The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, indeed. Everyone supports the perfect, which is very convenient because the perfect does not exist in this world. "I support housing!" you state at meetings. "Just not this project. Or that project. Or the other project. Or any other actual project. But I am fully in support of theoretical projects (as long as they don't become actual projects!"

[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.

You are mental

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, indeed. Everyone supports the perfect, which is very convenient because the perfect does not exist in this world. "I support housing!" you state at meetings. "Just not this project. Or that project. Or the other project. Or any other actual project. But I am fully in support of theoretical projects (as long as they don't become actual projects!"

Yes, this is the disingenuous part. Most people are "I support housing somewhere else." Upzoning from R1 to R2, accessory dwellings, or smaller lots are all fought against bitterly.

Maybe if you want to build a wall and deport them all, then you don't need to upzone anything. But I doubt most of the people protesting duplexes are that intellectually consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, indeed. Everyone supports the perfect, which is very convenient because the perfect does not exist in this world. "I support housing!" you state at meetings. "Just not this project. Or that project. Or the other project. Or any other actual project. But I am fully in support of theoretical projects (as long as they don't become actual projects!"

Well, local governments do in fact push a lot of incredibly stupid projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of 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: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 believe electric trolleys are the preferred transportation. Fixed tracks and overhead lines because you perfectly preplanned all development and won't need to make any changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

The developers jumped off the affordable housing train as soon as people caught on that nothing they were doing was resulting in more affordable housing. We do need more market rate housing but no subsidies for it, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

The developers jumped off the affordable housing train as soon as people caught on that nothing they were doing was resulting in more affordable housing. We do need more market rate housing but no subsidies for it, please.

The YIMBY fallacy is on full display in Vancouver, which has added more market-rate housing than any city in North America and ... has the most expensive housing in North America.

https://x.com/pmcondon2/status/1829216341724697044

[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.

Welcome to vibrant density and “urbanist” buzz.

[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.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Because (1) we also need market-rate housing (2) "Bethesda" who? (3) you're complaining about inadequate infrastructure for additional cars in downtown Bethesda, which is literally on top of a Metro station and future Purple Line station and also has oodles of excess parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

There's no demand for new housing, and also the new housing is too expensive. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

There's no demand for new housing, and also the new housing is too expensive. Weird.

It is weird because developers are concerned about absorption but prices keep going up. It’s almost as if they’re intentionally perpetuating a shortage to test the limits of how much people can spend on housing and maybe even colluding by sharing rent information with each other. So weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

There's no demand for new housing, and also the new housing is too expensive. Weird.

It is weird because developers are concerned about absorption but prices keep going up. It’s almost as if they’re intentionally perpetuating a shortage to test the limits of how much people can spend on housing and maybe even colluding by sharing rent information with each other. So weird.

Ok, so there is a housing shortage.

Are big landlords colluding? Yes. Are big landlords developers? No.