What do you think of YIMBYs?

[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.

How'd a citywide lottery work for San Francisco? It worked so well they got rid of it.

[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.

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

Not in Ward 3 anymore, where a younger group of residents have taken control of 3C, 3E, 3F, and 3G is mixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the question is affordable housing, it's a great strategy. It also creates transitional neighborhoods with - hey! the supermarkets, bistros and "diverse" schools everyone craves. Of course, if you are a developer seeking top dollar you cram more quick turnaround housing into "desirable neighborhoods" with already overstuffed schools. And the blighted and neglected neighborhoods stay... blighted and neglected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think they'e trying to say, preserve green space, some parking, and the character of the buildings--not knocking down buildings that may be sfh or on the smaller size for clusters of condos. Some people would say this is the very model of a livable neighborhood. I certainly seem similar, charming streetscapes in NE and the rolling hills of Anacostia--though sadly, they have lost some pristine blocks of housing to new construction or vacant lots which can detract from aesthetics. What do you think they are trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you pro-YIMBY people go to communities where development happened without zoning considerations.

Then come back and tell us how those communities are doing.

When I leave here, it will be by knocking down my SFH and replacing it with a 4-unit.

[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.

Where's the vomit smiley when you need it?

[Anonymous]

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.

Wrong. You're an executive with which property company?

[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.

You shouldn't be talking about charter schools. According to Brookings, talking about charter schools is for racists.

[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.

Exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the question is [b]affordable housing, [/b]it's a great strategy. It also creates transitional neighborhoods with - hey! the supermarkets, bistros and "diverse" schools everyone craves. Of course, if you are a developer seeking top dollar you cram more quick turnaround housing into "desirable neighborhoods" with already overstuffed schools. And the blighted and neglected neighborhoods stay... blighted and neglected.

Built by whom?

[Anonymous]

YIMBY's all seem to be the same person: downwardly mobile millennial white guy who feels entitled to live anywhere they want despite not being able to afford it, has a lot of issues about growing up in upper class suburbs and arrogantly believes that either everyone wants what they want or should have what they want them to have.

As with anything, women and minorities that adopt these viewpoints get promoted in media, but it's just window dressing for these incel white dudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY's all seem to be the same person: downwardly mobile millennial white guy who feels entitled to live anywhere they want despite not being able to afford it, has a lot of issues about growing up in upper class suburbs and arrogantly believes that either everyone wants what they want or should have what they want them to have.

As with anything, women and minorities that adopt these viewpoints get promoted in media, but it's just window dressing for these incel white dudes.

Nope. Try again.

[Anonymous]

I’m fine with YIMBYs. My problem is with YIYBYs: yes in your backyard. They have a lot of opinions about what should happen in San Francisco or Bethesda but themselves live somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBY's all seem to be the same person: downwardly mobile millennial white guy who feels entitled to live anywhere they want despite not being able to afford it, has a lot of issues about growing up in upper class suburbs and arrogantly believes that either everyone wants what they want or should have what they want them to have.

As with anything, women and minorities that adopt these viewpoints get promoted in media, but it's just window dressing for these incel white dudes.

Nope. Try again.

DP but this is the YIMBYs I know too. Like 80%+.