We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

Get a life. There is plenty of land in DC to build all sorts of housing, without destroying neighborhoods. As noted, DC still has fewer residents than 50 years. The big difference now is that there is plenty of housing outside of DC, and plenty of jobs. DMV has grown tremendously over the last few decades, and DC has not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more housing units will make housing affordable. Just look at Navy Yard.

It's probably the most densely populated neighborhood now in the city. It's almost nothing but condos.

And 600 square foot condos there cost....more than the single family homes that were knocked down to make way for them? Wait, that wasnt supposed to happen. I thought increasing density was supposed to push prices down?

Density suppresses increases in housing prices - this has been thoroughly documented in research. It's a settled matter.

The SFHs in Near Southeast were knocked down when 395 was built, the redevelopment of Navy Yard displaced mostly warehouses and night clubs, but that's neither here nor there. You're examining this from the wrong perspective. The question you should be asking is how much more expensive SFHs in Navy Yard would be if those condos hadn't been built.

Heh. This is all nonsense. Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses. When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses, which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

But this entire upward spiral in prices was driven in the first place by the fact that condos created a critical mass of people to allow gentrification to take off. If those condos weren't there in the first place, single family homes in Navy Yard would be cheap today, because there wouldnt be much incentive to leave there, except that it's cheap.

You can read about what the recent changes in Navy Yard have meant here: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b6843312f4c145efbef65a8942fb987b

To quote:

"It may even be the most gentrified neighborhood in the nation. Since 2000, the median household income in Census tract 72 has increased ten-fold; the percentage of people with a college degree has increased ten-fold; and the average home value has increased three-fold. Although racial change is not technically included in the measure of gentrification (which focuses on economic changes), it is often part of the popular definition. Thus, it is worth noting that the Black population of this tract decreased from 95% in 2000 to 24% in 2018. And the White population increased from 3% to 68%."

Increased density CAN increase housing prices, but increasing density in Ward 3 (which is where I live) would almost certainly not. Houses here already routinely sell for more than $1 million. I don't think two- or three-bedroom condos in small buildings would sell for that much per unit. Adding density in an already expensive neighborhood doesn't bring any of the downsides of gentrification -- you aren't displacing people by raising rents, and there are already high-end services and amenities there, so your theory that more appealing businesses will flood the area, driving prices up, doesn't seem to apply.

So how, exactly, would allowing for non-SFH uses on, say, my block in upper NW (near Wisconsin Avenue, currently all single-family homes) lead to higher prices? It might make my kids' school more crowded, and make it noisier near my house, but I don't really have the right to prevent that sort of thing just because I happened to have the money to live here already.

A dramatic increase in density will have the effect of encouraging rich folks to leave town or move to their second homes. Guess who pays most of the taxes? Rich folks. Great business model. CA and NY are highly dependent on the super rich and their taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of NIMBYs here don't understand that DC continues to underbuild housing compared to job and population growth.

Wonder why rents continue to climb?


"New housing causes rents to go up". LOL. That's rich. Tell that to georgetown, which hasn't seen a new unit of housing in 200 years.

In 1950, DC had over 800,000 residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

Get a life. There is plenty of land in DC to build all sorts of housing, without destroying neighborhoods. As noted, DC still has fewer residents than 50 years. The big difference now is that there is plenty of housing outside of DC, and plenty of jobs. DMV has grown tremendously over the last few decades, and DC has not really.

I get it, in your view only owners of SFHs have rights, and those rights are to control the use of someone else’s property. No one else has rights and they just need to accept their fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a peer-reviewed one, to make you happy.

https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/05/113269-new-developments-lower-rents-surrounding-neighborhoods-study-says

People here need an Econ lesson, I think.

The idea that *not* building will save us from high rents is laughable. Please go to San Francisco and see how that's working for them. LOL.

You are quite angry at the prospect that your worldview is not right, which means that you need to attack sources and evidence that is contrary to that view. You will notice that I have not bothered dispute whether the pro-outsourcing and anti-welfare Upjohn Institute, which represents your source of evidence, is ideologically motivated.

I highly recommend taking a deep breath because ideological commitment is clouding your judgment. You and your ideological peers are becoming like the Taliban. I think this quote from Marlo sums things up perfectly, “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of NIMBYs here don't understand that DC continues to underbuild housing compared to job and population growth.

Wonder why rents continue to climb?


"New housing causes rents to go up". LOL. That's rich. Tell that to georgetown, which hasn't seen a new unit of housing in 200 years.

The 'NIMBYs' in this thread disagree that "We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes." since there are currently homes available inside the beltway in this super-hot maket at <400K for SFHs and <200K for condos.

+1

[Anonymous]

Housing is never going to be affordable in a top ten market like DC. This is a global phenomenon. It's true in large cities in Europe, Asia and South America. If you want cheap housing, it's going to require government subsidies and price controls. A capitalist market - up zoning or no - upzoning - is going to drive costs up every year. The only way to stop that rise is to regulate prices. And that is a horrible, horrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

DP. You seem to think we are starting with a blank slate. That’s not accurate. There are existing zoning laws in place that regulate what owners can build on their land. As a nimby, I just want to keep those the same. You may feel very self-righteous fighting to change the laws in my neighborhood that you don’t live in, but to me, it just looks like you think the world revolves around you and your preferences.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
Guess who pays most of the taxes?

