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: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.

When I can finally use a scooter to haul a Costco mini-binge to my steel and glass 450-unit condo, I'll know I've made it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi WAMU 1A staff!!

Gah, are they still around. I had to ditch WAMU about a year ago because I couldn't believe the nonsense coming from the station.

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

The parking issue is not related to people having three cars and expecting parking for all of them, but keep setting up that strawman.

Then what is related to? A previous poster said that the parking issue was finding on-street space. But if the house has off-street space for parking two cars (one in the garage, one in the driveway), then there's no need to find on-street space unless the household has three or more cars. But here you're saying it's not about households having three or more cars. So what is it about? You don't want other people parking their cars on the street in front of your house? Or...?

You may believe that everyone understands what you're talking about, but that's not true.

I’m the previous poster you mentioned and I already explained in a previous post that many places in the DMV do not have off street parking or, if they do, it’s for only one car. And that YIMBYs like to eliminate parking requirement regulations these days that will only make the problem worse.

You may believe you have reading comprehension skills, but that’s not true.

Many places do.

And for the places that don't, it seems hypocritical to demand that new development has to have off street parking, because otherwise it will inconvenience existing development that doesn't have to have off street parking.

Requiring off street parking was the zoning standard in DC and the adjacent jurisdictions. It’s the vibrant urbanist crowd that has lobbied to reduce or eliminate the requirement. Shouldn’t new development not make the problem worse? Requiring off street parking is one way to accomplish that. Excluding new development from the residential street parking system is another (and a way to truth-test developer claims that no one will have cars). Simply put, why should new large projects be able to foist their externality costs like parking onto the public?

That works as long as the residents don't vote.

Just think of the big cost savings from avoiding having to build onsite (sometimes underground) parking. Developers pass these savings on in the form of lower prices to renters and purchasers in their new developments. That’s the main stated reason for eliminating parking minimums, to promote lower cost housing. So the new residents in such developments are getting a substantial benefit.

Developers recoup the expense (and then some) by charging for parking. That’s why they usually build more than the minimum spaces required.

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

[Anonymous]

Fellow moderates, vote for Hogan. It’s time to bring back some checks and balances to fight this progressive silliness.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hogan-alsobrooks-neck-and-neck-in-maryland-us-senate-race-poll-finds/ar-AA1pwYXH

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

The parking issue is not related to people having three cars and expecting parking for all of them, but keep setting up that strawman.

Then what is related to? A previous poster said that the parking issue was finding on-street space. But if the house has off-street space for parking two cars (one in the garage, one in the driveway), then there's no need to find on-street space unless the household has three or more cars. But here you're saying it's not about households having three or more cars. So what is it about? You don't want other people parking their cars on the street in front of your house? Or...?

You may believe that everyone understands what you're talking about, but that's not true.

I’m the previous poster you mentioned and I already explained in a previous post that many places in the DMV do not have off street parking or, if they do, it’s for only one car. And that YIMBYs like to eliminate parking requirement regulations these days that will only make the problem worse.

You may believe you have reading comprehension skills, but that’s not true.

Many places do.

And for the places that don't, it seems hypocritical to demand that new development has to have off street parking, because otherwise it will inconvenience existing development that doesn't have to have off street parking.

Requiring off street parking was the zoning standard in DC and the adjacent jurisdictions. It’s the vibrant urbanist crowd that has lobbied to reduce or eliminate the requirement. Shouldn’t new development not make the problem worse? Requiring off street parking is one way to accomplish that. Excluding new development from the residential street parking system is another (and a way to truth-test developer claims that no one will have cars). Simply put, why should new large projects be able to foist their externality costs like parking onto the public?

That works as long as the residents don't vote.

Just think of the big cost savings from avoiding having to build onsite (sometimes underground) parking. Developers pass these savings on in the form of lower prices to renters and purchasers in their new developments. That’s the main stated reason for eliminating parking minimums, to promote lower cost housing. So the new residents in such developments are getting a substantial benefit.

That’s the claim the YIMBYs always make, but instead the developers just charge the market rate and pocket the extra profit.

You don’t say….

[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 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.

When I can finally use a scooter to haul a Costco mini-binge to my steel and glass 450-unit condo, I'll know I've made it

You forgot to include “vibrant, transit-oriented, affordable and equitable” before “glass and steel.”

