What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Ok, so at some point, there won't be more greenspace to build on.
Your vision maximizes car dependency, and is the least efficient use of land, or transportation investment and sprawl. It is such a loser game to keep doing what doesn't work until there is nothing left.

For people that consider the supply of housing to be a crisis that requires extreme measures, it’s funny to me that you believe housing should only be increased within the policy constraints that fit your priors.

Apparently everyone else needs to compromise and sacrifice in order to provide for ensuring that the objective that you want is met except for you, the actual chief promoters of the objective.

In short, according to YIMBYs, zoning is bad except for when it’s good and the free market is good, except for when it’s bad.

It isn't MY constraints. There is only so much land. Why does it make sense to plow under arable land to build single family tract housing in car dependent areas? This just leads to so much waste. I am sorry you cannot see it. Maybe someday your children will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.
Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:
You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

Upzoning reduces gentrification.

Upzoning Ward 3 would create more housing units. This would create more places for people to live. Prices in other parts of DC would go down.

This is why upzoning reduces gentrification.

So, you are for destroying rich SFH neighborhoods but not for destroying poorer areas. On what basis? Why not simply improve poorer neighborhoods?

How are rich SFH areas being destroyed? Please share examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Ok, so at some point, there won't be more greenspace to build on.
Your vision maximizes car dependency, and is the least efficient use of land, or transportation investment and sprawl. It is such a loser game to keep doing what doesn't work until there is nothing left.

For people that consider the supply of housing to be a crisis that requires extreme measures, it’s funny to me that you believe housing should only be increased within the policy constraints that fit your priors.

Apparently everyone else needs to compromise and sacrifice in order to provide for ensuring that the objective that you want is met except for you, the actual chief promoters of the objective.

In short, according to YIMBYs, zoning is bad except for when it’s good and the free market is good, except for when it’s bad.

It isn't MY constraints. There is only so much land. Why does it make sense to plow under arable land to build single family tract housing in car dependent areas? This just leads to so much waste. I am sorry you cannot see it. Maybe someday your children will.

Today's Post talks about all the people fleeing the 'density rich' Bay Area for livable, breathable communities inland. Sorry, but you CAN build non-sterile lovely communities and builders have figured out how to create new housing with community. It's a very narrow view that everyone needs to live like the Matrix in pods in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Ok, so at some point, there won't be more greenspace to build on.
Your vision maximizes car dependency, and is the least efficient use of land, or transportation investment and sprawl. It is such a loser game to keep doing what doesn't work until there is nothing left.

For people that consider the supply of housing to be a crisis that requires extreme measures, it’s funny to me that you believe housing should only be increased within the policy constraints that fit your priors.

Apparently everyone else needs to compromise and sacrifice in order to provide for ensuring that the objective that you want is met except for you, the actual chief promoters of the objective.

In short, according to YIMBYs, zoning is bad except for when it’s good and the free market is good, except for when it’s bad.

It isn't MY constraints. There is only so much land. Why does it make sense to plow under arable land to build single family tract housing in car dependent areas? This just leads to so much waste. I am sorry you cannot see it. Maybe someday your children will.

Today's Post talks about all the people fleeing the 'density rich' Bay Area for livable, breathable communities inland. Sorry, but you CAN build non-sterile lovely communities and builders have figured out how to create new housing with community. It's a very narrow view that everyone needs to live like the Matrix in pods in the city.

Yes, I read that article and you are misrepresenting the motivations of the people who are moving. It is 100% an affordability issue. The only way to solve the affordability issue is to build more density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Ok, so at some point, there won't be more greenspace to build on.
Your vision maximizes car dependency, and is the least efficient use of land, or transportation investment and sprawl. It is such a loser game to keep doing what doesn't work until there is nothing left.

For people that consider the supply of housing to be a crisis that requires extreme measures, it’s funny to me that you believe housing should only be increased within the policy constraints that fit your priors.

Apparently everyone else needs to compromise and sacrifice in order to provide for ensuring that the objective that you want is met except for you, the actual chief promoters of the objective.

In short, according to YIMBYs, zoning is bad except for when it’s good and the free market is good, except for when it’s bad.

It isn't MY constraints. There is only so much land. Why does it make sense to plow under arable land to build single family tract housing in car dependent areas? This just leads to so much waste. I am sorry you cannot see it. Maybe someday your children will.

There is tons of land. Tons of it. You are promoting a false binary choice.

You clearly only want more housing where you want it and no where else.