The federal government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

DP. You seem to think we are starting with a blank slate. That’s not accurate. There are existing zoning laws in place that regulate what owners can build on their land. As a nimby, I just want to keep those the same. You may feel very self-righteous fighting to change the laws in my neighborhood that you don’t live in, but to me, it just looks like you think the world revolves around you and your preferences.

Lol, okay NIMBY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

DP. You seem to think we are starting with a blank slate. That’s not accurate. There are existing zoning laws in place that regulate what owners can build on their land. As a nimby, I just want to keep those the same. You may feel very self-righteous fighting to change the laws in my neighborhood that you don’t live in, but to me, it just looks like you think the world revolves around you and your preferences.

Lol, okay NIMBY

Strong comeback.

I honestly don’t find it insulting to be called a NIMBY. I freely admit I want to keep the things I like about my home and neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Housing is never going to be affordable in a top ten market like DC. This is a global phenomenon. It's true in large cities in Europe, Asia and South America. If you want cheap housing, it's going to require government subsidies and price controls. A capitalist market - up zoning or no - upzoning - is going to drive costs up every year. The only way to stop that rise is to regulate prices. And that is a horrible, horrible idea.

These are good points. When you combine the anti-market philosophy with the authoritarian tendencies it’s a bit troubling. But thankfully these people are only organizing around property and zoning. Imagine if this was Europe and they formed a political party. In a case of extreme horseshoe theory they would rule this country like Marshall Tito ruled Yugoslavia, including forcing everyone to live in cookie cutter cement apartment blocks. Curios if Tito forced exercise like Mao, because they would probably send out goon squads to disappear people who don’t ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

I think you are the one who may need help here. DC has plenty of land where multifamily, duplexes, rowhouses, etc, can be built, WITHOUT harming SFH neighborhoods. You simply want easy money. Lets buy some land in a nice neighborhood and build a MF building, and make money. Real hard. Anyone can do that. Go create new thriving areas of DC, which is happened at the Navy Yard and Wharf. Latter 2 projects took some real creativity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

I think you are the one who may need help here. DC has plenty of land where multifamily, duplexes, rowhouses, etc, can be built, WITHOUT harming SFH neighborhoods. You simply want easy money. Lets buy some land in a nice neighborhood and build a MF building, and make money. Real hard. Anyone can do that. Go create new thriving areas of DC, which is happened at the Navy Yard and Wharf. Latter 2 projects took some real creativity.

Absolutely. I think it’s also important to recognize that their argument is also based on a lie. There are very few SFH neighborhoods in DC. I could probably name them all: Cleveland Park/AU Park, Forest Hills/Chevy Chase, Foxhall/Palisades, Spring Valley, and Brookland. And within these neighborhoods there are duplexes, townhomes, condos, small apartment bldgs, large apartment bldgs, etc.

These people are just perpetuating a phenomenal, phenomenal lie to cape for developers. It’s crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
However, I must continue to repeat myself, you do not have a right to buy property anywhere you want to at the price you want to pay.

And you don’t have a right over another person’s property. Up zoning just gives your neighbor a choice of SFH or more dense housing. If they want to build a triplex, that’s their right.

Why are you so interested in destroying SFH neighborhoods?? If I buy a house in neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I want in a neighborhood. No, I do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. Otherwise, I live elsewhere. And, in the DMV, I have options. Guess who pays the taxes. Those in the larger SFHs. Note also that, while DC may be growing now, it has not always, and its growth rate is actually slowing. DC still has not returned to its 1950 level when over 800K people lived in DC. In 2000, DC was as low as 572K, at a time when the DMV was booming. DC has plenty of space to build residential housing. The only folks pushing upzoning are smaller developers, plus those who wish to change the character of other people's neighborhoods.

It’s all projection. They claim that you should not be able to control others but at the same time they want to force everyone to live the way they want them to and they want to make every neighborhood the way they want it. They are trying to eliminate consumer choice. It’s a very egocentric and dictatorial perspective that they have.

You can't actually believe your own nonsense can you? You know how foolish you look and this is just the last straw you've grasped at to be able to justify your insane, selfish views, right?

Because right now, you're saying the side that wants to give property owners the right to CHOOSE what to build on their property, that wants to give consumers the right to CHOOSE to live in multifamily, duplex, or rowhouse housing in more neighborhoods is the anti-choice side because they want to, what? Take away your right to tell other people what other people do with their property? Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want multifamily housing on your property, don't build it, it's that simple. The only thing we want to "force" you to do is accept that things change, neighborhoods need to evolve to serve growing and changing populations, and the world does not revolve around you, all concepts which adults already understand. Sorry for your arrested development, maybe with some effort and introspection someday you'll mature, start growing as a person, and catch up with the rest of us.

DP. You seem to think we are starting with a blank slate. That’s not accurate. There are existing zoning laws in place that regulate what owners can build on their land. As a nimby, I just want to keep those the same. You may feel very self-righteous fighting to change the laws in my neighborhood that you don’t live in, but to me, it just looks like you think the world revolves around you and your preferences.

Lol, okay NIMBY

Strong comeback.

I honestly don’t find it insulting to be called a NIMBY. I freely admit I want to keep the things I like about my home and neighborhood.

Okay but realize you are the one who thinks the world revolves around them. You are trying to control others, not the people advocating for upzoning. Upzoning only gives property owners more choices—it doesn’t mandate increases in density. You are the one forcing your preferences on others.