What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ofter disagree with YIMBYs but I understand their point of view. It's the YIYBYs - the Yes, in your back yard! types - who are insufferable. They're the so-called smart growthers who want height and density everywhere, except in their own back yard. A case in point is the new chairman of the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC, who has been a big cheerleader for up-zoning the area, even though much to it lies in two historic districts, and effectively ending single family zoning. Yet he resides most of the time not in DC, but in the single family home he purchased in Calvert County, MD. And while this "Absentee Neighborhood Commissioner" pushes density on the DC neighborhood he purports to represent, along with an ex-ANC commissioner he has opposed proposed infill development that might affect the view from his apartment rental in DC. A real YIYBY indeed.

Reminds me that the founder of GGW lives in townhome on a historically protected block in DuPont Circle. His life is totally impervious to everything that he advocates. I find that this is a common feature.

he lives what he espouses, an urban lifestyle with better housing and transportation options

By his own choice (which I don’t disagree with), he is personally insulated from the policies that he espouses regarding development. His whole street is NIMBYism by regulation. So no, he does not live what he espouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ofter disagree with YIMBYs but I understand their point of view. It's the YIYBYs - the Yes, in your back yard! types - who are insufferable. They're the so-called smart growthers who want height and density everywhere, except in their own back yard. A case in point is the new chairman of the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC, who has been a big cheerleader for up-zoning the area, even though much to it lies in two historic districts, and effectively ending single family zoning. Yet he resides most of the time not in DC, but in the single family home he purchased in Calvert County, MD. And while this "Absentee Neighborhood Commissioner" pushes density on the DC neighborhood he purports to represent, along with an ex-ANC commissioner he has opposed proposed infill development that might affect the view from his apartment rental in DC. A real YIYBY indeed.

Reminds me that the founder of GGW lives in townhome on a historically protected block in DuPont Circle. His life is totally impervious to everything that he advocates. I find that this is a common feature.

he lives what he espouses, an urban lifestyle with better housing and transportation options

By his own choice (which I don’t disagree with), he is personally insulated from the policies that he espouses regarding development. His whole street is NIMBYism by regulation. So no, he does not live what he espouses.

Ummm he was a vocal proponent of a project across the street from his home and even wrote about it:

https://ggwash.org/view/38823/neighborhood-commission-catches-height-itis-on-a-dupont-circle-church-and-condo-project

Someday I'll get my head around the irrational hatred on here for GGW but in the meantime you don't get to make stuff up.

[Anonymous]

It wasn't just across the street. It was literally across the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ofter disagree with YIMBYs but I understand their point of view. It's the YIYBYs - the Yes, in your back yard! types - who are insufferable. They're the so-called smart growthers who want height and density everywhere, except in their own back yard. A case in point is the new chairman of the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC, who has been a big cheerleader for up-zoning the area, even though much to it lies in two historic districts, and effectively ending single family zoning. Yet he resides most of the time not in DC, but in the single family home he purchased in Calvert County, MD. And while this "Absentee Neighborhood Commissioner" pushes density on the DC neighborhood he purports to represent, along with an ex-ANC commissioner he has opposed proposed infill development that might affect the view from his apartment rental in DC. A real YIYBY indeed.

Reminds me that the founder of GGW lives in townhome on a historically protected block in DuPont Circle. His life is totally impervious to everything that he advocates. I find that this is a common feature.

he lives what he espouses, an urban lifestyle with better housing and transportation options

By his own choice (which I don’t disagree with), he is personally insulated from the policies that he espouses regarding development. His whole street is NIMBYism by regulation. So no, he does not live what he espouses.

Ummm he was a vocal proponent of a project across the street from his home and even wrote about it:

https://ggwash.org/view/38823/neighborhood-commission-catches-height-itis-on-a-dupont-circle-church-and-condo-project

Someday I'll get my head around the irrational hatred on here for GGW but in the meantime you don't get to make stuff up.

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

If you're going to obsessively hate on GGW for some reason, please hate on GGW accurately.

"Multi-family buildings should be allowed by right near a Metro station" =/= "Immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings!"

"Many drivers drive dangerously, and transportation policy should stop subsidizing/enabling driving to the detriment of all other modes" =/= "All car drivers are evil!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

If you're going to obsessively hate on GGW for some reason, please hate on GGW accurately.

"Multi-family buildings should be allowed by right near a Metro station" =/= "Immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings!"

"Many drivers drive dangerously, and transportation policy should stop subsidizing/enabling driving to the detriment of all other modes" =/= "All car drivers are evil!"

+1

It is false logic to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

They love to preach to others before retreating to their Takoma Park home, safely protected from all this new development.

+1

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

If you're going to obsessively hate on GGW for some reason, please hate on GGW accurately.

"Multi-family buildings should be allowed by right near a Metro station" =/= "Immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings!"

"Many drivers drive dangerously, and transportation policy should stop subsidizing/enabling driving to the detriment of all other modes" =/= "All car drivers are evil!"

+1

It is false logic to suggest otherwise.

LMAO. The GGW founder exception to your b.s. is hilarious.

Either local zoning and regulations that prevent density, especially near transit, are racist or there are not racist.

GGW's editorial line is that they are racist.

The guy is a hypocrite and so are you for defending him.

However, this is typical for YIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

If you're going to obsessively hate on GGW for some reason, please hate on GGW accurately.

