Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a walkable, “15-minute” municipality, the kind where you can walk to a large grocery store, that has good ZONED (read: not magnet, charter or lottery) with excellent k-12 public schools, and I’ll show you 20 that don’t have that.

They exist in Europe, a land with fairly tight immigration.

Ah, so now it is the immigrants.



Move to Tennessee or Florida.

The majority of POC in the US live in the South.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer to spend time with self-selected populations, in environments that someone has to make an effort to access, both literally & figuratively. I don’t want to be anywhere that someone could end up accidentally, or somewhere that someone can access without trying really hard to.

That is fine. But then your roads and other land use choices shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us. Pay the full amount for gas, for roads, for deliveries to far flung places, etc. You are freeloading on those of use who are choosing to live in a more compact environment.

No one’s roads or gas is subsidized. What an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer to spend time with self-selected populations, in environments that someone has to make an effort to access, both literally & figuratively. I don’t want to be anywhere that someone could end up accidentally, or somewhere that someone can access without trying really hard to.

That is fine. But then your roads and other land use choices shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us. Pay the full amount for gas, for roads, for deliveries to far flung places, etc. You are freeloading on those of use who are choosing to live in a more compact environment.

No one’s roads or gas is subsidized. What an idiot.

Everyone's roads and gasoline are subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density causes crime.

Then why is crime per capita much higher in rural red states?

Not when you break it down by county: https://www.heritage.org/press/new-heritage-report-reveals-blue-counties-cities-have-murder-problem. Red counties also have higher performing schools.

Then why are the bottom 30 states in education all red?

Blue counties in red states inflate red states’ crime stats.

[Anonymous]

I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

This is their job, which they are paid (not much) to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a walkable, “15-minute” municipality, the kind where you can walk to a large grocery store, that has good ZONED (read: not magnet, charter or lottery) with excellent k-12 public schools, and I’ll show you 20 that don’t have that.

They exist in Europe, a land with fairly tight immigration.

Ah, so now it is the immigrants.



Move to Tennessee or Florida.

The majority of POC in the US live in the South.

Many of them with no running water or voting rights. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Density causes crime.

Then why is crime per capita much higher in rural red states?

Not when you break it down by county: https://www.heritage.org/press/new-heritage-report-reveals-blue-counties-cities-have-murder-problem. Red counties also have higher performing schools.

Then why are the bottom 30 states in education all red?

Blue counties in red states inflate red states’ crime stats.

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/16/democrats-for--but-new-data-shows-higher-rates-in-red-states/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer to spend time with self-selected populations, in environments that someone has to make an effort to access, both literally & figuratively. I don’t want to be anywhere that someone could end up accidentally, or somewhere that someone can access without trying really hard to.

That is fine. But then your roads and other land use choices shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us. Pay the full amount for gas, for roads, for deliveries to far flung places, etc. You are freeloading on those of use who are choosing to live in a more compact environment.

No one’s roads or gas is subsidized. What an idiot.

Clearly you have no idea the actual cost, which doesn't even include externalities like pollution, or the military component of ensuring OPEC states stability.

Here are a few examples for your consideration. You may want to retract the whole disparaging "idiot" casting.

the lifetime cost of driving a small car to be roughly $641,000, with society subsidizing about 41% of that cost
https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

How cities subsidize suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.