What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.

Serious q: what do you see as the alternative? What do you think private developers are doing? You think they should all be converted to nonprofits, or...?

I think I am YIMBY-leaning. Gentrification is good, development is good, building more housing means that there's more housing for all - and more to the point, not building more housing just makes a city more unaffordable to most.

I understand the non-YIMBY perspective, though. I live in a neighborhood where smaller houses are being knocked down in favor of gigantic new builds that are going for a fortune. I moved to this neighborhood when I could afford it, and I liked the eclectic charm - but prices have gone so high that I understand why someone coming here now wouldn't want to settle for some pokey old house with plumbing problems, I guess. Change is hard, though, and no one likes feeling like they're on the wrong end of it. That they are the ones who are going to get forced out of their community because they can't get the services they need there anymore, or it's too crowded, or it doesn't look the same, or they don't have the $ for skyrocketing rents.

The thing is that stagnated cities are dying cities. Grow, adapt, or die. It's not going to be how it was when you got there no matter what.

Is DC really unaffordable to most? I took a drive around town today and there appears to be PLENTY of affordable housing neighborhoods. Just sayin'. Do you mean "parts of DC" by any chance?

You'd think it was affordable by how run down it is. And yet, the median price of a home (including condos) in dc is $630K now. Which isn't particularly affordable for most people looking to buy a home, especially for the first time.

That actually doesnt seem that bad, since median meana there are units priced well below that as well. Should housing be free? Maybe focus on loans, like DC offers teachers. There appears to be lots of stock.

Actually, it's a huge seller's market and prices are racing upward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'm a YIMBY only because the extreme NIMBYs annoy the heck out of me. In my neighborhood they act like cutting down a single tree is tantamount to a murder. "Save McMillan Park?" It's not even a park! The space has been closed to the public since WW2. Or the accessory dwelling debate in Arlington which I think is thinly veiled racism (cheaper accessory dwellings = more middle/lower income residents = more minorities in majority white neighborhoods).

Also, I get that DC is not cheap per se but there is literally housing available to BUY in the region at almost every price point. Sure, you might not be in your first choice neighborhood but there's something for everyone within a reasonable commuting distance of the District. Try doing that in LA...you can't. Compared to most world-class cities, DC does not have expensive real estate. The complaints fall flat on me.

I agree completely on the McMillan Park issue. That parcel should have been re-developed decades ago. The opposition to it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

how do you preserve the things that made the neighborhood attractive in the first place - often ample parking, pristine blocks of original houses, trees, etc? Ie, low density?

y

I live in NEDC near Brookland, and, as far as I can tell, the new developments have added to the low density landscape. We still had a lot of vacant land and the demand for housing is simply filling in areas that were empty. All the new houses have parking and, yes, some trees have gone, but I think requiring developers to plant new trees is a very do-able requirement.

Plus, new housing built on previously underutilized land means that fewer people are commuting from far out, and also, once Metro ramps up again, more people will be commuting by public transportation.

It's a win win win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

how do you preserve the things that made the neighborhood attractive in the first place - often ample parking, pristine blocks of original houses, trees, etc? Ie, low density?

y

I live in NEDC near Brookland, and, as far as I can tell, the new developments have added to the low density landscape. We still had a lot of vacant land and the demand for housing is simply filling in areas that were empty. All the new houses have parking and, yes, some trees have gone, but I think requiring developers to plant new trees is a very do-able requirement.

Plus, new housing built on previously underutilized land means that fewer people are commuting from far out, and also, once Metro ramps up again, more people will be commuting by public transportation.

It's a win win win.

Yes, putting development in vacant lots or even better - build pocket parks and community gardens. Developers are jonesing for Ward 3, which doesn't have tons of vacant lots. They want to build up, or knock down exisiting sfh and build condos, and fill in green space. GGW doesnt like the field in front of fannie mae earmarked for community gatherings. Theyd rather have condos. Theres development that helps, and theres development that hurts. Can we all agree livable communities everywhere have a balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

how do you preserve the things that made the neighborhood attractive in the first place - often ample parking, pristine blocks of original houses, trees, etc? Ie, low density?

"Ample parking" is not what makes neighborhoods attractive, and attractive neighborhoods don't have ample parking. Ample parking is what neighborhoods have when people don't want to go there, and one of the reasons they don't want to go there is, usually, the ample parking.

[Anonymous]

Build, or accept you want to transfer wealth from younger and poorer renters and buyers to older and richer owners.

Congress should legislate DC's zoning for everything to be at least by-right lotline x 4-story development. That'd soak up much of the demand that gets sprawled further outward.

VA & MD close-in jurisdiction should upzone each current zone by 2x density, again, with by-right development.

ALso, 3rd party engineering stamp certification of compliance with building codes in lieu of building permits and inspections.

Buildings should be untaxed - exempted from property taxes, and property taxes should be increased to be revenue neutral.

This would probably increase DC's housing stock by 50% in a few years, making it affordable for more people.

Schools should issue vouchers so that private schools and homeschooling can keep the public schools from overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

People still want their single family homes. My wife refuses to live in anything that isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People still want their single family homes. My wife refuses to live in anything that isn’t.

Probably your wife doesn't expect all housing to be built with her in mind as a potential resident, nor should she. Different people have different preferences, needs, and budgets, at different times in their lives.

[Anonymous]

I am one, and I like us.

[Anonymous]

Why don't you pro-YIMBY people go to communities where development happened without zoning considerations.

Then come back and tell us how those communities are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you pro-YIMBY people go to communities where development happened without zoning considerations.

Then come back and tell us how those communities are doing.

Changing zoning =/= getting rid of zoning.

However, it is true that the Houston area has low housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Build, or accept you want to transfer wealth from younger and poorer renters and buyers to older and richer owners.

Congress should legislate DC's zoning for everything to be at least by-right lotline x 4-story development. That'd soak up much of the demand that gets sprawled further outward.

VA & MD close-in jurisdiction should upzone each current zone by 2x density, again, with by-right development.

ALso, 3rd party engineering stamp certification of compliance with building codes in lieu of building permits and inspections.

Buildings should be untaxed - exempted from property taxes, and property taxes should be increased to be revenue neutral.

This would probably increase DC's housing stock by 50% in a few years, making it affordable for more people.

Schools should issue vouchers so that private schools and homeschooling can keep the public schools from overcrowding.

Neighborhood public schools are the most important draw for young families. Young families are the most desirable group of new residents because they put down roots, spend on a wide variety of things, and have many earning years ahead. Increasing density is fine. It can even be good if done around transportation or commercial hubs. The problem is that there needs to be more schools in NW. Vouchers won't cut it. We already have a charter system but charters only get development so far. Walkable good public schools are what sustain a neighborhood long term. They are what make housing development sticky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

+ 1,000,000,000,000

They are more obsessed about smashing down single family homes in rich areas instead of building up neglected areas that are in desperate need of revitalization.

The hypocrisy of that crowd runs deep.

Not that NIMBY's don't have their own issues and stupidity. See: Friends of McMillan Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People still want their single family homes. My wife refuses to live in anything that isn’t.

Intensive development in cities and at transport nodes relieves sprawl pressures, meaning that the suburban/rural “edge” is closer for a given population size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you pro-YIMBY people go to communities where development happened without zoning considerations.

Then come back and tell us how those communities are doing.

Houston’s doing pretty well.

Tokyo is great.