So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why hasn’t it reduced prices though? The PP asks a legitimately good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What McMansions in DC? I suspect that you may have a poor understanding of what a McMansion is.

[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.

Because of course 700 sq ft upscale flats in a “vibrant, dense mixed use” building in DC and your average suburban McMansion are complete substitutes for area home buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

[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:

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.

She has consistently pushed to bring more development to Wheaton. That’s not spreading poverty (though I disagree that’s what Jawando is doing). It’s spreading wealth.

[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.

There are 3000 new units ready to hit the market or underway just on upper Wisconsin Avenue alone. They’re in development projects being marketed as “one of Northwest’s exclusive enclaves.” If you think these will provide much affordable housing or lower prices overall, then I have a vibrant, amenity-rich, micro-condo with quartzite countertops to sell you. Smart Growth spin is such horse, uh, “spin.”

[Anonymous]

Just because you build more houses doesn't mean prices necessarily fall. They could also go up as a result of more housing. Look at Navy Yard. Hardly anyone lived there 10 years ago. Now it's one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Because there's so many people there, lots of coffee shops and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. Because they're there, many more people want to live there too. So prices go up because demand is going up and demand is going up because supply went up. Economics doesn't always work like the simple models you learned in seventh grade.

[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.

There are 3000 new units ready to hit the market or underway just on upper Wisconsin Avenue alone. They’re in development projects being marketed as “one of Northwest’s exclusive enclaves.” If you think these will provide much affordable housing or lower prices overall, then I have a vibrant, amenity-rich, micro-condo with quartzite countertops to sell you. Smart Growth spin is such horse, uh, “spin.”

Those homes will all be bought or rented by parents wanting their kids to get into Ward 3 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

The parking lot is routinely at least half empty, and it’s separate from the parking for the funeral home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

The parking lot is routinely at least half empty, and it’s separate from the parking for the funeral home.

Bike lanes are almost always empty. Maybe we could use those for parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

A lot of pro-Smart Growth folks are property rights libertarians and support no other very light regulation concerning planning, zoning and development issues. Think Houston on caffeine.
I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.