Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

Oh I see you have this image that the suburbs are more convenient than the city but doordash changed that. It's not like we used to get suburban delivery pizza in the 80s or people walk to get things in the city (or city restaurants don't deliver)?

Everyone has gotten a nice fat subsidy from this low interest rate environment whether its your suburban SFH, your car for driving to your conveniences, or the money-losing new economy services that people all over the country use.

[Anonymous]

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 Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

It makes the city as livable as getting delivery in the suburbs.

If you’re in the suburbs, you can choose to pay for delivery or fetch your food yourself with little hassle. If your in the city, fetching it yourself is obviously not convenient with or without a car, so your convenient lifestyle has been subsidized by private equity and the cost of that lifestyle are going up. I’m not sure why it’s hard for you to understand.

I hope you like your “15 minute city”, because convenient amenities will be more important than ever now to maintain the quality of city living standards.

Oh I see you have this image that the suburbs are more convenient than the city but doordash changed that. It's not like we used to get suburban delivery pizza in the 80s or people walk to get things in the city (or city restaurants don't deliver)?

Everyone has gotten a nice fat subsidy from this low interest rate environment whether its your suburban SFH, your car for driving to your conveniences, or the money-losing new economy services that people all over the country use.

Do the residents of DC subsidize the DC suburbs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

[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 Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

Why would I move to the suburbs, where I have to drive everywhere, because door dash is more expensive in the city? you make zero sense. (typical).

They don't really have much of a point, at all. PP and their ilk brainlessly root for cities to fail, not realizing that cities subsidize their suburban lifestyle.

Can you provide proof that DC subsidizes the MD and VA suburbs? I pretty sure that not only does DC get massive Federal subsidies that the DC budget is heavily supported by tax revenues generated by people from the suburbs.

How exactly are DC tax payers subsidizing Fairfax County, VA? I’d really like to know.

What tax revenue does DC receive from the suburbs?

Both sales tax and the underlying value of commercial real estate and the taxes that are collected are derived from suburban commuters.

You have made a specific statement that DC actually subsidizes the suburbs. I would like to understand how this is true.

Far more suburbanites commute to Washington DC than Washingtonians who reverse-commute to the burbs. DC doesn't collect a dime of income taxes from the ~100,000 people who commute from Fairfax County.

The income taxes that suburbs surrounding DC is unfathomably higher than what they could collect if DC were able to tax suburbanites working in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

SF is famously NIMBY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

[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 Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

Why would I move to the suburbs, where I have to drive everywhere, because door dash is more expensive in the city? you make zero sense. (typical).

They don't really have much of a point, at all. PP and their ilk brainlessly root for cities to fail, not realizing that cities subsidize their suburban lifestyle.

Can you provide proof that DC subsidizes the MD and VA suburbs? I pretty sure that not only does DC get massive Federal subsidies that the DC budget is heavily supported by tax revenues generated by people from the suburbs.

How exactly are DC tax payers subsidizing Fairfax County, VA? I’d really like to know.

What tax revenue does DC receive from the suburbs?

Both sales tax and the underlying value of commercial real estate and the taxes that are collected are derived from suburban commuters.

You have made a specific statement that DC actually subsidizes the suburbs. I would like to understand how this is true.

Far more suburbanites commute to Washington DC than Washingtonians who reverse-commute to the burbs. DC doesn't collect a dime of income taxes from the ~100,000 people who commute from Fairfax County.

The income taxes that suburbs surrounding DC is unfathomably higher than what they could collect if DC were able to tax suburbanites working in DC.

This is very clear in the DC budget documents. For next year's financial guidance they have a massive writedown on property taxes on downtown commercial property. But it turns out there isn't actually that much of a budget effect since (a) DC doesn't rely on downtown commercial property or associated retail taxes (b) massive increases in non-downtown valuations and revenues (both commercial and residential) and (c) incomes of residents have gone up and the pandemic exodus has started to reverse.

Basically the pivot to massive mixed use development is paying off for the city.

Personally, if the city could simply get rid of I-66/TR bridge highway spaghetti mess and put in the "wharf north", it would revenue positive for DC. Same for the RFK shitshow. All those unused, non-revenue generating parking lots. Navy Yard north is waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

SF is famously NIMBY

The city with the second highest population density in the US after NYC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

SF is famously NIMBY

The city with the second highest population density in the US after NYC?

Yes, that's the one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

SF is famously NIMBY

The city with the second highest population density in the US after NYC?

Yes, that's the one.

Most neighborhoods (with a couple big exceptions, like SOMA) haven't changed in population since the 1970s

[Anonymous]

There are a bunch of small multi-family building mixed in which the SFHs in Mount Rainier and I have noticed that it works fine/well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

No one wants to hear that the Fed, not the Bowser administration, decides how affordable housing will be in D.C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a bunch of small multi-family building mixed in which the SFHs in Mount Rainier and I have noticed that it works fine/well.