"Multi-family buildings should be allowed by right near a Metro station" =/= "Immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings!"

"Many drivers drive dangerously, and transportation policy should stop subsidizing/enabling driving to the detriment of all other modes" =/= "All car drivers are evil!"

The comments section of that place -- I'm going to guess you're one of the 5 people who comment on every story in that echo chamber, considering your weird need to come here and slurp GGWash constantly -- say that it's an accurate description, and if the blog owners let those comments stand, it's tacit agreement. The fact is, there are many, many GGW writers (Alex Baca, a deeply unpleasant woman who never met a Black churchgoer she couldn't call names on her Twitter feed) and commenters who do want to "immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings" near Metro stations and who want to ban cars. To deny that is to deny the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ofter disagree with YIMBYs but I understand their point of view. It's the YIYBYs - the Yes, in your back yard! types - who are insufferable. They're the so-called smart growthers who want height and density everywhere, except in their own back yard. A case in point is the new chairman of the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC, who has been a big cheerleader for up-zoning the area, even though much to it lies in two historic districts, and effectively ending single family zoning. Yet he resides most of the time not in DC, but in the single family home he purchased in Calvert County, MD. And while this "Absentee Neighborhood Commissioner" pushes density on the DC neighborhood he purports to represent, along with an ex-ANC commissioner he has opposed proposed infill development that might affect the view from his apartment rental in DC. A real YIYBY indeed.

Reminds me that the founder of GGW lives in townhome on a historically protected block in DuPont Circle. His life is totally impervious to everything that he advocates. I find that this is a common feature.

he lives what he espouses, an urban lifestyle with better housing and transportation options

By his own choice (which I don’t disagree with), he is personally insulated from the policies that he espouses regarding development. His whole street is NIMBYism by regulation. So no, he does not live what he espouses.

Ummm he was a vocal proponent of a project across the street from his home and even wrote about it:

https://ggwash.org/view/38823/neighborhood-commission-catches-height-itis-on-a-dupont-circle-church-and-condo-project

Someday I'll get my head around the irrational hatred on here for GGW but in the meantime you don't get to make stuff up.

Your description of what he is supporting is highly motivated. He is supporting turning a burned out church that s a blight on his neighborhood on the corner of a major thoroughfare into something usable. It does not affect any of the SFH low rise development on his street and in fact the development itself is low rise (5 floors) and does not go higher than the original height of the church. So this is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cool. He still lives in a SFH blocks from a Metro station, which writers and commenters on the blog he founded say should be illegal. He also admits to owning a car despite painting all cat drivers as evil.

Maybe he's trying to overcompensate for his hypocrisy by supporting that condo project.

If you're going to obsessively hate on GGW for some reason, please hate on GGW accurately.

"Multi-family buildings should be allowed by right near a Metro station" =/= "Immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings!"

"Many drivers drive dangerously, and transportation policy should stop subsidizing/enabling driving to the detriment of all other modes" =/= "All car drivers are evil!"

The comments section of that place -- I'm going to guess you're one of the 5 people who comment on every story in that echo chamber, considering your weird need to come here and slurp GGWash constantly -- say that it's an accurate description, and if the blog owners let those comments stand, it's tacit agreement. The fact is, there are many, many GGW writers (Alex Baca, a deeply unpleasant woman who never met a Black churchgoer she couldn't call names on her Twitter feed) and commenters who do want to "immediately knock down all existing non-multi-family residential buildings" near Metro stations and who want to ban cars. To deny that is to deny the truth.

Dan Reed lives in a HOA community where his immediate neighbors cannot change anything due to HOA rules, on a lot that included racial covenants when it was platted and he literally calls everyone that disagrees with him racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't just across the street. It was literally across the street.

It is not "literally across the street". I know his address but won't post it. The church in question - as he says - is on the corner of 18th and Church. The corner. Along 18th already includes low rise apartments. There is nothing inconsistent with the general and existing pattern of land use. In fact, they are building the condos out of the shell of the original church building so aesthetically nothing changes for him. And his new neighbors will be nearly as rich and clearly as white as he is.

The direct issue at hand is that his immediate neighbors cannot build pop-ups but he has advocated that crap across the city. His entire block is immune from change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't just across the street. It was literally across the street.

It is not "literally across the street". I know his address but won't post it. The church in question - as he says - is on the corner of 18th and Church. The corner. Along 18th already includes low rise apartments. There is nothing inconsistent with the general and existing pattern of land use. In fact, they are building the condos out of the shell of the original church building so aesthetically nothing changes for him. And his new neighbors will be nearly as rich and clearly as white as he is.

The direct issue at hand is that his immediate neighbors cannot build pop-ups but he has advocated that crap across the city. His entire block is immune from change.

Just to add, even his article notes that the building had to get approval of the historic perseveration commission. But god forbid a neighborhood decides that it wants to be "historically preserved" the way they like it.

Absolute hypocrisy. Up and down. Up and down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Dan Reed lives in a HOA community where his immediate neighbors cannot change anything due to HOA rules, on a lot that included racial covenants when it was platted and he literally calls everyone that disagrees with him racist.

You're going to have to make up your mind about what to hate on him for. Either you can hate on him for living in a late 1980s townhouse community that has a common-ownership association (with rules I don't know about; how do you know about them?), OR you can hate on him for living in an area that had racial covenants when it was originally developed decades before the 1980s, but not both.