all these affordable housing do gooders are doing the billionaires' work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

People keep saying that -- eliminating all SFHs. But that's not true, and it's not how things will go in practice. Nobody is bulldozing your house down.

OP doesn’t care about facts or reality.

They love their ignorant narrative.

It puts enough pressure on the SFH market to essentially lockout anyone but the upper 5%.

This is by design. When people buy houses they leave the rental market for a long time. That reduces demand. The MFH landlords need to keep demand from upper income households very high so that rents keep increasing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if they’re doing the bidding of billionaires but they are definitely doing the bidding of developers and many of the policies they push only serve to increase developer profits and don’t actually make housing more affordable.

The more disturbing part to me is that it’s like a cult. There is no room for any dissent. They have an entire set of made up terminology and ideas and you have to follow those or you are out of the cult.

This mentality has become true for what are now Progressives, people who used to be rational Democrats. Progressives gaslight not just conservatives, but normal democrats as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if they’re doing the bidding of billionaires but they are definitely doing the bidding of developers and many of the policies they push only serve to increase developer profits and don’t actually make housing more affordable.

The more disturbing part to me is that it’s like a cult. There is no room for any dissent. They have an entire set of made up terminology and ideas and you have to follow those or you are out of the cult.[/quote

Yes, I got into a knock down drag out fight with a pack of yimbys who didn't actually want housing in their backyards, they wanted it on geologically unstable open space near a park I jog in. When I pointed out geologic features they called me racist. Because knowing where the flood plain is is racist. It's like actual rules of municipal planning and safety don't apply to nimbys.

[Anonymous]

OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

This is completely off topic but no, I don’t think the use of bathrooms is what causes this fear. No one really cared much about this for decades. I think people are VERY afraid of their kids or grandkids getting caught up in this and sterilizing themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

This is completely off topic but no, I don’t think the use of bathrooms is what causes this fear. No one really cared much about this for decades. I think people are VERY afraid of their kids or grandkids getting caught up in this and sterilizing themselves.

You just proved the PP's point. Billionaires manipulate stupids into believing untrue things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

People keep saying that -- eliminating all SFHs. But that's not true, and it's not how things will go in practice. Nobody is bulldozing your house down.

OP doesn’t care about facts or reality.

They love their ignorant narrative.

I think there is a real conversation to be had here about the best way to secure more housing for people in our county who can’t afford it. But some NIMBYs on this thread sadly are not willing to engage and seem to have a flair for the dramatic.

They have their narrative and are sticking to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

Progressive YIMBYs exist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

So building more housing is the solution and we need to find the best way to do that. Sounds good to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

So building more housing is the solution and we need to find the best way to do that. Sounds good to me!

Right. And Friedson has shown he’s not the guy to find a solution because all he builds is developers’ profit margins.

[Anonymous]

Continuing to build very high end homes does nothing to help those who need affordable housing. Whether it’s apartments, condos, duplexes pr townhomes. Everything they build is always targeted to luxury markets.

What they need to build is basic nice but not luxury housing in areas that can support it.