What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You pick your neighborhood because of the characters of the residences there! You can always change/remodel/rebuild your residence; you yourself can't change the character of the neighboring residences. If you buy a SFH in a neighborhood, you want a neighborhood of SFHs, not something else. The end result of upzoning will be the departure of folks from DC. DC has done well financially over the last several decades, because they wealthy have done well. If you drive them out, you lose your tax base. What COVID has made clear is that many of these folks do not need to be in DC. In fact, the number of folks working remotely from beach houses is huge.

The wealthy aren't leaving DC. It is where things happen, where the action is. The US is shifting to the global urban model where the dontowns have the wealthy and the middle and lower classes are forced to the suburbs and related inconvenicenes of bad location and housing stock.

I don't know any "wealthy" people who left beltway suburbs to move to DC. nope. You must be young and/or transplant. Real estate in NOVA is BOOMING. And people are fleeing cities right now.

Keep watching Fox and reading DC Examiner and WSJ. They surely don’t distort what they tell you about cities! You won’t be misinformed about any issues going forward this way!!

Never watch Fox except for amusement purposes. But the real wealth are and will leave. The number of folks I know who have left the area for tax reasons is dozens. Many of the folks who are buying the high end condos live in fact elsewhere. Sold their Potomac homes, live in FL, and spend a few months a year in their condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

That's good, because unless you are buying adjacent to a major corridor, you don't have to worry about the parcel next door being redeveloped into an apartment building. The SFH/R-1 zoning is not changing in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Never watch Fox except for amusement purposes. But the real wealth are and will leave. The number of folks I know who have left the area for tax reasons is dozens. Many of the folks who are buying the high end condos live in fact elsewhere. Sold their Potomac homes, live in FL, and spend a few months a year in their condos.

You all have been saying this for decades, and somehow, it isn't happening. Or think of it this way....if a wealthy person is moving and selling their house for 4 million dollars, someone else as or more wealthy is buying that house. So...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Weird, when I bought my SFH it came with a plat showing exactly the area I had purchased. It included my house and my yard, but it didn't say anything about including the entire neighborhood.

You might want to recheck your documents, you might be in for a surprise.

DP. So you chose to purchase your home based on only the home itself and nothing else? It could have been next to a junkyard or a hazardous waste site, and it wouldn’t have affected your decision at all? If so, it would be good for you to understand that you are definitely in the minority. That’s an unusual perspective.

So you get near dictatorial control over other people's land? Gotcha.

Show me where I said that. If you can’t make your argument without making things up, it’s time to work on your argument.

DP. Cities change. Your SFH neighborhood was pasture before developers plopped down houses there. The restaurants you dine in, the shops you patronize, and the museums you enjoy did not materialize out of thin air. The things that people enjoy most about cities and suburbs develop over time precisely because they are not frozen in amber.

Your preference to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are is ahistorical.

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If I buy in a neighborhood of SFHs, that is what I am buying. I have NO interest in living next door to apartment buildings or duplexes.

Ideally, you wouldn't get a say in what the person who owned the land next to you did with their property.

[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?

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.

What makes you think any of this (which sounds great to me) would be less "charming" than empty parking lots or abandoned department stores are? My kids would be thrilled if there was a Five Below in the neighborhood, for what it's worth. And I don't care about the traffic impact, because I can walk to Metro or bike to work. Or, if I had to drive, I could just... plan for there to be more traffic and add time to my commute. We don't have a right to avoid any and all potential minor inconveniences just because we already live here.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think adding some small apartment buildings to Friendship Heights is going to turn it into Houston.

[Anonymous]

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.

If people want to tear down homes (ideally not trees) to build apartment buildings, that'd be fine. Most of the homes near me were built in the 1940s, not the 1920s, and at any rate, they get torn down and replaced with enormous single-family homes all the time. I don't see why a $2.5 million new construction mansion is OK but a four-unit apartment building that takes up just about the same space is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some things change about neighborhoods but some things stay the same (or similar to how they once were). For example, my home is over 100 years old, and no developers have plopped down new homes on my street in a century.

I chose to purchase my home (which is by far the biggest investment I’ve ever made) in part based on the neighborhood. I like my neighborhood the way it is, so I will try to keep it from changing very much. Whether my preference is “ahistorical” is not one of my primary considerations.

If yours is in a Single Family Home neighborhood, and you are in DC proper, then you need to understand that at the moment, there is no proposal to change your single family home zoning.