The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

You basically have a unicorn commute. Living 25+ miles from work, but being able to do it in half-an-hour. You have to realize that right?

There are plenty of other people that could commute by other means than driving with small tweaks to infrastructure.

Ironically, changing zoning to allow more housing near jobs could also do a lot, but..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

You basically have a unicorn commute. Living 25+ miles from work, but being able to do it in half-an-hour. You have to realize that right?

There are plenty of other people that could commute by other means than driving with small tweaks to infrastructure.

Ironically, changing zoning to allow more housing near jobs could also do a lot, but..

DP. No kidding. I live about that same distance from my place of work, and even if I drove in the middle of the night, it would take me at least 45 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

you aren't getting rid of cars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

You basically have a unicorn commute. Living 25+ miles from work, but being able to do it in half-an-hour. You have to realize that right?

There are plenty of other people that could commute by other means than driving with small tweaks to infrastructure.

Ironically, changing zoning to allow more housing near jobs could also do a lot, but..

DP. No kidding. I live about that same distance from my place of work, and even if I drove in the middle of the night, it would take me at least 45 minutes.

The Dulles toll road is great if you're willing to pay and able commute off hour

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

you aren't getting rid of cars

How did we get from

-there are more than 2 transportation options (car, Metro) in the world

to

-you aren't getting rid of cars

Nobody is telling you that you can't drive your car to work.

On the other hand, it would be bonkers to say, "It's most convenient for me to go to the office by car, therefore it should not be legal to build multi-family housing near where I live."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

I agree that for many people, the main objection is the cars (but the parking! but the traffic!) Unfortunately for some people, the main objection is the people. And they don't just say that stuff anonymously on line; they say it in person at public meetings, too.

Not the people per se, but yes adding more people has impacts on already overcrowded schools, bigger buildings can contribute to infrastructure problems (I live in Alexandria and the flooding/sewer issues are immense), etc. If local politicians would proactively address those issues as eagerly as they are to cash in on new development projects, there may be less resistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Yes, but lots of decisions on where to live are made by families thinking about their commute to and from work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

+1. Many people in the DMV have bad non-car options and fixing that is not a small undertaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

you aren't getting rid of cars

How did we get from

-there are more than 2 transportation options (car, Metro) in the world

to

-you aren't getting rid of cars

Nobody is telling you that you can't drive your car to work.

On the other hand, it would be bonkers to say, "It's most convenient for me to go to the office by car, therefore it should not be legal to build multi-family housing near where I live."

Developers are arguing parking is not necessary. Anyone who has ever lived in the suburbs knows you need cars. Tell me, how does your family living in a missing middle development in the middle of a suburban neighborhood get anywhere without cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

you aren't getting rid of cars

How did we get from

-there are more than 2 transportation options (car, Metro) in the world

to

-you aren't getting rid of cars

Nobody is telling you that you can't drive your car to work.

On the other hand, it would be bonkers to say, "It's most convenient for me to go to the office by car, therefore it should not be legal to build multi-family housing near where I live."

Developers are arguing parking is not necessary. Anyone who has ever lived in the suburbs knows you need cars. Tell me, how does your family living in a missing middle development in the middle of a suburban neighborhood get anywhere without cars?

Oh, are they? Or are they arguing that they should have the option of providing on-site parking, instead of being required to provide on-site parking?

Do you live in the suburbs? How many cars does your household have? Where do you park them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Yes, but lots of decisions on where to live are made by families thinking about their commute to and from work.

None of the housing proposals would forbid people from driving to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply increasing the number of units will not be accretive to the tax base. People are being told that they have a “Right” to live where they choose. Not true.

Really? A 20 story building is going to be assessed at $100 million. The 10 or 15 SFHs on that same parcel would be assessed at a fraction of that. Of course, to encourage growth and affordable housing, the building owner may end up not paying taxes

This seems like a good idea. No reason to pay for any public services that the 20-story building might use.

Excellent idea. More demand for services and no new resources. The math definitely maths.

The people living in that 20 story building pay income and sales tax. The company that owns the building pays property tax. Lots of new resources.

This response indicates either a lack of math literacy or intentionally misleading rhetoric. Most local tax revenue a from property taxes and most localities don’t have direct income taxes, so they don’t necessarily benefit from changes in income tax revenue attributable to their district. Sales taxes make up a relatively small share or total tax revenue and they do not come close to offsetting the cost of providing services for new residents. A LVT is not a serious policy proposal unless you change the entire system for local government funding. It will force elderly people out of their homes and bankrupt local governments.

An expensive apartment close to transportation is probably going to be working adults without children who use minimal resources. Expensive apartment and then house in the suburbs has been the pattern for generations.

The other reality is that developers are not building family apartments in transit accessible areas. Their sweet spot is smaller, upmarket 1 BR and 1BR plus den for singles and couples, in “amenity-rich” buildings. Plus, too many kids kills that buzzy urban vibrancy that developers try to create.

[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:So the developer is finally starting the missing middle building on our street. It will have four 3 bed apartments and two 2 bed apartments. If three people live in the 3 beds and two people in the 2 beds, that's 16 people on a lot where 4 people had lived and three parking spaces where there had been a garage and a long driveway.

You would think people would clue into the fact that its rarely the building itself, or the people that live in that that are the problem. But rather the cars that come with them that is the problem.

When the transportation model negatively impacts the housing model, maybe its time to rethink transportation, no?

Do you want to extend metro to every SFH neighborhood where missing middle is planting apartment buildings?

Fortunately there are more than two transportation options (car, Metro) in the world. It might be time for you to rethink transportation, too.

Lets say I'm a missing middle family that snags an apartment down the street from my house. Right now I drive to work and it's about a half hour each way. If I took the bus then metro then another bus, I'd spend that long just waiting for connections. If I biked, I'd be in awesome shape, but it would be about 50 miles a day and I'd have to get creative since the most direct routes are bike free roads. How does rethinking transportation work when you're going from a suburban location to a job 20+ miles away? Even if you buy near where you work (I did years ago), job changes happen and this region has employment centers that are nowhere near each other

Part of rethinking transportation includes: recognizing that most of the trips made by families are NOT the commute to and from work.

Fine, but people still need to commute and for in office employees that 10 trips per worker. Even a 2 day in hybrid schedule if 4 trips a week.

Ok? And so?

you aren't getting rid of cars

How did we get from

-there are more than 2 transportation options (car, Metro) in the world

to

-you aren't getting rid of cars

Nobody is telling you that you can't drive your car to work.

On the other hand, it would be bonkers to say, "It's most convenient for me to go to the office by car, therefore it should not be legal to build multi-family housing near where I live."

Developers are arguing parking is not necessary. Anyone who has ever lived in the suburbs knows you need cars. Tell me, how does your family living in a missing middle development in the middle of a suburban neighborhood get anywhere without cars?

Oh, are they? Or are they arguing that they should have the option of providing on-site parking, instead of being required to provide on-site parking?

Do you live in the suburbs? How many cars does your household have? Where do you park them?

Yes, three and in our garage and driveway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.