What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build, or accept you want to transfer wealth from younger and poorer renters and buyers to older and richer owners.

Congress should legislate DC's zoning for everything to be at least by-right lotline x 4-story development. That'd soak up much of the demand that gets sprawled further outward.

VA & MD close-in jurisdiction should upzone each current zone by 2x density, again, with by-right development.

ALso, 3rd party engineering stamp certification of compliance with building codes in lieu of building permits and inspections.

Buildings should be untaxed - exempted from property taxes, and property taxes should be increased to be revenue neutral.

This would probably increase DC's housing stock by 50% in a few years, making it affordable for more people.

Schools should issue vouchers so that private schools and homeschooling can keep the public schools from overcrowding.

Neighborhood public schools are the most important draw for young families. Young families are the most desirable group of new residents because they put down roots, spend on a wide variety of things, and have many earning years ahead. Increasing density is fine. It can even be good if done around transportation or commercial hubs. The problem is that there needs to be more schools in NW. Vouchers won't cut it. We already have a charter system but charters only get development so far. Walkable good public schools are what sustain a neighborhood long term. They are what make housing development sticky.

Vouchers and private investment is much more responsive than public school systems, and far more likely to meet the students individual needs, rather than providing a one-sized-fits-no-one service designed for the convenience of the teacher’s Union.

[Anonymous]

Putting more housing in neighborhoods with "good schools" will not increase the availability of "good schools".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs in my neighborhood (within 1 mile of a metro station, so would be affected by the proposed zoning change) tend to be older, with with kids in high school or out of school altogether. They don’t have to worry about their kids sitting in overcrowded portables when, inevitably, school capacity fails to keep up with population growth. I’m not anti-development by any means, but careful planning is needed to ensure that services increase proportionately.

I agree. Increasing density without increasing schools is a recipe for disaster.

There don't need to be more schools. There are plenty of half full school buildings city wide. The boundaries need to be redrawn, and no one wants to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

You're right-it's old liberal NIMBYS vx much smarter young liberal (in name only--they worship the almight $) YIMBYs. The old liberal NIMBYs don't realize they are being eaten alive by the baby YIMBYs at these meetings.

No, the old liberal NIMBYs were playing by the rules of racial segregation and the vestige of red-lining. When they say "preserve neighborhood character" - what do you think they are trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

how do you preserve the things that made the neighborhood attractive in the first place - often ample parking, pristine blocks of original houses, trees, etc? Ie, low density?

Ample parking is never the right solution. There is no such thing as a great surface parking lot and it is clear that widening highways every 10 years just leads to wider highways with more cars. We need to think VERY differently to have a 21st century that is better for our built environment and lifestyle than worship of the automobile.

The Europeans and Asians had this choice in the 1970's and chose mass transit and cute walkable streets. We, as tourists, laud those choices but then refuse to do the same here. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build, or accept you want to transfer wealth from younger and poorer renters and buyers to older and richer owners.

Congress should legislate DC's zoning for everything to be at least by-right lotline x 4-story development. That'd soak up much of the demand that gets sprawled further outward.

VA & MD close-in jurisdiction should upzone each current zone by 2x density, again, with by-right development.

ALso, 3rd party engineering stamp certification of compliance with building codes in lieu of building permits and inspections.

Buildings should be untaxed - exempted from property taxes, and property taxes should be increased to be revenue neutral.

This would probably increase DC's housing stock by 50% in a few years, making it affordable for more people.

Schools should issue vouchers so that private schools and homeschooling can keep the public schools from overcrowding.

Neighborhood public schools are the most important draw for young families. Young families are the most desirable group of new residents because they put down roots, spend on a wide variety of things, and have many earning years ahead. Increasing density is fine. It can even be good if done around transportation or commercial hubs. The problem is that there needs to be more schools in NW. Vouchers won't cut it. We already have a charter system but charters only get development so far. Walkable good public schools are what sustain a neighborhood long term. They are what make housing development sticky.

There don't need to be more schools in NW. The school infastructure is sufficient to handle a population of 800,000 as it did in th 1950's. The issue is the boundaries. There should be an independent commission that takes that one, and leave the politicians and neighborhoods out of it. Yes, people will be impacted, but it is untenable to have Ward 3 schools bursting at the seams and other schools sitting half empty. Maybe the solution is to eliminate the idea of "neighborhood" schools and simply lottery all of the kids across the city into all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Vouchers and private investment is much more responsive than public school systems, and far more likely to meet the students individual needs, rather than providing a one-sized-fits-no-one service designed for the convenience of the teacher’s Union.

Wouldn't it be great if people stopped trying to dismantle the public education system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

+ 1,000,000,000,000

They are more obsessed about smashing down single family homes in rich areas instead of building up neglected areas that are in desperate need of revitalization.

The hypocrisy of that crowd runs deep.

Not that NIMBY's don't have their own issues and stupidity. See: Friends of McMillan Park.

DCUM housing NIMBYs: We must preserve our attractive neighborhoods by not allowing more people to live in them!
Also DCUM housing NIMBYs: Why don't developers want to build in those unattractive neighborhoods over there?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build, or accept you want to transfer wealth from younger and poorer renters and buyers to older and richer owners.

