Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s hilarious to me is that these “YIMBY” people think that rich people are just going to go along with their nonsense. No, I’ll just move somewhere else, so will the vast majority of my neighbors, and the neighborhood’s property values will plummet. It will become a deserted, crime-ridden hellhole overnight. Look at Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis and Detroit as warning signs.

Win-win.

Yeah it’s a win-win for the local public schools when all the kids who will score 1300+ on the SAT are moved by their families to a different school district or to private, right?

No, it's a win-win when the unhappy OP moves away to a place where they will be (or believe they will be) less unhappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

I mean, if OP likes it, then OP likes it. There's no arguing with taste. It's terrible public policy, but OP likes it!

Define “terrible public policy.” I think that destroying nature to build say, subsidized housing, anywhere except in unused buildings in DC or close-in is terrible for the environment.

Exactly Jiwanka would you propose to house a growing population?

It’s not my job to “house” you.

Says the person who was born on third base to the person whose family has had centuries of discrimination.

If you are an American citizen by birth, you were born on third base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density causes crime.

Then why is crime per capita much higher in rural red states?

Not when you break it down by county: https://www.heritage.org/press/new-heritage-report-reveals-blue-counties-cities-have-murder-problem. Red counties also have higher performing schools.

Then why are the bottom 30 states in education all red?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s hilarious to me is that these “YIMBY” people think that rich people are just going to go along with their nonsense. No, I’ll just move somewhere else, so will the vast majority of my neighbors, and the neighborhood’s property values will plummet. It will become a deserted, crime-ridden hellhole overnight. Look at Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis and Detroit as warning signs.

Win-win.

Yeah it’s a win-win for the local public schools when all the kids who will score 1300+ on the SAT are moved by their families to a different school district or to private, right?

No, it's a win-win when the unhappy OP moves away to a place where they will be (or believe they will be) less unhappy.

“YIMBY” policies will drive away high-taxpaying families with high-scoring kids. Have fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density causes crime.

Then why is crime per capita much higher in rural red states?

Not when you break it down by county: https://www.heritage.org/press/new-heritage-report-reveals-blue-counties-cities-have-murder-problem. Red counties also have higher performing schools.

Then why are the bottom 30 states in education all red?

Why are blue cities terrible at education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s hilarious to me is that these “YIMBY” people think that rich people are just going to go along with their nonsense. No, I’ll just move somewhere else, so will the vast majority of my neighbors, and the neighborhood’s property values will plummet. It will become a deserted, crime-ridden hellhole overnight. Look at Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis and Detroit as warning signs.

Win-win.

Yeah it’s a win-win for the local public schools when all the kids who will score 1300+ on the SAT are moved by their families to a different school district or to private, right?

No, it's a win-win when the unhappy OP moves away to a place where they will be (or believe they will be) less unhappy.

“YIMBY” policies will drive away high-taxpaying families with high-scoring kids. Have fun!

No. They might drive you, personally, away. If you want to take your ball and go home, that's fine. Take it and go. You will not be as missed as you seem to believe.

[Anonymous]

Kids who live in stick houses in WV with no social services outscore kids in DC who have free housing, free transportation, free clothing, free insurance, free everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

I mean, if OP likes it, then OP likes it. There's no arguing with taste. It's terrible public policy, but OP likes it!

Define “terrible public policy.” I think that destroying nature to build say, subsidized housing, anywhere except in unused buildings in DC or close-in is terrible for the environment.

Exactly Jiwanka would you propose to house a growing population?

It’s not my job to “house” you.

Says the person who was born on third base to the person whose family has had centuries of discrimination.

Some people are highly-independent & self-sufficient. Others are perpetually dependent on the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids who live in stick houses in WV with no social services outscore kids in DC who have free housing, free transportation, free clothing, free insurance, free everything.

So move to West Virginia. Bye.

[Anonymous]

This area’s #1 goal should be to continue attracting net taxpayers & keep them satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This area’s #1 goal should be to continue attracting net taxpayers & keep them satisfied.

Says you. The voters say otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This area’s #1 goal should be to continue attracting net taxpayers & keep them satisfied.

Says you. The voters say otherwise.

Lots of non-taxpayers voting for freebies that will bankrupt us.

[Anonymous]

We like our neighborhood’s quiet, low-crime, leafy green community feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This area’s #1 goal should be to continue attracting net taxpayers & keep them satisfied.

Says you. The voters say otherwise.

Lots of non-taxpayers voting for freebies that will bankrupt us.

Ok. That's democracy. Go move to Plato's Republic and hope you're a philosopher-king, not a worker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer to spend time with self-selected populations, in environments that someone has to make an effort to access, both literally & figuratively. I don’t want to be anywhere that someone could end up accidentally, or somewhere that someone can access without trying really hard to.