The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

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.

in Arlington? which street? I thought all developers weren't starting yet until the court case verdict came out.

Builders are starting if they get a building permit before the lawsuit is settled -- which could take months. What's the County going to do? Make them tear down the building? Can you imagine the optics since Arlington threw itself so heavily behind MM housing.

[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.

That's because people were lied to in public meetings. Arlington originally spun MM housing as "affordable housing," rather than housing that is "more affordable than the $1 million single family house." That got a bad rap for MM and people envisioned Buckingham Apartments moving to their neighborhood. I was even at a meeting when an Arl Co council member lied to the Buckingham Tenants Committe saying they could afford MM housing. As the realities emerged, people realized that they would be the poor people in the neighborhoods as MM townhouses and side by sides would be $1.5 M and rents in the plexes would be $3K to $5K.

[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.

in Arlington? which street? I thought all developers weren't starting yet until the court case verdict came out.

Builders are starting if they get a building permit before the lawsuit is settled -- which could take months. What's the County going to do? Make them tear down the building? Can you imagine the optics since Arlington threw itself so heavily behind MM housing.

Unfortunately, Virginia law changed this year I don’t think the county can’t require the units to demolished if permits were illegally issued. This creates a loophole that incentivizes localities to issue illegal permits even if the rezoning approval was erroneous. This change in Virginia law will be incentivize corruption because once the building permit is issued it won’t be able to be rescinded even if the permit was erroneous issued and blatantly illegal. So now you can look forward to having a strip club or pawn shop in your neighborhood if their is an incompetent corrupt local government employee

[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: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

That's good, then you don't have to worry about the availability of on-street parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YIMBYS SELL POT TO HOMELESS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

Er. People with children are not being catered to now, except in rhetoric. Similar to the way we make a huge deal about Mother's Day but still don't have paid parental leave.

People who oppose housing, on grounds that developers are not building 3 BR apartments, would not support housing if developers did build 3 BR apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

Er. People with children are not being catered to now, except in rhetoric. Similar to the way we make a huge deal about Mother's Day but still don't have paid parental leave.

People who oppose housing, on grounds that developers are not building 3 BR apartments, would not support housing if developers did build 3 BR apartments.

^^^plus, you know what would really support people with children, in my opinion? As well as people who are children? If children could reasonably get themselves places without having to be driven by parents.

[Anonymous]

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.

in Arlington? which street? I thought all developers weren't starting yet until the court case verdict came out.

Builders are starting if they get a building permit before the lawsuit is settled -- which could take months. What's the County going to do? Make them tear down the building? Can you imagine the optics since Arlington threw itself so heavily behind MM housing.

Unfortunately, Virginia law changed this year I don’t think the county can’t require the units to demolished if permits were illegally issued. This creates a loophole that incentivizes localities to issue illegal permits even if the rezoning approval was erroneous. This change in Virginia law will be incentivize corruption because once the building permit is issued it won’t be able to be rescinded even if the permit was erroneous issued and blatantly illegal. So now you can look forward to having a strip club or pawn shop in your neighborhood if their is an incompetent corrupt local government employee

How else do you expect the neighborhood to become more vibrant?

It has to be walkable, you don’t want people driving after visiting the neighborhood strip club

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

Er. People with children are not being catered to now, except in rhetoric. Similar to the way we make a huge deal about Mother's Day but still don't have paid parental leave.

People who oppose housing, on grounds that developers are not building 3 BR apartments, would not support housing if developers did build 3 BR apartments.

^^^plus, you know what would really support people with children, in my opinion? As well as people who are children? If children could reasonably get themselves places without having to be driven by parents.

I thought that we were building a magical bus system that will wipe away our transportation worries…are you saying that’s not the solution?

[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.

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.

Not even remotely close to the point of that back and forth, but you YImBYs love circular logic.

[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.

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.

Not even remotely close to the point of that back and forth, but you YImBYs love circular logic.

Please explain how this is circular logic?

Nobody is being forced to live anywhere. If you're looking for somewhere to live, and but the commute to work won't work for you for whatever reason, here's what you do: you look for somewhere else to live.

[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: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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

Er. People with children are not being catered to now, except in rhetoric. Similar to the way we make a huge deal about Mother's Day but still don't have paid parental leave.

People who oppose housing, on grounds that developers are not building 3 BR apartments, would not support housing if developers did build 3 BR apartments.

^^^plus, you know what would really support people with children, in my opinion? As well as people who are children? If children could reasonably get themselves places without having to be driven by parents.

I thought that we were building a magical bus system that will wipe away our transportation worries…are you saying that’s not the solution?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[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: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.

Population is declining and many people are opting not to have kids This will be the norm in the future and people with children will not be catered to as they now are.

Er. People with children are not being catered to now, except in rhetoric. Similar to the way we make a huge deal about Mother's Day but still don't have paid parental leave.

People who oppose housing, on grounds that developers are not building 3 BR apartments, would not support housing if developers did build 3 BR apartments.

^^^plus, you know what would really support people with children, in my opinion? As well as people who are children? If children could reasonably get themselves places without having to be driven by parents.

I thought that we were building a magical bus system that will wipe away our transportation worries…are you saying that’s not the solution?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok.

[Anonymous]

One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.