What you want to do is to prevent people of color and immigrants from getting access to the ladder of wealth in this country because you want to “preserve farmland”. Please go and take a cross country flight and then look down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Ok, so at some point, there won't be more greenspace to build on.
Your vision maximizes car dependency, and is the least efficient use of land, or transportation investment and sprawl. It is such a loser game to keep doing what doesn't work until there is nothing left.

For people that consider the supply of housing to be a crisis that requires extreme measures, it’s funny to me that you believe housing should only be increased within the policy constraints that fit your priors.

Apparently everyone else needs to compromise and sacrifice in order to provide for ensuring that the objective that you want is met except for you, the actual chief promoters of the objective.

In short, according to YIMBYs, zoning is bad except for when it’s good and the free market is good, except for when it’s bad.

It isn't MY constraints. There is only so much land. Why does it make sense to plow under arable land to build single family tract housing in car dependent areas? This just leads to so much waste. I am sorry you cannot see it. Maybe someday your children will.

Today's Post talks about all the people fleeing the 'density rich' Bay Area for livable, breathable communities inland. Sorry, but you CAN build non-sterile lovely communities and builders have figured out how to create new housing with community. It's a very narrow view that everyone needs to live like the Matrix in pods in the city.

Yes, I read that article and you are misrepresenting the motivations of the people who are moving. It is 100% an affordability issue. The only way to solve the affordability issue is to build more density.

What is unaffordable is space. A house with a yard. People are not moving away from the Bay Area into cramped apartments. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Today's Post talks about all the people fleeing the 'density rich' Bay Area for livable, breathable communities inland. Sorry, but you CAN build non-sterile lovely communities and builders have figured out how to create new housing with community. It's a very narrow view that everyone needs to live like the Matrix in pods in the city.

Anecdotal. There will be other people who live in the housing those leaving the cities were in. That just means more people out in the country side, car-dependent and living a more wasteful existence. If we had unlimited resources and land, then no problem. We don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is tons of land. Tons of it. You are promoting a false binary choice.

You clearly only want more housing where you want it and no where else.

What you want to do is to prevent people of color and immigrants from getting access to the ladder of wealth in this country because you want to “preserve farmland”. Please go and take a cross country flight and then look down.

Sure, if you want to plow under fields in Nebraska, then there is plenty of land. If you are talking about the DC region, there is a finite amount of land. But people don't want to live in Nebraska or many other midwestern/plains states, as the census and migration numbers illustrate. So when you are talking about the desireable urban centers - DC, NY, SF, LA etc, land is scarce, and the only way to keep up with housing demand is to keep building more housing, and in a sustainable manner.

The ladder of wealth does not only come in single family homes. And in fact, for many, the cost to own a car and commute more than an hour each way is far greater than what can be accumulated by owning a smaller place, closer in, with no car/insurance/maintenance costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is tons of land. Tons of it. You are promoting a false binary choice.

You clearly only want more housing where you want it and no where else.

What you want to do is to prevent people of color and immigrants from getting access to the ladder of wealth in this country because you want to “preserve farmland”. Please go and take a cross country flight and then look down.

Sure, if you want to plow under fields in Nebraska, then there is plenty of land. If you are talking about the DC region, there is a finite amount of land. But people don't want to live in Nebraska or many other midwestern/plains states, as the census and migration numbers illustrate. So when you are talking about the desireable urban centers - DC, NY, SF, LA etc, land is scarce, and the only way to keep up with housing demand is to keep building more housing, and in a sustainable manner.

The ladder of wealth does not only come in single family homes. And in fact, for many, the cost to own a car and commute more than an hour each way is far greater than what can be accumulated by owning a smaller place, closer in, with no car/insurance/maintenance costs.

There used to be farms on Long Island, now there are not. It is not the end of the world. Get a grip.

You clearly are not who you present yourself. You have a very specific and deterministic view. One might even say that you are an ideologue.

You are now just like the NIMBYs you proclaim to be against because you are trying to preserve something too. If you are serious about affordable housing you would be less ideological. Clearly you are not serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Today's Post talks about all the people fleeing the 'density rich' Bay Area for livable, breathable communities inland. Sorry, but you CAN build non-sterile lovely communities and builders have figured out how to create new housing with community. It's a very narrow view that everyone needs to live like the Matrix in pods in the city.

Anecdotal. There will be other people who live in the housing those leaving the cities were in. That just means more people out in the country side, car-dependent and living a more wasteful existence. If we had unlimited resources and land, then no problem. We don't.

Please explain to me what this has to do with affordable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

I think you are under the illusion that the people buying homes on those torn up farms work in DC. They do not. They work out there. Their are entire business communities in this region that have nothing to do with DC, and want nothing to do with DC.