Same in NW DC. There are a bunch of smaller apartment buildings in my neighborhood. They look pretty good and fit in. Unclear why they get so much hate? I get banning skyscrapers. But a 3 story apartment building is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look what is happening with mortgage rates. If you think adding more housing units is going to bring down prices anytime soon, you are going to be very disappointed.

What’s funny is that prices may actually come down as the rates keep rising, but affordability won’t. All of these people screaming about affordability looking only at nominal prices when the last decade was the most affordable for housing ever.

People who havent bought a home before often dont realize what a massive difference mortgage rates mean to affordability. It's hard to overstate how important it is. I guess it's easier though to shake your first at NIMBYs and pretend they're the real problem.

This is right. Monthly payments for the same mortgage amount have effectively doubled in less than six months.

Over the last few years I would frequently see people complain about nominal prices, particularly comparing what a house sold for in the 70s vs now. However when you ran the numbers, it would be an inflation adjusted 2.5% CAGR.

All of the data now shows that there was no better time in history to buy a house in terms of affordability of cost vs income than the last decade. With the combined spike in prices and interest rates, right now is one of the least affordable times to buy.

Prices will come down, because the ability of buyers to pay is now stretched, particularly as interest rates keep rising. Because most people budget how much home they can buy based on monthly payments and underwriting guidelines.

The net outcome is that Banks will capture surplus housing value over households. I suppose that will make these activists happy?

No one wants to hear that the Fed, not the Bowser administration, decides how affordable housing will be in D.C.

No one is going to sell their home if it means trading a 3 percent mortgage for a 6 percent mortgage. Everyone will just decide to make do in whatever home they're in 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 Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

LOL. The food delivery companies give you immediate access to the restaurants of the entire city. If you lived car-less in Shaw but had a hankering for Sushi Taro, what were your options? How much is that convenience worth to you? And how much does it make the city “livable” that you have access to the amenities of the entire city?

Why would I move to the suburbs, where I have to drive everywhere, because door dash is more expensive in the city? you make zero sense. (typical).

They don't really have much of a point, at all. PP and their ilk brainlessly root for cities to fail, not realizing that cities subsidize their suburban lifestyle.

Can you provide proof that DC subsidizes the MD and VA suburbs? I pretty sure that not only does DC get massive Federal subsidies that the DC budget is heavily supported by tax revenues generated by people from the suburbs.

How exactly are DC tax payers subsidizing Fairfax County, VA? I’d really like to know.

What tax revenue does DC receive from the suburbs?

Both sales tax and the underlying value of commercial real estate and the taxes that are collected are derived from suburban commuters.

You have made a specific statement that DC actually subsidizes the suburbs. I would like to understand how this is true.

Far more suburbanites commute to Washington DC than Washingtonians who reverse-commute to the burbs. DC doesn't collect a dime of income taxes from the ~100,000 people who commute from Fairfax County.

The income taxes that suburbs surrounding DC is unfathomably higher than what they could collect if DC were able to tax suburbanites working in DC.

This is very clear in the DC budget documents. For next year's financial guidance they have a massive writedown on property taxes on downtown commercial property. But it turns out there isn't actually that much of a budget effect since (a) DC doesn't rely on downtown commercial property or associated retail taxes (b) massive increases in non-downtown valuations and revenues (both commercial and residential) and (c) incomes of residents have gone up and the pandemic exodus has started to reverse.

Basically the pivot to massive mixed use development is paying off for the city.

Personally, if the city could simply get rid of I-66/TR bridge highway spaghetti mess and put in the "wharf north", it would revenue positive for DC. Same for the RFK shitshow. All those unused, non-revenue generating parking lots. Navy Yard north is waiting.

This is incorrect in fundamental ways.

The pre-pandemic sources of DC revenue, excluding Federal transfers:
1. Individual Income Tax: 23%
2. Commercial Property Tax: 19%
3. Sales and Excise Tax: 18%

According to the CFO, out of these three categories, commercial property tax collections are not expected to return to pre-COVID levels until 2025 and sales tax collections are still below pre-pandemic levels. However these have both been offset by increased income tax collections.

Income taxes are notoriously volatile and it’s a highly risky strategy for the city when the macro environment is trending towards recession. Further, I would also like to add that it is hilariously funny that you think, when income tax revenue collection is of growing importance, that the top priority for DC should be to prevent DC residents from getting to their high wage jobs in the Dulles corridor. Just epically funny.

Also, still waiting for you to tell me how DC subsidizes Fairfax.