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

I’m fine with a surcharge for blighted property, to encourage redevelopment. However, I don’t agree with the premise of an LVT. Property tax bills should be correlated with the cost to provide local government services. Improvements are more directly related to actual costs to provide government services than the value of land. A single family home in Arlington costs the county much less than a 100 unit apartment building. Under a LVT (assuming similar location and zoning) both properties would pay the same. This doesn’t make logical sense from a government funding perspective and it’s completely unworkable under the current US system. Making an LVT work would require a complete overhaul of state and federal funding mechanisms for local governments. This is an academic Ivory Tower solution that is not realistic under real world constraints existing in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fellow moderates, vote for Hogan. It’s time to bring back some checks and balances to fight this progressive silliness.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hogan-alsobrooks-neck-and-neck-in-maryland-us-senate-race-poll-finds/ar-AA1pwYXH

He's a developer.

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

I’m fine with a surcharge for blighted property, to encourage redevelopment. However, I don’t agree with the premise of an LVT. Property tax bills should be correlated with the cost to provide local government services. Improvements are more directly related to actual costs to provide government services than the value of land. A single family home in Arlington costs the county much less than a 100 unit apartment building. Under a LVT (assuming similar location and zoning) both properties would pay the same. This doesn’t make logical sense from a government funding perspective and it’s completely unworkable under the current US system. Making an LVT work would require a complete overhaul of state and federal funding mechanisms for local governments. This is an academic Ivory Tower solution that is not realistic under real world constraints existing in the United States.

Taxes aren’t user fees, and underutilized land imposed costs on society. But the single family home would pay much less than the apartment building.

There’s no reason that an LVT couldn’t be designed to be revenue neutral. It’s just a matter of setting the rate. We already know the land value because it’s split out on property tax bills.

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

I’m fine with a surcharge for blighted property, to encourage redevelopment. However, I don’t agree with the premise of an LVT. Property tax bills should be correlated with the cost to provide local government services. Improvements are more directly related to actual costs to provide government services than the value of land. A single family home in Arlington costs the county much less than a 100 unit apartment building. Under a LVT (assuming similar location and zoning) both properties would pay the same. This doesn’t make logical sense from a government funding perspective and it’s completely unworkable under the current US system. Making an LVT work would require a complete overhaul of state and federal funding mechanisms for local governments. This is an academic Ivory Tower solution that is not realistic under real world constraints existing in the United States.

Taxes aren’t user fees, and underutilized land imposed costs on society. But the single family home would pay much less than the apartment building.

There’s no reason that an LVT couldn’t be designed to be revenue neutral. It’s just a matter of setting the rate. We already know the land value because it’s split out on property tax bills.

Property taxes are absolutely indirect user fees and that is how the current system is set up. Property tax revenue represents around 70% of tax local tax revenue in the US and a LVT is substantial change that risks bankrupting many local governments. It would not necessarily be revenue neutral because increasing the tax assessment rate for land (ceteris parabis) will decrease the equilibrium price for land. So tax revenue would almost certainly go down. The revenue optimizing tax rate for a LVT will almost certainly be lower than that the hypothetical revenue neutral rate. So the long-run impact will be total property tax revenue is reduced, but spending increasing at a faster rate than before due to more development which increases utilization of government services.

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

I’m fine with a surcharge for blighted property, to encourage redevelopment. However, I don’t agree with the premise of an LVT. Property tax bills should be correlated with the cost to provide local government services. Improvements are more directly related to actual costs to provide government services than the value of land. A single family home in Arlington costs the county much less than a 100 unit apartment building. Under a LVT (assuming similar location and zoning) both properties would pay the same. This doesn’t make logical sense from a government funding perspective and it’s completely unworkable under the current US system. Making an LVT work would require a complete overhaul of state and federal funding mechanisms for local governments. This is an academic Ivory Tower solution that is not realistic under real world constraints existing in the United States.

Taxes aren’t user fees, and underutilized land imposed costs on society. But the single family home would pay much less than the apartment building.

There’s no reason that an LVT couldn’t be designed to be revenue neutral. It’s just a matter of setting the rate. We already know the land value because it’s split out on property tax bills.

I am going to assume that in your scenario, the number of children in the SFH is the same as the number of children in the apartment building. You do understand that real estate taxes fund public schools?

[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:

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.

