What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of duplexes. And oodles of apartments too. Are you unfamiliar with DC?

So why is the PP fussing about the prospect of duplexes and apartments in their DC neighborhood, if there are already plenty of duplexes and oodles of apartments in their DC neighborhood?

Give it a rest already.

Just pointing out that it's an anti-YIMBY person who started this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of duplexes. And oodles of apartments too. Are you unfamiliar with DC?

So why is the PP fussing about the prospect of duplexes and apartments in their DC neighborhood, if there are already plenty of duplexes and oodles of apartments in their DC neighborhood?

Give it a rest already.

Just pointing out that it's an anti-YIMBY person who started this thread.

Try to accept the advice and just stop. The constant, shifting and contradictory arguments and rationales are tiring. The constant name calling and projection is tiring. The entitlement is tiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of duplexes. And oodles of apartments too. Are you unfamiliar with DC?

So why is the PP fussing about the prospect of duplexes and apartments in their DC neighborhood, if there are already plenty of duplexes and oodles of apartments in their DC neighborhood?

Give it a rest already.

Just pointing out that it's an anti-YIMBY person who started this thread.

Try to accept the advice and just stop. The constant, shifting and contradictory arguments and rationales are tiring. The constant name calling and projection is tiring. The entitlement is tiring.

Tell you what. You stop posting, and I'll stop posting. Also, I won't start any threads complaining about NIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are plenty of duplexes. And oodles of apartments too. Are you unfamiliar with DC?

So why is the PP fussing about the prospect of duplexes and apartments in their DC neighborhood, if there are already plenty of duplexes and oodles of apartments in their DC neighborhood?

Give it a rest already.

Just pointing out that it's an anti-YIMBY person who started this thread.

Try to accept the advice and just stop. The constant, shifting and contradictory arguments and rationales are tiring. The constant name calling and projection is tiring. The entitlement is tiring.

Tell you what. You stop posting, and I'll stop posting. Also, I won't start any threads complaining about NIMBYs.

Just cannot stop living down to your reputation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY's all seem to be the same person: downwardly mobile millennial white guy who feels entitled to live anywhere they want despite not being able to afford it, has a lot of issues about growing up in upper class suburbs and arrogantly believes that either everyone wants what they want or should have what they want them to have.

As with anything, women and minorities that adopt these viewpoints get promoted in media, but it's just window dressing for these incel white dudes.

Nope. Try again.

DP but this is the YIMBYs I know too. Like 80%+.

LOL. It’s true. Maybe not incels, but certainly downwardly mobile entitled white guy that grew up in upper class suburb rings a bell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

That's what you get if you don't build more. Cities in California have seen their black populations decline over the decades, because the housing costs have gone up.
Much costlier to live in San Fran than DC. DC will be headed that way if they don't build more to handle the population growth. Amazon alone is bringing in 50k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

That's what you get if you don't build more. Cities in California have seen their black populations decline over the decades, because the housing costs have gone up.
Much costlier to live in San Fran than DC. DC will be headed that way if they don't build more to handle the population growth. Amazon alone is bringing in 50k.

Shouldn't Arlington be doing the building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

That's what you get if you don't build more. Cities in California have seen their black populations decline over the decades, because the housing costs have gone up.
Much costlier to live in San Fran than DC. DC will be headed that way if they don't build more to handle the population growth. Amazon alone is bringing in 50k.

And yet there are zero examples of cities successfully building themselves to cheaper housing costs.

It’s all so tiring, please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

That's what you get if you don't build more. Cities in California have seen their black populations decline over the decades, because the housing costs have gone up.
Much costlier to live in San Fran than DC. DC will be headed that way if they don't build more to handle the population growth. Amazon alone is bringing in 50k.

And yet there are zero examples of cities successfully building themselves to cheaper housing costs.

It’s all so tiring, please stop.

Simple false. Seattle saw rent declines after a burst of building a few years ago.

The weakness of your argument can be shown easily. Simply reverse it. Banning new construction, like you support, should bring rent down, then? Ok champ. Think about that.

Supply and demand is a real thing.

