The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Seems like a better solution for that problem would be downsizing for cars. Sick of those giant cars not fitting in parking spaces too.

You are talking about a hypothetical solution that local governments have no control over. It would take at least 20 years to see the impacts of a policy like this given that cars tend to last 10-20 years. This “solution” is completely unrealistic and illegal for most local governments in the US to implement. This does nothing to help people now and it actively worsens this issue by planning for a hypothetical that has a locality cannot implement.

This is a pretty funny response on a thread where 1) people are saying local zoning changes are going to make people vote for Trump and 2) we are talking about building houses. Pretty sure cars turn over faster than houses.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

But as we’ve established, it’s not *just* about illegal parking.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for an ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

YIMBYs just assume that added density will have no traffic or parking impacts because people won’t own cars and will bike and take the little scooters everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

As a Del Ray resident, I can confirm that the YIMBYs are circling this neighborhood like vultures.

The head of NoVa YIMBYs lives in DelRay and describes himself as a refugee from Arlington. And by that he means that the DelRay schools suck and he want to get a $500K duplex in a top school district in Arlington. One of the other leaders lives in a luxury rental building in North Arlington after moving from Crystal City. For the one year she had her kid in a South Arlington school she waxed eloquent about the diversity of the school as the YIMBY ideal and then --- boom -- she is in one of the best school districts in North Arlington.

How does one become head of NoVa YIMBYs? Is NoVa YIMBYs a group with by-laws and board elections? Or did you just decide that this person is the head?

You just whine loudest. If there is a tie, the win goes to who ever owns the most $300 pairs of yoga pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Chevy Chase DC have to become like NoMa or the Navy Yard? Isn’t having a variety of neighborhoods with different characteristics like height and density, versus semi-suburban, a good thing?

Isn't having a variety of housing types in a neighborhood, versus exclusively one housing type, a good thing?

Why should lower density village type neighborhoods also have 12-13 story buildings? DC has a diversity of housing types across the city, which is desirable. It doesn’t mean that Palisades or AU Park have to be Mini-me versions of the Navy Yard.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

But as we’ve established, it’s not *just* about illegal parking.

Right, it's not just about illegal parking on the street, it's also about current homeowners of single-family houses who believe that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because then it might become more difficult for them to park on the street.

Which does raise the question: why aren't those homeowners parking their cars on their property, instead of on public property? Weren't there on-site parking requirements for the developers who built those houses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does Chevy Chase DC have to become like NoMa or the Navy Yard? Isn’t having a variety of neighborhoods with different characteristics like height and density, versus semi-suburban, a good thing?

Isn't having a variety of housing types in a neighborhood, versus exclusively one housing type, a good thing?

Why should lower density village type neighborhoods also have 12-13 story buildings? DC has a diversity of housing types across the city, which is desirable. It doesn’t mean that Palisades or AU Park have to be Mini-me versions of the Navy Yard.

Why shouldn't they?

Not that anyone is proposing to build 12-13 story buildings in Palisades.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

But as we’ve established, it’s not *just* about illegal parking.

Right, it's not just about illegal parking on the street, it's also about current homeowners of single-family houses who believe that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because then it might become more difficult for them to park on the street.

Which does raise the question: why aren't those homeowners parking their cars on their property, instead of on public property? Weren't there on-site parking requirements for the developers who built those houses?

I see you can’t read very well, because I addressed your first point in the comment just before the illegal parking one, and it’s more than just “it might become more difficult.”

As to your second point, that would be ideal but the stupid YIMBYs keep getting rid of the on-site parking requirements because they hate cars almost as much as they hate SFH and are also simps for developers who don’t want to provide parking.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

But as we’ve established, it’s not *just* about illegal parking.

Right, it's not just about illegal parking on the street, it's also about current homeowners of single-family houses who believe that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because then it might become more difficult for them to park on the street.

Which does raise the question: why aren't those homeowners parking their cars on their property, instead of on public property? Weren't there on-site parking requirements for the developers who built those houses?

I see you can’t read very well, because I addressed your first point in the comment just before the illegal parking one, and it’s more than just “it might become more difficult.”

As to your second point, that would be ideal but the stupid YIMBYs keep getting rid of the on-site parking requirements because they hate cars almost as much as they hate SFH and are also simps for developers who don’t want to provide parking.

Obviously the SFHs should have on-site parking requirements! If they don't, that should be changed. Then the SFH homeowners can park their cars on their private property, and they won't have to worry about the availability of street parking.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Seems like a better solution for that problem would be downsizing for cars. Sick of those giant cars not fitting in parking spaces too.

Not sending a Hook-and-Ladder to deal with grandma's heart attack would also help. A van based ambulance could get into a lot of spaces large firetrucks 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Parking enforcement is the solution to the problem of illegal parking.

Well until theses localities actually decide to crack down on parking enforcement, that is a moot point. Most of these places have no interest in do that.

