The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW, CPSG, W3V are part of the corruption problem.

What is the corruption problem? Your comment reads a lot like slander.

Obviously the corruption problem is that these groups don't agree with all the nimbys who are fronting legal fees for Chevy Chase Voice while trying to weaponize racist covenants from the early 1900's to maintain their white privilege.

This is going to be shocking to the POC living in these neighborhoods who do not want increased density.

How will you break it to them that they are racists?

Are you just assuming that POC need white saviors to rescue them from their own opinions?

OMG - this. I live in a wonderfully diverse part of silver spring where many POC have bought SFH because they don’t want the density of downtown. And we’re being told by YIMBYs that we must be racist because we don’t want “density” and therefore must be racist. What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW, CPSG, W3V are part of the corruption problem.

What is the corruption problem? Your comment reads a lot like slander.

Obviously the corruption problem is that these groups don't agree with all the nimbys who are fronting legal fees for Chevy Chase Voice while trying to weaponize racist covenants from the early 1900's to maintain their white privilege.

This is going to be shocking to the POC living in these neighborhoods who do not want increased density.

How will you break it to them that they are racists?

Are you just assuming that POC need white saviors to rescue them from their own opinions?

OMG - this. I live in a wonderfully diverse part of silver spring where many POC have bought SFH because they don’t want the density of downtown. And we’re being told by YIMBYs that we must be racist because we don’t want “density” and therefore must be racist. What?

Show up to the meeting and complain. It reinforces the ridiculous nature of their claims when white density bros are calling people racist for disagreeing with YIMBYs

[Anonymous]

A small explainer with some good background - useful to read before the listening session

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ded17586597cc7e187c7388/t/66e720d98ca24d4acc2832a9/1726423257245/00-AHS+Explainer-final-b.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3o0NP9nXuxh854vempWg9_HkTzi0bBkDF1-eMrnc8MYUNL1VQsXw0Jneo_aem_Yr2CIDst5s7f02rDNcHgpQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

Haven't even read the article, but-

Vancouver is not the most expensive city in North America.
"In North America, New York City (number 7 in the global ranking) remains the most expensive city. It is followed by Nassau, Bahamas (9), Los Angeles (10), Honolulu (12), and San Francisco (13). The biggest differences found in North America’s year-on-year rankings are both in Mexico. The capital, Mexico City, went up 46 places to 33, and Monterrey went up 40 places to 115."
https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/cost-of-living/

The price of housing in Vancouver is decreasing.
https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market

Proposals similar to the Attainable Housing Strategy just went into effect in Vancouver this month, so seems hard to blame anything on that?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/10/vancouver-city-council-boosts-affordable-housing-supply/


Vancouver has increased its housing stock SPECIFICALLY through high rise towers in urban centers, not at all through structures maxing at 8 units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

Haven't even read the article, but-

Vancouver is not the most expensive city in North America.
"In North America, New York City (number 7 in the global ranking) remains the most expensive city. It is followed by Nassau, Bahamas (9), Los Angeles (10), Honolulu (12), and San Francisco (13). The biggest differences found in North America’s year-on-year rankings are both in Mexico. The capital, Mexico City, went up 46 places to 33, and Monterrey went up 40 places to 115."
https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/cost-of-living/

The price of housing in Vancouver is decreasing.
https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market

Proposals similar to the Attainable Housing Strategy just went into effect in Vancouver this month, so seems hard to blame anything on that?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/10/vancouver-city-council-boosts-affordable-housing-supply/


Vancouver has increased its housing stock SPECIFICALLY through high rise towers in urban centers, not at all through structures maxing at 8 units.

Vancouver’s price of housing had to go up 74 percent before it went down a little. That’s worth considering as you think about how much prices have to go up before the market (on its own) decides to increase supply enough to bring prices down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

Haven't even read the article, but-

Vancouver is not the most expensive city in North America.
"In North America, New York City (number 7 in the global ranking) remains the most expensive city. It is followed by Nassau, Bahamas (9), Los Angeles (10), Honolulu (12), and San Francisco (13). The biggest differences found in North America’s year-on-year rankings are both in Mexico. The capital, Mexico City, went up 46 places to 33, and Monterrey went up 40 places to 115."
https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/cost-of-living/

The price of housing in Vancouver is decreasing.
https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market

Proposals similar to the Attainable Housing Strategy just went into effect in Vancouver this month, so seems hard to blame anything on that?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/10/vancouver-city-council-boosts-affordable-housing-supply/


Vancouver has increased its housing stock SPECIFICALLY through high rise towers in urban centers, not at all through structures maxing at 8 units.

You should read the article. He measures increase in home prices against increase in incomes, which measures the effects of housing price changes on actual people and minimizes cities that experienced massive increases in income. Obviously that has a cruel effect on people who missed out on the income growth but increasing home prices are pretty inescapable when household incomes increase. The only actor that can reasonably help those left out of the income gains is the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW, CPSG, W3V are part of the corruption problem.

What is the corruption problem? Your comment reads a lot like slander.

Obviously the corruption problem is that these groups don't agree with all the nimbys who are fronting legal fees for Chevy Chase Voice while trying to weaponize racist covenants from the early 1900's to maintain their white privilege.

This is going to be shocking to the POC living in these neighborhoods who do not want increased density.

How will you break it to them that they are racists?

Are you just assuming that POC need white saviors to rescue them from their own opinions?

OMG - this. I live in a wonderfully diverse part of silver spring where many POC have bought SFH because they don’t want the density of downtown. And we’re being told by YIMBYs that we must be racist because we don’t want “density” and therefore must be racist. What?

