So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously don’t live in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

Thanks for that info. I really cannot wait for Anderson to go so that our parks can be better managed.

In terms of the Jawando ZTA, the issue is not the policy but her undermining the role of the organization that she led. I don’t like the way Planning operates but she had an opportunity to try to address that and instead side stepped responsibility and accountability. In addition, that sort of upzoning is again another area where there are competing interests. Design-build firms, small contractors and architects who specialize in residential tear downs and remodeling would favor it because they would profit, while large developers would be opposed. That’s probably the only reason to conclude that she won’t be another FRIT, Greenhill, Peterson controlled councilmember. But considering how much Riemer was able to raise from the industry and collect a county match, there’s still time for a pivot.

My view is that she operated on the Planning Board in a very political and ideological manner. Wanted to build relationships with key constituencies through calculated but ultimately small potatoes interventions that ultimately have no bearing on the overall policy. I don’t think we will expect much different as a councilmember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

Thanks for that info. I really cannot wait for Anderson to go so that our parks can be better managed.

In terms of the Jawando ZTA, the issue is not the policy but her undermining the role of the organization that she led. I don’t like the way Planning operates but she had an opportunity to try to address that and instead side stepped responsibility and accountability. In addition, that sort of upzoning is again another area where there are competing interests. Design-build firms, small contractors and architects who specialize in residential tear downs and remodeling would favor it because they would profit, while large developers would be opposed. That’s probably the only reason to conclude that she won’t be another FRIT, Greenhill, Peterson controlled councilmember. But considering how much Riemer was able to raise from the industry and collect a county match, there’s still time for a pivot.

My view is that she operated on the Planning Board in a very political and ideological manner. Wanted to build relationships with key constituencies through calculated but ultimately small potatoes interventions that ultimately have no bearing on the overall policy. I don’t think we will expect much different as a councilmember.

On land use, the council is in charge of zoning. I was glad to see an elected take charge, and I was happy to see a board member intervene because the organization she led was dragging its feet.

I agree that Fani Gonzalez advocates for constituencies, but a lot of her advocacy was to help the place where she lives. I think that’s what a district council member should do. This job is a good fit. She will be very parochial, and I mean that as a compliment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

Thanks for that info. I really cannot wait for Anderson to go so that our parks can be better managed.

In terms of the Jawando ZTA, the issue is not the policy but her undermining the role of the organization that she led. I don’t like the way Planning operates but she had an opportunity to try to address that and instead side stepped responsibility and accountability. In addition, that sort of upzoning is again another area where there are competing interests. Design-build firms, small contractors and architects who specialize in residential tear downs and remodeling would favor it because they would profit, while large developers would be opposed. That’s probably the only reason to conclude that she won’t be another FRIT, Greenhill, Peterson controlled councilmember. But considering how much Riemer was able to raise from the industry and collect a county match, there’s still time for a pivot.

My view is that she operated on the Planning Board in a very political and ideological manner. Wanted to build relationships with key constituencies through calculated but ultimately small potatoes interventions that ultimately have no bearing on the overall policy. I don’t think we will expect much different as a councilmember.

On land use, the council is in charge of zoning. I was glad to see an elected take charge, and I was happy to see a board member intervene because the organization she led was dragging its feet.

I agree that Fani Gonzalez advocates for constituencies, but a lot of her advocacy was to help the place where she lives. I think that’s what a district council member should do. This job is a good fit. She will be very parochial, and I mean that as a compliment.

So she’s going to advocate more upzoning and regulated affordable housing in the county’s dwindling affluent areas and protection of her community? Sounds like more of the same that the council had with Hucker. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You obviously don’t live in DC.

Homeowner in DC sick and tired of little homes near me turned into mcmansions when a 4-plex would cover the same SQFT and most likely bring in new neighbors who don't work for big law. A few larger buildings on Wisconsin 2 block away would help all the businesses in the area stay afloat too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

Evidence? You cant just say stuff you 'feel' is true. You can do better. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

Evidence? You cant just say stuff you 'feel' is true. You can do better. Try again.