Really? It seems like, if illegally parked vehicles delayed emergency response and then someone died in a house fire or of a heart attack, that actually would be an incentive to conduct parking enforcement.

In fact, it's a lot more rational than the idea that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because nothing can be done about people parking cars illegally on the street.

But as we’ve established, it’s not *just* about illegal parking.

Right, it's not just about illegal parking on the street, it's also about current homeowners of single-family houses who believe that a locality shouldn't allow more types of housing because then it might become more difficult for them to park on the street.

Which does raise the question: why aren't those homeowners parking their cars on their property, instead of on public property? Weren't there on-site parking requirements for the developers who built those houses?

Because their garages are filled with 40 years of Time/Life magazines in boxes. So they HAVE to park on the street now.

[Anonymous]

The real question is why are we having this conversation?

Stop engaging with YIMBY lunatics like they're serious people. Most are too young and inexperienced to understand what they're asking.

With so much time increasingly spent online, I hope there's a push for an online credential system. The buzzing of these flies around these made up issues is distracting our nation from solving more important problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real question is why are we having this conversation?

Stop engaging with YIMBY lunatics like they're serious people. Most are too young and inexperienced to understand what they're asking.

With so much time increasingly spent online, I hope there's a push for an online credential system. The buzzing of these flies around these made up issues is distracting our nation from solving more important problems.

Because there need to be changes in our housing policies.

I think housing is a very important issue. People need a roof over their heads.

[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:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

Bingo. Miserable people who resent anyone who lives in a single-family home with a nice yard. This thread is hilarious.

+1

It's a bunch of self congratulatory wannabee intellectuals that can't afford a SFH in..... Del Ray, so they want to instead ruin it for those that can. Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people how they need to live.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell other people what they are and aren't allowed to do with their own property.

This is what I don’t understand about YIMBYs. It’s not surprising that people why buy homes within a SFH neighborhood choose the location because they want to be IN a SFH neighborhood. If an apartment building goes up nextdoor they are no longer in the neighborhood they bought in.

If you already live in a mixed use community that gets more densely developed that’s a different story because it doesn’t change the entire structure of the neighborhood.

Imagine the level of entitlement it takes to tell your neighbor that they're not allowed to build a building on their property, because you don't like change.

There must be a major difference/disconnect in how people feel about their neighborhoods. It’s clear that there are those that truly feel that you should only care about your own house and not care about the neighborhood as a whole or what you’re living nextdoor to.

There are also many of us who value our neighborhoods as a whole, whether it’s a TH development, a SFH development or condo community. We bought based on the entire neighborhood and not just our personal homes. If we wanted to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, we would have bought next to one.

There's a meaningful distinction between "care about" and "own". I care about my neighborhood. I don't tell my neighbor he can't paint his door a color I don't like.

If you don't want to live next to a business or apartment or whatever, then you need to buy the property next door.

There’s a big difference in living next to a home with a door color you don’t care for and living next to a multi family unit in your SFH neighborhood. Not remotely a similar comparison.

They can build a 2-4 unit building that looks just like a single family new construction. Obviously there would be more people but the look of the neighborhood doesn't have to change much.

It's like the rowhouses neighborhoods in DC. The 2-4 unit rowhouses look exactly the same as single family rowhouses.

I don’t actually have an issue with this with the exception that when it comes to issues related to insufficient parking, overcrowded schools, infrastructure, etc. that follow from these changes, the local governments always stick their head in the sand and pretend like they had no idea those issues would crop up.

Let's talk about that. When you say "insufficient parking", specifically what kinds of problems do you expect? People will park their cars where you want to park your car? People will double park and box in your car? People will park their cars on the street in front of your house? People will come to blows over parking spaces? Or what?

Do you actually live in this area and own a car? Because if you do then you already know.

What ends up happening is people park their cars on both sides of the street and block traffic. Then emergency vehicles cannot access the street and someone dies in a house fire because the fire truck cannot reach a burning building. Same thing for a ambulances, bad urban planning increases the risk that Grandma dies from a heart attack because insufficient parking creates obstacles to accessing her house. YIMBYs want to upzone everything and ignore the real-world consequences of their magical beliefs. There is real harm created by just allowing people to build whatever they want without consideration for infrastructure capacity.

Seems like a better solution for that problem would be downsizing for cars. Sick of those giant cars not fitting in parking spaces too.

Not sending a Hook-and-Ladder to deal with grandma's heart attack would also help. A van based ambulance could get into a lot of spaces large firetrucks can't

We’re so lucky that the YIMBYs know how to efficiently staff an effective fire protection service. It would be great to have purpose-built apparatus for every emergency and the people to staff them but local governments can’t afford that, in part because the YIMBYs have hollowed out the tax base through laws that exempt some of the new development from property taxes.

(They send the ladder truck because the paramedic has two jobs. One is on the ladder truck and the other is being a paramedic. The apparatus goes with the paramedic because otherwise it would have to go out of service for insufficient staffing every time your van-based ambulance took the paramedic somewhere else).