[cap_hill_biker]

Any anti-YIMBY needs a class in supply and demand. It's that simple. DC has not built enough housing compared to population and job growth over the past 10 years.

Hence, prices go up.


Condos in Iowa are cheap for a reason, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

That's what you get if you don't build more. Cities in California have seen their black populations decline over the decades, because the housing costs have gone up.
Much costlier to live in San Fran than DC. DC will be headed that way if they don't build more to handle the population growth. Amazon alone is bringing in 50k.

Shouldn't Arlington be doing the building?

They are, but even without Amazon, DC still has a major housing shortage. I think this is what the NIMBYs want. It is the classic, "I got mine, so screw you" ploy.

[Anonymous]

cap_hill_biker wrote:Any anti-YIMBY needs a class in supply and demand. It's that simple. DC has not built enough housing compared to population and job growth over the past 10 years.

Hence, prices go up.


Condos in Iowa are cheap for a reason, people.

And YIMBYs need to rely upon advanced economics and not simply what they learned for a semester in high school (every single YIMBY seems falls into this trap). In certain cities with constrained borders -- NYC, SF and now DC, to name a few in this country -- demand is always going to outstrip supply, no matter how much is built. This will keep prices high, again no matter how much is built. Simply saying "build it and prices will fall" is not necessarily correct. In the case of housing, building more means prices might actually go up, not down, especially when everything that gets built is on the luxury end (as is the case now in DC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

cap_hill_biker wrote:Any anti-YIMBY needs a class in supply and demand. It's that simple. DC has not built enough housing compared to population and job growth over the past 10 years.

Hence, prices go up.


Condos in Iowa are cheap for a reason, people.

And YIMBYs need to rely upon advanced economics and not simply what they learned for a semester in high school (every single YIMBY seems falls into this trap). In certain cities with constrained borders -- NYC, SF and now DC, to name a few in this country -- demand is always going to outstrip supply, no matter how much is built. This will keep prices high, again no matter how much is built. Simply saying "build it and prices will fall" is not necessarily correct. In the case of housing, building more means prices might actually go up, not down, especially when everything that gets built is on the luxury end (as is the case now in DC).

Again, proven wrong in many areas of the country during covid. I'm a landlord, I can't raise rent if the unit is sitting empty. Common sense.

A renter's best bargaining tool is a functioning housing market, not subsidized slums or "affordable" housing.

There are many, many studies supporting this. "Luxury" apartments are only luxury because it's the only thing builders can do with all the red tape.

https://cityobservatory.org/building-more-housing-lowers-rents-for-everyone/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

cap_hill_biker wrote:Any anti-YIMBY needs a class in supply and demand. It's that simple. DC has not built enough housing compared to population and job growth over the past 10 years.

Hence, prices go up.


Condos in Iowa are cheap for a reason, people.

And YIMBYs need to rely upon advanced economics and not simply what they learned for a semester in high school (every single YIMBY seems falls into this trap). In certain cities with constrained borders -- NYC, SF and now DC, to name a few in this country -- demand is always going to outstrip supply, no matter how much is built. This will keep prices high, again no matter how much is built. Simply saying "build it and prices will fall" is not necessarily correct. In the case of housing, building more means prices might actually go up, not down, especially when everything that gets built is on the luxury end (as is the case now in DC).

I didn't know there were infinite people in the world wanting to live in DC. Wow, thanks for explaining that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

cap_hill_biker wrote:Any anti-YIMBY needs a class in supply and demand. It's that simple. DC has not built enough housing compared to population and job growth over the past 10 years.

Hence, prices go up.


Condos in Iowa are cheap for a reason, people.

And YIMBYs need to rely upon advanced economics and not simply what they learned for a semester in high school (every single YIMBY seems falls into this trap). In certain cities with constrained borders -- NYC, SF and now DC, to name a few in this country -- demand is always going to outstrip supply, no matter how much is built. This will keep prices high, again no matter how much is built. Simply saying "build it and prices will fall" is not necessarily correct. In the case of housing, building more means prices might actually go up, not down, especially when everything that gets built is on the luxury end (as is the case now in DC).

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/theres-no-such-thing-luxury-housing/618548/

Oops.