially since I know the city is in no danger of actually implementing them.

Well that seems effective.

[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:

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.

Pretty big difference between wanting something to happen/arguing on DCUM that it would be better vs. actually imposing anything on anyone. I don’t see how it’s harmful to any neighbors for me to spout off here about what policies I’d prefer — especially since I know the city is in no danger of actually implementing them.

Well that seems effective.

It’s not particularly, but if someone thinks I’m disrespecting my neighbors simply because I want policies that many of them probably don’t support, they can rest assured that my policy preferences are irrelevant.

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Well I live in DC and work for the DC Government and know that the re-development of RFK stadium is an unrealistic dream.

Absurd and reinforces how much of this talk of a “housing crisis” is just a farce. Huge tract of undeveloped and unused parking lots with a metro station and apparently the city believes that building housing there is “unrealistic” and the activist community totally ignores it, because they want to densify Ward 3 as the number #1 priority.

[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.

I wish that unicorns were real.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

That’s a meaningless platitude and not a policy solution. The world will always been stratified into those that can and those that can’t.

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Yeah, they’re building it. It’s called Res 13 and it’s going to be filled with poor people because activists forced the city to bring down the qualifying level to 30% or less AMI. They’re building a ton of new units, which will instantly be filled with crime. It’s just a fact.

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Yeah, they’re building it. It’s called Res 13 and it’s going to be filled with poor people because activists forced the city to bring down the qualifying level to 30% or less AMI. They’re building a ton of new units, which will instantly be filled with crime. It’s just a fact.

This is what I’m saying: https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dc-picks-teams-to-redevelop-big-swath-of-reservation-13/18907

Now imagine, as evidenced by this mixed income community, which actually has less affordable housing, how a huge new low AMI mixed income development will fare. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/navy-yard-neighbors-fed-up-with-noise-recent-crime/3117063/?amp=1

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Well I live in DC and work for the DC Government and know that the re-development of RFK stadium is an unrealistic dream.

Absurd and reinforces how much of this talk of a “housing crisis” is just a farce. Huge tract of undeveloped and unused parking lots with a metro station and apparently the city believes that building housing there is “unrealistic” and the activist community totally ignores it, because they want to densify Ward 3 as the number #1 priority.

Developing RFK isn't necessarily an unrealistic pipe dream, although it involves a lot more than just hoping -- some of the land needs to be cleaned up, the feds needs to transfer it to the city, and most importantly, someone needs to convince the mayor not to try to build an NFL stadium there.

But even if you could build a huge new mixed-use neighborhood at the RFK site, it would still also be a good idea to pursue higher density along the Red Line. It's a false binary to say "oh they should just redevelop RFK, there's no need to change anything else in the rest of the city."

[Anonymous]

So the Nova YIMBY avatar is half an avocado with the seed in.


The association between avocado toast and YIMBYism is complete.

[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:

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.

The crazy thing is that what these people hate the most, the suburbs, democratized the AU Park-style experience. The obvious answer is to promote abundance. Support policy that builds more AU Park style communities that are affordable to more income groups.

Where is the land?

Pretty easy to identify people who have not spent time outside of DC city limits. But you don’t need to spend any time outside of DC to understand that RFK would be a great location for a new residential neighborhood to rival AU Park or whatever your goal may be.

Yeah, they’re building it. It’s called Res 13 and it’s going to be filled with poor people because activists forced the city to bring down the qualifying level to 30% or less AMI. They’re building a ton of new units, which will instantly be filled with crime. It’s just a fact.

This is what I’m saying: https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/dc-picks-teams-to-redevelop-big-swath-of-reservation-13/18907

Now imagine, as evidenced by this mixed income community, which actually has less affordable housing, how a huge new low AMI mixed income development will fare. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/navy-yard-neighbors-fed-up-with-noise-recent-crime/3117063/?amp=1

They only interviewed one person for that story. Sounds like just one white yuppie that doesn’t like living in a diverse, vibrant neighborhood.