Well, there's a Federal Reserve paper showing that increasing density actually increases housing costs.

You could also just look around you. Is New York City affordable? Almost no single family homes there....

What about Navy Yard? They kicked out all the black people living in single family homes to make way for thousands and thousands of condos now occupied primarily by white people. And what happened? Navy Yard is a hell of a lot more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

D.C. has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Why isn't it affordable yet?

Right now, the city has about 300,000 housing units. Even if you could increase that by 10 percent, which would be awfully ambitious, that would all be sponged up by people from the suburbs. We've got 5,000,000 people in the suburbs and surely a whole lot of them would like shorter commutes. I guess you could buy their old place in Reston...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

Evidence? You cant just say stuff you 'feel' is true. You can do better. Try again.

Well, there's a Federal Reserve paper showing that increasing density actually increases housing costs.

You could also just look around you. Is New York City affordable? Almost no single family homes there....

What about Navy Yard? They kicked out all the black people living in single family homes to make way for thousands and thousands of condos now occupied primarily by white people. And what happened? Navy Yard is a hell of a lot more expensive than it was 10 years ago.

D.C. has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Why isn't it affordable yet?

Right now, the city has about 300,000 housing units. Even if you could increase that by 10 percent, which would be awfully ambitious, that would all be sponged up by people from the suburbs. We've got 5,000,000 people in the suburbs and surely a whole lot of them would like shorter commutes. I guess you could buy their old place in Reston...

Link to the fed working paper? (I assume not peer reviewed?)

Meanwhile here are hundreds of articles refuting you: https://cayimby.org/research/

DC has had the slowest rate of rent increases of any large growing city in the USA during the Bowser era: (DATA: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/

DC are rents up are 27% since 2014. No other city in the top 75 metro areas has slower growth. DC was very expensive, now it is just kinda expensive. Hell, rents rose even faster in BALTIMORE!

The average rent in the USA is $2007 now. in DC it is just $2263. Even places like the Seattle metro area are more expensive than DC.

The DMV has built and built. Sure McLean is as expensive as ever, but overall the DC area hasn't seen the explosive growth in RENT that the rest of the country has seen.

Again, could you give me any data other than a nebulous reference that you didn't link to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

Evidence? You cant just say stuff you 'feel' is true. You can do better. Try again.

Ward 6 has added housing for 32,000 more people in the last 10 years, to the point where they had to redistrict and shrink its geographic size due to disproportionate population growth - and it hasn't done jack spit for lowing prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding more homes in D.C. isn't going to make a lick of difference to prices. Sorry. There is no amount of housing units that could realistically be added that would ever, ever, ever make a difference in housing costs. YIMBYs are in the business of bumper sticker solutions to complex problems. It's easier to demonize NIMBYs than to come up with realistic answers to the question of housing costs.

Evidence? You cant just say stuff you 'feel' is true. You can do better. Try again.

Ward 6 has added housing for 32,000 more people in the last 10 years, to the point where they had to redistrict and shrink its geographic size due to disproportionate population growth - and it hasn't done jack spit for lowing prices.

Well I guess we could've just had all those people move EOTR and kick out the residents there. Maybe next time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

Thanks for that info. I really cannot wait for Anderson to go so that our parks can be better managed.

In terms of the Jawando ZTA, the issue is not the policy but her undermining the role of the organization that she led. I don’t like the way Planning operates but she had an opportunity to try to address that and instead side stepped responsibility and accountability. In addition, that sort of upzoning is again another area where there are competing interests. Design-build firms, small contractors and architects who specialize in residential tear downs and remodeling would favor it because they would profit, while large developers would be opposed. That’s probably the only reason to conclude that she won’t be another FRIT, Greenhill, Peterson controlled councilmember. But considering how much Riemer was able to raise from the industry and collect a county match, there’s still time for a pivot.

My view is that she operated on the Planning Board in a very political and ideological manner. Wanted to build relationships with key constituencies through calculated but ultimately small potatoes interventions that ultimately have no bearing on the overall policy. I don’t think we will expect much different as a councilmember.

