The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

No on sprays their lawns around here. We all fill our yards with trees and native plants.

adding: ... and you want to replace that with concrete and high rises.

DP. Car-dependent sprawl whose yards have trees and native plants is still bad for the environment. But it's good that you and your neighbors don't spray your lawns, because if you did, that would be even worse for the environment.

What about car-dependent high rises with more parking spaces than housing units? (And no they weren’t required to build those parking spaces because of parking minimums)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

I don't interact with the YIMBYs who have infested Arlington but I have observed them -- and even smelled them at County Board meetings as they seem to hate deodorant as much as they hate single family zoning. One of their leaders is a sanctimonious trust fund baby who lives in a McMansion overlooking a County park but pontificates about why people do not deserve single family homes. The rest seem to have low paying jobs working for the usual types of non profits and are angry and miserable that their $200K degree from Oberlin means they can only rent a two bedroom apartment in Clarendon. They are unusually strident and are quite pleased with themselves.

If they do want a revolution, I will happily take my place in the front lines with a musket while they throw endless reams of plans, working papers, schemes, and skittles at me.

Bring it on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry you can't afford to live near us, but we like it that way.

+20 million thousand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

The United States may not be the right country for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I’m 33 and own a condo in a mixed-dwelling neighborhood.

How much did your mother pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

No on sprays their lawns around here. We all fill our yards with trees and native plants.

adding: ... and you want to replace that with concrete and high rises.

DP. Car-dependent sprawl whose yards have trees and native plants is still bad for the environment. But it's good that you and your neighbors don't spray your lawns, because if you did, that would be even worse for the environment.

What about car-dependent high rises with more parking spaces than housing units? (And no they weren’t required to build those parking spaces because of parking minimums)

High-rises surrounded by parking lots still occupy much less land and are much easier to retrofit for non-car-dependence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

So we should all live our lives being unhappy with our homes and live in high density places we don’t want to live in because of climate change? How about we focus on making already dense areas more affordable for people who want to live in them and curb developers from only building highly expensive luxury homes in urban areas.

You can live your lives however you want, until you can't. And when you can't, it won't be because I'm telling you that you can't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are DCYimbys, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and GreaterGreaterWashington - if you are a YIMBY, then support these great groups!

I do. And I appreciate their advocacy but none of their piecemeal approaches is going to accomplish what really needs to happen.

Think about it this way. Have you traveled around Europe? What is so appealing to Americans about Europe? Other than history buffs and foodies, why do people enjoy European cities and towns? Because of the urban planning. Everything accessible by transit, effective planning that centers around historic buildings, compact amenities, walkable streets. You don’t to go Europe to drive down a stroad to a wasteland of parking lots dotted with McDonalds and Walmarts.
In between these dense European cities you get cute little towns and scenic countryside.

You don’t get a 355/Wisconsin Ave or a Georgia Ave or a 29/Columbia Ave etc.

You are looking at only the tourist destinations. Minutes away from center cities are the same type of sprawl that you seen in the States. Of course, those areas are not inhabited by the picturesque people but those who work in the tourist areas so that you can have your "appealing" European experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Then get out DCUM and start delivering Door Dash so that you can buy a front lawn and turn it into a biodiverse homeland free of chemical sprays. Unlike bad ass Kayden and Jayden, your imply Apple and Cucumber will run at the sight of a fox dragging the bodies of flailing, half eaten chipmunks, squirrels, and birds through your biodiverse front yard.

[Anonymous]

OK, just don't complain about the noise when I practice my drums or my tap dancing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

You think bulldozing entire suburbs and replacing them with seas of concrete hosing is good for climate change?

I guess I missed the part where someone was advocating for bulldozing entire suburbs. It is worth asking, though, what will happen to the housing and supporting infrastructure, once people don't want to live there anymore (or insurance companies don't want to write insurance policies there anymore).

The government will buy the housing for illegal immigrants and self insure. Next question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

DP. This isn't about what people like. Climate change does not care what people like. Low-density car-based suburbia like yours will be increasingly less sustainable as the effects of climate change increase.

You think bulldozing entire suburbs and replacing them with seas of concrete hosing is good for climate change?

I guess I missed the part where someone was advocating for bulldozing entire suburbs. It is worth asking, though, what will happen to the housing and supporting infrastructure, once people don't want to live there anymore (or insurance companies don't want to write insurance policies there anymore).

The government will buy the housing for illegal immigrants and self insure. Next question.

And turn Darien, Connecticut into Darien Gap North.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

I don't interact with the YIMBYs who have infested Arlington but I have observed them -- and even smelled them at County Board meetings as they seem to hate deodorant as much as they hate single family zoning. One of their leaders is a sanctimonious trust fund baby who lives in a McMansion overlooking a County park but pontificates about why people do not deserve single family homes. The rest seem to have low paying jobs working for the usual types of non profits and are angry and miserable that their $200K degree from Oberlin means they can only rent a two bedroom apartment in Clarendon. They are unusually strident and are quite pleased with themselves.

If they do want a revolution, I will happily take my place in the front lines with a musket while they throw endless reams of plans, working papers, schemes, and skittles at me.

Bring it on!

The so-called Smart Growth Lobby is so full of cynical sh$&. One of their leaders in DC prattles on about increasing density and busting SFH zoning to promote “affordability, inclusion, diversity” etc. while simultaneously working for Trump (who promises to protect suburbs from affordable housing and density).

[Anonymous]

This is being done all over the country in lockstep. It's going to be worse than you think. Funding is coming thru the IRA act and a Bipartisan Bill. It's being managed by Dept of Transportation - Freeways and your state DOT. Some info here:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/policy/crp_guidance.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/community_connections/handbook/chapt06.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/right-of-way/corridor_management/alternative_uses_guidance.cfm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

Hate to disappoint you but our suburban lawn that is chemical free, is also in a heavily wooded neighborhood with a lake and tons of wildlife. The wildlife many posts on here ask how to kill or remove. Our kids and their friends spend lots of time out in the yard since they have the space to run around that doesn’t require going to some public park.

Again, people like different things. But somehow people have forgotten that people can respect differing views.

Having to go to some public park would certainly be terrible. But you know what's even worse than public parks? Public schools! Public transit is also terrible, of course. Public safety? Terrible. Public health? Terrible. Public services? Terrible. Public roads are the absolute worst, of course.

(I am not being sincere.)