So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

This is why I hope Elrich pulls it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

This is why I hope Elrich pulls it out.

It’s better this way and more honest. Without their bogeyman to blame, they will be on the clock to produce results.

My guess is that once enough developers are satisfied with their subsidies, “affordable housing” gets ignored and loses salience as an issue. All they have to do is pull the plug on the astroturf funding and poof. The politicians also don’t want to be held to any standards so they are going to try to change the subject.

The reality is that “affordable housing” as an issue in Montgomery County has always been a canard. The county is substantially more affordable than DC, Arlington and Fairfax. It’s why when pressed these folks always scream about Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac from their million dollar Takoma Park craftsman’s. Because historically, the rest of the county has always been and still is affordable.

The problem in Montgomery County is not how much housing costs. It’s that the populace is getting poorer.

Expect a shift to attracting businesses and jobs very soon.

[Anonymous]

Saw a thing here in DC calling for people to serve on their ANC's... and it said, "GGWash will provide training" like oh yeah let's rubberstamp every developer's highrise...

[Anonymous]

It's not NIMBYism to be opposed by the ridiculous cramming of developers.

Changing zoning ("up zoning" eye roll) and reducing setbacks simply to enrich developers and lower everyone's standard of living is ruining the entire DMV.

Developers take the money and run while residents pay the costs of over-capacity schools, roads, and public services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

I agree with almost all of this but I think Fani Gonzalez will surprise you. She frequently pushed back on Casey Anderson at planing board meetings, often successfully fighting Anderson’s worst proposals. Fani Gonzalez is a growth advocate, not a rent seeker, and she may be an effective check on Friedson’s rent seeking advocacy. She will not support things like subsidies for market rate housing in Bethesda. Blair would be wise to reach out to her early and harness her energy to promote his growth agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

This is why I hope Elrich pulls it out.

It’s better this way and more honest. Without their bogeyman to blame, they will be on the clock to produce results.

My guess is that once enough developers are satisfied with their subsidies, “affordable housing” gets ignored and loses salience as an issue. All they have to do is pull the plug on the astroturf funding and poof. The politicians also don’t want to be held to any standards so they are going to try to change the subject.

The reality is that “affordable housing” as an issue in Montgomery County has always been a canard. The county is substantially more affordable than DC, Arlington and Fairfax. It’s why when pressed these folks always scream about Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac from their million dollar Takoma Park craftsman’s. Because historically, the rest of the county has always been and still is affordable.

The problem in Montgomery County is not how much housing costs. It’s that the populace is getting poorer.

Expect a shift to attracting businesses and jobs very soon.

“Affordable housing” is already being ignored. Planning is just focused on “more attainable housing” now. It sounds similar but it can’t be measured so they will be able to claim victory without imposing on developers’ profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

This is why I hope Elrich pulls it out.

It’s better this way and more honest. Without their bogeyman to blame, they will be on the clock to produce results.

My guess is that once enough developers are satisfied with their subsidies, “affordable housing” gets ignored and loses salience as an issue. All they have to do is pull the plug on the astroturf funding and poof. The politicians also don’t want to be held to any standards so they are going to try to change the subject.

The reality is that “affordable housing” as an issue in Montgomery County has always been a canard. The county is substantially more affordable than DC, Arlington and Fairfax. It’s why when pressed these folks always scream about Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac from their million dollar Takoma Park craftsman’s. Because historically, the rest of the county has always been and still is affordable.

The problem in Montgomery County is not how much housing costs. It’s that the populace is getting poorer.

Expect a shift to attracting businesses and jobs very soon.

Ding ding ding ding!

That's what no one wants to talk about and why that is the case. No one wants to talk about the lack of quality jobs coming into the county while at the same time the population in the county has doubled over 40 years. There are only so many Fed jobs around the beltway to go around, but the population keeps increasing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

I agree with almost all of this but I think Fani Gonzalez will surprise you. She frequently pushed back on Casey Anderson at planing board meetings, often successfully fighting Anderson’s worst proposals. Fani Gonzalez is a growth advocate, not a rent seeker, and she may be an effective check on Friedson’s rent seeking advocacy. She will not support things like subsidies for market rate housing in Bethesda. Blair would be wise to reach out to her early and harness her energy to promote his growth agenda.

A rubber stamp is a rubber stamp. Doesn’t matter if you pretend to have principles while doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in Montgomery County the NIMBY/YIMBY thing is over and thank god. The debate is boring and involves some of the very worst people on both sides.

The new debate for the next four years will be developers vs developer. I cannot wait for the YIMBY bros to learn that it is developers and not powerless old people are what controls housing supply.

Will YIMBYs ever see that? The loudest voices in the local movement are funded by developers and land use lawyers. They’re never going to turn on their money, and any ideas that don’t align with those loud voices are immediately attacked as NIMBYism. We could eliminate density limits around the red line and YIMBYs would be blaming the ag preserve for high housing prices. YIMBYs will find any reason to blame government so they don’t have to face reality.

There are 2 developer interests. (1) Builders that don’t currently own land or own undeveloped land and want to build greenfield, such as Toll Bros., and (2) existing Commercial Real Estate owners, like Greenhill, who want to maximize profits on properties they currently own.

The first group can build the types of entry-level homes for sale that the market is desperate for, with the primary goal to sell as quickly as possible and exit with profit. The second group, which includes Greenhill, Peterson snd FRIT, wants to extract money through literal rent, as well as economic rent seeking and therefore tries to use the government to prevent the first group from building to protect their margins.

The first group had a friend in Ike Leggett and I suspect also in David Blair, who even made a TV commercial about greenfield development at White Flint. The second group had Riemer and Hucker in their pockets and will continue to have friends in Casey Anderson, Friedson, and now Natali Fani Gonzalez.

Within 12 months, I bet that the second group is going to start sounding like NIMBYs (talking about “smart growth” and affordability requirements which YIMBYs would rightly see as impediments to housing supply) as they try to block development proposals pushed by Blair, particularly upcounty in and around places like Damascus, Boyds and Marriottsville. I think we will also see them get quite protective about White Flint when the Council and Planning spent the last 4 years pretending it did not exist (my personal take is that I was up in Towson recently and that would be a perfect site to attract a university). They will also try to block enabling infrastructure for development, particularly roads.

The fight over the SSP/“growth and infrastructure policy” in 2 years is going to be massive.

I agree with almost all of this but I think Fani Gonzalez will surprise you. She frequently pushed back on Casey Anderson at planing board meetings, often successfully fighting Anderson’s worst proposals. Fani Gonzalez is a growth advocate, not a rent seeker, and she may be an effective check on Friedson’s rent seeking advocacy. She will not support things like subsidies for market rate housing in Bethesda. Blair would be wise to reach out to her early and harness her energy to promote his growth agenda.

A rubber stamp is a rubber stamp. Doesn’t matter if you pretend to have principles while doing it.

It’s not fair to call her a rubber stamp. Fani Gonzalez forced Anderson to change proposals even though he tried to bully her. Not always, but often to get a sense of her desire for growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw a thing here in DC calling for people to serve on their ANC's... and it said, "GGWash will provide training" like oh yeah let's rubberstamp every developer's highrise...

Good. I want more highrises near me. It'll save land from being mcmansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

Lol, and yes. That will be the problem. THe neighbors will lobby for a historical designations for the parking lot.