Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs, Urbanists, Smart Growthers, and the like:

Can you cite and describe an example - local, municipal, statewide etc - in which blanket upzoning and deregulating development has actually resulted in stabilizing the housing market, decreasing homelessness and rent burdened residents?

I’m really not trying to concern troll here. I’m not digging my heels against the Greater Greater Washington types, I’m just skeptical. I could be convinced with some real numbers that the YIMBY idea actually works.

These people don’t actually exist. They say they do, but it’s never their backyard.

During the pandemic, the urbanist, density types all retreated to the suburbs.

Live in a shoebox and a half dozen roommates, but still with your childhood room for the weekends (free vacation home), and feel like a big boy or girl, even though mommy and daddy pay for both and then the house they bought you in said suburbs.

Ignore what people say, and look at what they do, when real money and commitments are on the line. Easy to be for something that will turn a neighborhood into an investment slum, when you ditch the place anyway in a couple years.

Next ask them where they really send their children to school.

Feel better now?

Meanwhile, Minneapolis is a great example of YIMBY success. Spoiler, it’s reducing parking that did it, not zoning (yet). https://reason.com/2022/05/11/eliminating-single-family-zoning-isnt-the-reason-minneapolis-is-a-yimby-success-story/

Minneapolis is not a success at all. Barely any 2-4 unit housing has been created and the YIMBYs blame the fact that they didn’t change setback requirements.

More on Minneapolis

https://streets.mn/2022/05/06/minneapolis-rents-drop/

That article doesn’t address the question of housing composition. Is the decline in rent related to an increase in production of “missing middle” housing caused by the blanket upzoning? Or was it caused by a combination of more production of units in larger multi-family buildings (like in the photo) which is unrelated to the cherished city wide “ban” on SFH?

Also important to consider that MSP has been losing population while gaining housing units and that sales price of SFH is still increasing dramatically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives up housing prices. It has been true in every single neighborhood in dc for the past 30 years. Navy yard is only the latest example

Correlation vs causation. Also navy yard didn't have housing before they built housing. So there was no 'before' price.

DC has not seen an increase in rent prices in 15 years (if you control for national inflation).

This is entirely due to the pro-developer policies of Bowser and her predecessors.

15 years is pretty bold claim. Care to back that with evidence?

Also, DC has had declining population growth since 2014 and now declining total population since 2020. So that probably has something to do with rents, if they have been flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the other comments so maybe repeating, but it seems to be working reasonably well in Vancouver. Lots of carriage houses / ADUs

British Columbia passed a law that added a 20% tax to real estate purchases that involved foreign buyers.

[Anonymous]

These people could also be demanding their cities actually zone for more 2 bedrooms in upcoming mid and high rises.

But urbanists don’t want to actually live density either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

Doesn’t matters. Most “YIMBYs” don’t think it applies when it is their backyard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

Doesn’t matters. Most “YIMBYs” don’t think it applies when it is their backyard.

A lot of land owners in the Moco Agriculture Reserve would be very surprised by this YIMBY support for private property rights and relaxation of zoning.

[Anonymous]

I admire the spirit of the people posting substantive arguments about housing policy here, but surely you've noticed by now that that isn't the purpose of the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

Doesn’t matters. Most “YIMBYs” don’t think it applies when it is their backyard.

Exactly. In DC, self-styled YIMBYs are more like "YIYBYs" -- "Yes, in your back yard!." Case in point, several ANC commissioners who claim to be for "smart growth" got elected to the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC. Yet when a developer proposed multifamily housing on a vacant lot next to Quebec House apartments, the local ANC commissioner -- who claimed to be for more development -- strongly opposed it because it would block her view. When she resigned to move to Maryland, her successor on the ANC (another "smart growth" advocate who rents at Quebec House but ironically also lives in his SFH in Maryland part-time) continued to oppose this infill development. And now he's running for the DC city council. They're all for "smart growth," provided it's not in their backyard -- in DC and presumably in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

Doesn’t matters. Most “YIMBYs” don’t think it applies when it is their backyard.

Exactly. In DC, self-styled YIMBYs are more like "YIYBYs" -- "Yes, in your back yard!." Case in point, several ANC commissioners who claim to be for "smart growth" got elected to the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC. Yet when a developer proposed multifamily housing on a vacant lot next to Quebec House apartments, the local ANC commissioner -- who claimed to be for more development -- strongly opposed it because it would block her view. When she resigned to move to Maryland, her successor on the ANC (another "smart growth" advocate who rents at Quebec House but ironically also lives in his SFH in Maryland part-time) continued to oppose this infill development. And now he's running for the DC city council. They're all for "smart growth," provided it's not in their backyard -- in DC and presumably in Maryland.

Same in Virginia. The YIMBYs in Arlington are really pushing the redevelopment of the Langston Blvd corridor, and many of them live off this corridor. Their land values would increase if they could built four duplexes on their 8,000 square foot lots rather than one single family home. They talk the urbanist talk but not the walk. There are a few true believers, including one who wrote a column about how she is disturbed by leaf blowers in Arlnow that went viral. She also wrote a column about her overly large childhood home which had a room for her Barbie doll collection.

I think most of the them just need a passion in their lives and their jobs, marriages, and relationships are not fulfilling them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Haven’t all those places gotten MORE expensive?

You're missing the point. Development of a particular piece of land is going to be done because it can be converted to a higher use, so yes, the thing you build is going to be more expensive than the thing it replaces. It would be hard to get people to put money up otherwise. The idea is that by building more housing you increase the supply and prices across the market don't rise as much as they would have otherwise.

It's hard to prove whether it works or not because you can't run controlled experiments. Who knows what prices in DC would be if Cathedral Commons hadn't been built? It's just too speculative.

I agree with PP. I also believe that purely for ethical and moral purposes, we should always incorporate rent-controlled housing in the denser living spaces we build. This is how the downtown Bethesda has stayed socio-economically diverse, despite the stratospheric prices of SFHs and condos in Bethesda.

Also, other developed countries have build higher-density housing for decades, to help with housing scarcity. It's an arms race: housing can never keep up with demographics, but at least if you try hard enough, you don't marginalize too many people! Some US cities have only started to have this problem in the 21st century, but some wealthy European and Asian nations have been grappling with this for ages.

[Anonymous]

It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

Do YIMBYs support or oppose urban growth boundaries?

Doesn’t matters. Most “YIMBYs” don’t think it applies when it is their backyard.

Exactly. In DC, self-styled YIMBYs are more like "YIYBYs" -- "Yes, in your back yard!." Case in point, several ANC commissioners who claim to be for "smart growth" got elected to the Woodley Park-Cleveland Park ANC. Yet when a developer proposed multifamily housing on a vacant lot next to Quebec House apartments, the local ANC commissioner -- who claimed to be for more development -- strongly opposed it because it would block her view. When she resigned to move to Maryland, her successor on the ANC (another "smart growth" advocate who rents at Quebec House but ironically also lives in his SFH in Maryland part-time) continued to oppose this infill development. And now he's running for the DC city council. They're all for "smart growth," provided it's not in their backyard -- in DC and presumably in Maryland.

Wow. They are a piece of work

[Anonymous]

There are huge benefits to developers and people who love Mary Cheh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.