On land use, the council is in charge of zoning. I was glad to see an elected take charge, and I was happy to see a board member intervene because the organization she led was dragging its feet.

I agree that Fani Gonzalez advocates for constituencies, but a lot of her advocacy was to help the place where she lives. I think that’s what a district council member should do. This job is a good fit. She will be very parochial, and I mean that as a compliment.

So she’s going to advocate more upzoning and regulated affordable housing in the county’s dwindling affluent areas and protection of her community? Sounds like more of the same that the council had with Hucker. Got it.

No, she’s going to advocate to bring new development to Wheaton, especially in downtown Wheaton, and she’s going to be skeptical of breaks for developers elsewhere in the county because she thinks they pull capital away from Wheaton.

Curious why you think pushing for disinvestment in affluent neighborhoods would help them. They’re nice places to live because of investment, not despite it.

[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: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.

Which proposals? In the hearings I have seen, she was basically the Senator Collins of the Planing Board. Expressed concerns but voted for all the proposals anyway. I don’t mean to tear her down but only express my opinion of her behavior from my perspective.

She also egged on Jawando’s ZTA, which was a bit concerning for a Planning Board member to do because it was proposed without even any analysis from the professional planning staff.

So I think there is rightful reason for alarm.

During the growth policy discussion, Anderson tried to sneak through subsidies for luxury housing in areas already experiencing high growth. Fani Gonzalez called him out on that and got Anderson to back down. I didn’t like the way the growth policy turned out but she stood her ground. She also prevented Anderson from getting his desired solution on the CCT-Little Falls crossing.

As far as the Jawando ZTA, I think upzoning near metro in that manner falls more on the growth side of the line than the rent-seeking side, but you may not agree. There was ample time and process for planning input, as well as to improve the proposal, following its introduction. But instead planning just threw a fit and Riemer sat on the bill instead of discussing it. I think planning prefers talking about upzoning over having upzoning happen because not having upzoning helps them deflect blame for the housing market from themselves and developers.

Thanks for that info. I really cannot wait for Anderson to go so that our parks can be better managed.

In terms of the Jawando ZTA, the issue is not the policy but her undermining the role of the organization that she led. I don’t like the way Planning operates but she had an opportunity to try to address that and instead side stepped responsibility and accountability. In addition, that sort of upzoning is again another area where there are competing interests. Design-build firms, small contractors and architects who specialize in residential tear downs and remodeling would favor it because they would profit, while large developers would be opposed. That’s probably the only reason to conclude that she won’t be another FRIT, Greenhill, Peterson controlled councilmember. But considering how much Riemer was able to raise from the industry and collect a county match, there’s still time for a pivot.

My view is that she operated on the Planning Board in a very political and ideological manner. Wanted to build relationships with key constituencies through calculated but ultimately small potatoes interventions that ultimately have no bearing on the overall policy. I don’t think we will expect much different as a councilmember.

On land use, the council is in charge of zoning. I was glad to see an elected take charge, and I was happy to see a board member intervene because the organization she led was dragging its feet.

I agree that Fani Gonzalez advocates for constituencies, but a lot of her advocacy was to help the place where she lives. I think that’s what a district council member should do. This job is a good fit. She will be very parochial, and I mean that as a compliment.

So she’s going to advocate more upzoning and regulated affordable housing in the county’s dwindling affluent areas and protection of her community? Sounds like more of the same that the council had with Hucker. Got it.

No, she’s going to advocate to bring new development to Wheaton, especially in downtown Wheaton, and she’s going to be skeptical of breaks for developers elsewhere in the county because she thinks they pull capital away from Wheaton.

Curious why you think pushing for disinvestment in affluent neighborhoods would help them. They’re nice places to live because of investment, not despite it.

It is not pushing for disinvestment. Her ideology seems to be similar to Jawando, which is that equality means spreading poverty everywhere for lack of a better way of putting it. But that is essentially the plan and it is an outcome that is driving wealthy tax payers away unfortunately.