It’s a just a YIMBY talking point. The development lobby hires senior Trump flacks to tell people they’re racist for opposing the replacement of quiet SFH neighborhoods with dense, expensive upmarket towers of flats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

Haven't even read the article, but-

Vancouver is not the most expensive city in North America.
"In North America, New York City (number 7 in the global ranking) remains the most expensive city. It is followed by Nassau, Bahamas (9), Los Angeles (10), Honolulu (12), and San Francisco (13). The biggest differences found in North America’s year-on-year rankings are both in Mexico. The capital, Mexico City, went up 46 places to 33, and Monterrey went up 40 places to 115."
https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/cost-of-living/

The price of housing in Vancouver is decreasing.
https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market

Proposals similar to the Attainable Housing Strategy just went into effect in Vancouver this month, so seems hard to blame anything on that?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/10/vancouver-city-council-boosts-affordable-housing-supply/


Vancouver has increased its housing stock SPECIFICALLY through high rise towers in urban centers, not at all through structures maxing at 8 units.

"I didn't read the article, but here are some unrelated statistics I found that rebut nothing in it."

Yimby flexes are always so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

Haven't even read the article, but-

Vancouver is not the most expensive city in North America.
"In North America, New York City (number 7 in the global ranking) remains the most expensive city. It is followed by Nassau, Bahamas (9), Los Angeles (10), Honolulu (12), and San Francisco (13). The biggest differences found in North America’s year-on-year rankings are both in Mexico. The capital, Mexico City, went up 46 places to 33, and Monterrey went up 40 places to 115."
https://www.mercer.com/insights/total-rewards/talent-mobility-insights/cost-of-living/

The price of housing in Vancouver is decreasing.
https://wowa.ca/vancouver-housing-market

Proposals similar to the Attainable Housing Strategy just went into effect in Vancouver this month, so seems hard to blame anything on that?
https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/10/vancouver-city-council-boosts-affordable-housing-supply/


Vancouver has increased its housing stock SPECIFICALLY through high rise towers in urban centers, not at all through structures maxing at 8 units.

"I didn't read the article, but here are some unrelated statistics I found that rebut nothing in it."

Yimby flexes are always so sad.

IMHO it’s because they already know that upzoning is not about housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the complete and utter failure of Yimbyism in Vancouver, which has built more urban infill housing (relative to its population) than any other city in North America but is now North America's most expensive city to live in:

https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/

They don't just do land acknowledgments there. They build. https://macleans.ca/society/senakw-vancouver/

They build a lot of upmarket housing that is purchased by investors from China.

And what is the vacancy rate?

[Anonymous]

There needs to be an investigation into corruption regarding rezoning applications here to see which elected representatives are taking bribes from developers. THE NYC Mayor was pushing YIMBY policies to benefit his donors and there are certainly some DMV elected representatives with suspicious behavior. It raises lots of questions about improper influence of our elected officials. Many developers will gladly use illegal and unethical tactics to push YIMBY zoning reforms that boost their profits at the expense of local communities.

a. In December 2020, two volunteers for the 2021 Campaign who later became employees of ADAMS at City Hall ("Adams Employee-I" and "Adams Employee-2", and together, the "Adams Employees") asked Businessman-4 to contribute $10,000 to the 2021 Campaign. The Adams Employees were liaisons to Businessman-4's community, playing roles similar to the Adams Staffer's role in the Turkish community. The Adams Employees told Businessman-4, among other things, that donating $10,000 would give Businessman-4 influence with ADAMS, which would help Businessman-4's business interests and his community when ADAMS became mayor, and that gaining such influence with ADAMS would be more expensive at a later date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

DC GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCNGSP

Seems historically robust and growing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Increased urbanization has lots of downside: fewer greener spaces, pollution, increased crime (not a fear, but rather a fact), waste disposal problems and god forbid if we have another pandemic. A dense, urban space spreads disease faster.

Urbanization allows for more green space and lowers pollution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

DC GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCNGSP

Seems historically robust and growing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Increased urbanization has lots of downside: fewer greener spaces, pollution, increased crime (not a fear, but rather a fact), waste disposal problems and god forbid if we have another pandemic. A dense, urban space spreads disease faster.

Urbanization allows for more green space and lowers pollution.

It can, but it can also make it worse. You’d have to have a pretty comprehensive plan to see if that pencils out, but you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

DC GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCNGSP

Seems historically robust and growing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Increased urbanization has lots of downside: fewer greener spaces, pollution, increased crime (not a fear, but rather a fact), waste disposal problems and god forbid if we have another pandemic. A dense, urban space spreads disease faster.

Urbanization allows for more green space and lowers pollution.

It can, but it can also make it worse. You’d have to have a pretty comprehensive plan to see if that pencils out, but you don’t.

You can spread people out or put them together. The latter leaves more space for green and lower transportation and other pollution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

DC GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCNGSP

Seems historically robust and growing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Increased urbanization has lots of downside: fewer greener spaces, pollution, increased crime (not a fear, but rather a fact), waste disposal problems and god forbid if we have another pandemic. A dense, urban space spreads disease faster.

Urbanization allows for more green space and lowers pollution.

It can, but it can also make it worse. You’d have to have a pretty comprehensive plan to see if that pencils out, but you don’t.

You can spread people out or put them together. The latter leaves more space for green and lower transportation and other pollution.

You are just saying wishful words, which seems typical.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00026-w

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-01-29-expert-comment-urbanisation-s-role-climate-crisis-being-overlooked

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0278265