Congress should legislate DC's zoning for everything to be at least by-right lotline x 4-story development. That'd soak up much of the demand that gets sprawled further outward.

VA & MD close-in jurisdiction should upzone each current zone by 2x density, again, with by-right development.

ALso, 3rd party engineering stamp certification of compliance with building codes in lieu of building permits and inspections.

Buildings should be untaxed - exempted from property taxes, and property taxes should be increased to be revenue neutral.

This would probably increase DC's housing stock by 50% in a few years, making it affordable for more people.

Schools should issue vouchers so that private schools and homeschooling can keep the public schools from overcrowding.

Neighborhood public schools are the most important draw for young families. Young families are the most desirable group of new residents because they put down roots, spend on a wide variety of things, and have many earning years ahead. Increasing density is fine. It can even be good if done around transportation or commercial hubs. The problem is that there needs to be more schools in NW. Vouchers won't cut it. We already have a charter system but charters only get development so far. Walkable good public schools are what sustain a neighborhood long term. They are what make housing development sticky.

There don't need to be more schools in NW. The school infastructure is sufficient to handle a population of 800,000 as it did in th 1950's. The issue is the boundaries. There should be an independent commission that takes that one, and leave the politicians and neighborhoods out of it. Yes, people will be impacted, but it is untenable to have Ward 3 schools bursting at the seams and other schools sitting half empty. Maybe the solution is to eliminate the idea of "neighborhood" schools and simply lottery all of the kids across the city into all schools.

Except that they eliminated half of th schools from when there was a population of 800,000.

Charters or a citywide lottery do not encourage neighborhood development. They do not create a location based community and increase transiency. Sustainable long term development needs walkable schools. That is what makes housing sticky. I understand that that is not politically convenient but it is th truth.

[Anonymous]

I’m sitting in the H st NE corridor as we speak, which has been totally revitalized by new housing. Same for Navy Yard and 14th st NW. The value is self-evident. I have zero patience for people who think apartments are a death knell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

well at some point the law of supply and demand would kick in to lower prices, right? I think the issue is that housing is still so very constrained in DC that it does seem like developers can pick their price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think YIMBYs are very good at what they do, for example stacking ANCs with pro-YIMBYs who then endorse any/all development. YIMBYs are running circles around those who care about this city but are less organized, House of Cards style. Tune into ANY ANC meeting, and see the chorus of YIMBYs on parade.

You have it backwards.

The NIMBYs ruled the roost for the better part of 40 years, and finally, the YIMBYs organized to be able to at least provide some balance in the city. It is such a breath of fresh air to have some younger people engaged in our local civics to help shape the community how they want it as they age. They will be here for longer than we will.

NIMBYs still rule the roost on most ANCs - just try to propose anything that may threaten their precious free parking and see what ensues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sitting in the H st NE corridor as we speak, which has been totally revitalized by new housing. Same for Navy Yard and 14th st NW. The value is self-evident. I have zero patience for people who think apartments are a death knell.

They have and they are good examples. But the next stage is schools if you want to keep those people as they progress in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

+ 1,000,000,000,000

They are more obsessed about smashing down single family homes in rich areas instead of building up neglected areas that are in desperate need of revitalization.

The hypocrisy of that crowd runs deep.

Not that NIMBY's don't have their own issues and stupidity. See: Friends of McMillan Park.

DCUM housing NIMBYs: We must preserve our attractive neighborhoods by not allowing more people to live in them!
Also DCUM housing NIMBYs: Why don't developers want to build in those unattractive neighborhoods over there?!

A: It's not about the number of people. It's about keeping the neighborhood you bought in- the neighborhood you bought in.
B: I'm glad to see that you really don't care about uplifting blighted and neglected neighborhoods. Instead of increasing and spreading out the number of livable communities, you would rather concentrate on not having the ability to buy a home near your favorite downtown fair trade coffee joint to get your soy latte and be relegated to the horrors of suburbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

+ 1,000,000,000,000

They are more obsessed about smashing down single family homes in rich areas instead of building up neglected areas that are in desperate need of revitalization.

The hypocrisy of that crowd runs deep.

Not that NIMBY's don't have their own issues and stupidity. See: Friends of McMillan Park.

DCUM housing NIMBYs: We must preserve our attractive neighborhoods by not allowing more people to live in them!
Also DCUM housing NIMBYs: Why don't developers want to build in those unattractive neighborhoods over there?!

A: It's not about the number of people. It's about keeping the neighborhood you bought in- the neighborhood you bought in.
B: I'm glad to see that you really don't care about uplifting blighted and neglected neighborhoods. Instead of increasing and spreading out the number of livable communities, you would rather concentrate on not having the ability to buy a home near your favorite downtown fair trade coffee joint to get your soy latte and be relegated to the horrors of suburbia.

Whom are you talking to? I live in suburbia. I also understand that "Hey developers, go build in that blighted and neglected neighborhood I don't want to live in, not my nice neighborhood!" is not really a great business proposition.

Also, you need to update your cliches. Oat milk, not soy milk.