No, it's because many older homes have 1 car garages and narrow driveways. Good for you for affording new construction $$$ homes with 3 car garages and double driveways? Congrats It's not like all these burbs are super walkable and connected by functioning PT to allow families with kids and especially multi generational households to have 1 car. The solution should be to build highrise residential buildings near transit and business centers with ample underground parking like it's always been done and already exists. Deeply residential suburban neighborhoods with a long hike to the metro or any type of shopping aren't necessarily in high demand by apartment seekers, especially those with deep pockets to afford expensive construction. There is no way budget rentals or condos will make any financial sense for the developers in the areas with $$$ lots and high labor/materials costs.

That's great! That's 2 off-street spaces right there. And surely nobody will argue that there shouldn't be apartments because that might make it harder for them to find on-street parking for the household's third car. Right?

If, as you say, apartments or condos don't make any financial sense for the developers, then they won't build them, and you have nothing to worry about.

What we need to do is change what makes financial sense for developers through an LVT to discourage sitting on underutilized land. The housing crisis that the developers manufactured ends tomorrow if we do that.

A land value tax property system would bankrupt municipalities and force elderly people out of their homes. The value of land is not necessarily related to the the utilization of government services. A 100 unit apartment building requires a lot more local government spending than a single family house. If municipalities cannot tax the value of improvements redevelopment will require the local government to spend additional money to provide services, but they will not get any additional tax revenue. A LVT system creates a very perverse incentive against all high density residential development because it will creates a fiscal deficit in most situations.

No, it creates an incentive against land speculation. A lot zoned for high density would pay the same tax whether it has one-story retail or 20-story residential. Some commercial property owners would pay less. Others would pay a lot more. For townhouses or detached single family homes, the tax liability wouldn’t change much.

What is your support for that statement because it seems on its face absurd.

And even if it is, then you are shifting the tax burden from someone owning a 20 story building to someone owning a one story retail shop. How is that fair and why wouldn’t it just drive people to build big buildings on every property?

Development potential of land is already baked into the assessment. It’s just that the structure usually is worth more than the land so most of the tax is on the structure. In an LVT system, the owner of a $1million lot would pay a higher rate on the land and nothing on the structure. The LVT doesn’t change the value of the land.

I’m happy to shift the tax burden to people who are sitting on prime commercial land that could be used for housing but is currently a strip mall with a giant parking lot. That decision has a negative impact on the community in the form of higher housing prices for everyone. An LVT would encourage more valuable improvements to land. Alternatively, the government could put a surcharge on underdeveloped land and use the proceeds to subsidize housing for high-need households. If you don’t like either of these ideas, you’re a NIMBY or a developer shill.

I’m fine with a surcharge for blighted property, to encourage redevelopment. However, I don’t agree with the premise of an LVT. Property tax bills should be correlated with the cost to provide local government services. Improvements are more directly related to actual costs to provide government services than the value of land. A single family home in Arlington costs the county much less than a 100 unit apartment building. Under a LVT (assuming similar location and zoning) both properties would pay the same. This doesn’t make logical sense from a government funding perspective and it’s completely unworkable under the current US system. Making an LVT work would require a complete overhaul of state and federal funding mechanisms for local governments. This is an academic Ivory Tower solution that is not realistic under real world constraints existing in the United States.

Taxes aren’t user fees, and underutilized land imposed costs on society. But the single family home would pay much less than the apartment building.

There’s no reason that an LVT couldn’t be designed to be revenue neutral. It’s just a matter of setting the rate. We already know the land value because it’s split out on property tax bills.

I am going to assume that in your scenario, the number of children in the SFH is the same as the number of children in the apartment building. You do understand that real estate taxes fund public schools?

DP. How is that relevant? It's a property tax, not a school-aged-child tax. "Revenue neutral" means there would be the same amount of total revenue from the tax.

[Anonymous]

The backlash to YIYBYism (it's always in *your* backyard, not *their* back yard) is growing:

https://48hills.org/2024/04/the-yimbys-think-they-rule-but-there-are-some-serious-signs-to-the-contrary/

https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/the-collapse-of-the-yimby-house-of-cards-0855ca994ba9

https://www.viewfromcullingworth.com/p/why-i-stopped-being-a-yimby?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The backlash to YIYBYism (it's always in *your* backyard, not *their* back yard) is growing:

https://48hills.org/2024/04/the-yimbys-think-they-rule-but-there-are-some-serious-signs-to-the-contrary/

https://housinghumanrt.medium.com/the-collapse-of-the-yimby-house-of-cards-0855ca994ba9

https://www.viewfromcullingworth.com/p/why-i-stopped-being-a-yimby?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

YIYBYism? No such thing. Notwithstanding some very online guy named Simon who has a blog.