Oh, how I wish this were true, but it’s not. I can tell because it takes up to 2 hours to commute to and from DC at rush hour. I'm sure many of us would love to live in a rowhouse or high rise building close to work if we could actually get a 3 bed, rather than a townhouse in a giant development with a postage stamp lawn. It's price. Clarksburg is not that romantic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

I think you are under the illusion that the people buying homes on those torn up farms work in DC. They do not. They work out there. Their are entire business communities in this region that have nothing to do with DC, and want nothing to do with DC.

Oh, how I wish this were true, but it’s not. I can tell because it takes up to 2 hours to commute to and from DC at rush hour. I'm sure many of us would love to live in a rowhouse or high rise building close to work if we could actually get a 3 bed, rather than a townhouse in a giant development with a postage stamp lawn. It's price. Clarksburg is not that romantic.

You live in a bubble of your own creation and it honestly surprises me that you also acknowledge that your own personal aesthetic tastes also drive your preferences regarding housing. The more you talk the more you honestly sound like the caricature you promote of NIMBYs. Almost like it’s projection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

I think you are under the illusion that the people buying homes on those torn up farms work in DC. They do not. They work out there. Their are entire business communities in this region that have nothing to do with DC, and want nothing to do with DC.

Oh, how I wish this were true, but it’s not. I can tell because it takes up to 2 hours to commute to and from DC at rush hour. I'm sure many of us would love to live in a rowhouse or high rise building close to work if we could actually get a 3 bed, rather than a townhouse in a giant development with a postage stamp lawn. It's price. Clarksburg is not that romantic.

You think traffic is bad because 100% of cars are traveling from Clarksburg to DC? In any case, your claims are not supported by data. Mean commuting time in MoCo is only 35 minutes. Clarksburg is 45 minutes from downtown DC. Very few if any people who live in Clarksburg commute to downtown DC.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B080ACS024031

You are someone with highly ideological views that does not seem to like to deal with the world of objective facts. Honestly people like you are a bit dangerous. I highly encourage you to meet more people outside your limited bubble and educate yourself more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

Wow look at you saving the world by sharing your remarkable neighborhood with the poors!!! Except now less desirable Places like suitland and SE DC will never get sufficiently developed and resourced, whoops! Yimby’s like you are well meaning but just make greedy developers richer.

Just look at Houston which has no zoning laws and it’s just a sprawling traffic nightmare clusterf$ck with much worse class segregation than dc.

You can't be against gentrification but for upzoning. Gentrification arguably damages poorer areas, while upzoning damages richer areas. Gentrification at least allows some poorer families who happen to own land in a poorer neighborhood to get a financial benefit. Upzoning simply takes money from the rich in the form of reduced property values. I suggest a preferred approach would be to improve poorer neighborhoods. You can either pull down the top, or you can pull up the bottom. I prefer the latter.

How does upzoning damage richer areas? Is 14th Street or the Wharf damaged? Navy Yard? Those areas are thriving with retail and fun activities, and housing that is 6 and 7 figures.

Historically, those areas are in fact poorer areas. They have been gentrified to the arguable detriment of the historic residents. You must be new to DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

May I ask you, Ward 3, where all this density you desire will be built? Tearing down 1920s homes and trees, perhaps? Building on the small pieces of greenspace that exist?

Maybe you ask AU to build some of that housing on its campus? Instead of dorms?

There is a tremendous amount of development going on now (view from Maine Avenue and over to Nats park and then some) in D.C. But - yes, you do you and build a condo in your back yard.

I am a different Ward 3 resident.

There are a ton of surface parking lots that can be developed.
The Wardman as a site can be a lot of new buildings.
The entirety of Friendship Heights can be redeveloped.
There can be moderate increased density allowed on parts of Connecticut Avenue that could allow for some expansions or infill development.
Property owners can be encouraged to add ADUs.
Just like all of those garden apartments, there can be added density in that form up and down all of our transit corridors.
There can be new structures built that look like a single family home, but are, in fact, 2,3 or 4-plexes.

So yes, there are a lot of places where new density can go without impinging on your single family house.

Sounds charming! Send us your traffic impact reports on Western/Wisconsin area and Connecticut - which already has a slew of condo buildings. Maybe bring a Dollar Store or Five Below too.

Add bus and bike lanes and make it harder for people to keep wasting space with single occupancy vehicles. Frankly, I don't care how suburbanites need to get into the city. They chose to live "out there" - why should I sacrifice and subsidize their choices with the quality of life on our streets?

No worries. They in fact subsidize you because their businesses are based in DC. With COVID and WFH, they may no longer commute to DC. Who loses? DC. Yes, maybe, they head into a few times a year for a Nats games or a museum tour. But they will be based elsewhere.