What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Eh. I know a lot of YIMBYs. This doesn't describe any of them. Not even one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

Provided they have enough money...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

Provided they have enough money...

"Market Urbanists" now hate the free market? This is why I think YIMBYs are FOS.

[Anonymous]

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

Agree 100%. Friggin' hate YIYBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

Here are the total amounts I have received so far to advocate for transit and housing near transit:

$0 from the Koch brothers
$0 from real estate developers
$0 from George Soros
$0 from the Bicycle Lobby
$0 from the War On Cars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

Here are the total amounts I have received so far to advocate for transit and housing near transit:

$0 from the Koch brothers
$0 from real estate developers
$0 from George Soros
$0 from the Bicycle Lobby
$0 from the War On Cars

How often do you read Greater Greater Washington? Did you know that they lack transparency about the source of their funds even though they are engaged in political activity and lobbying? Are you curious to know who financially supports and organization whose editorial views you consume? Or I guess not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

Here are the total amounts I have received so far to advocate for transit and housing near transit:

$0 from the Koch brothers
$0 from real estate developers
$0 from George Soros
$0 from the Bicycle Lobby
$0 from the War On Cars

How often do you read Greater Greater Washington? Did you know that they lack transparency about the source of their funds even though they are engaged in political activity and lobbying? Are you curious to know who financially supports and organization whose editorial views you consume? Or I guess not.

Now that you mention it, here is the total amount I received from GGW for my posts that they ran: $0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

Provided they have enough money...

"Market Urbanists" now hate the free market? This is why I think YIMBYs are FOS.

Eh? No. It's just that "no one is excluded from buying a SFH" is a foolish statement without the proviso that you have to have enough money to be able to afford to buy a SFH. People who do not have enough money to buy a SFH are, in fact, excluded from buying a SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

Provided they have enough money...

"Market Urbanists" now hate the free market? This is why I think YIMBYs are FOS.

Eh? No. It's just that "no one is excluded from buying a SFH" is a foolish statement without the proviso that you have to have enough money to be able to afford to buy a SFH. People who do not have enough money to buy a SFH are, in fact, excluded from buying a SFH.

It a capitalist economy, this applies to every good or service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

Here are the total amounts I have received so far to advocate for transit and housing near transit:

$0 from the Koch brothers
$0 from real estate developers
$0 from George Soros
$0 from the Bicycle Lobby
$0 from the War On Cars

How often do you read Greater Greater Washington? Did you know that they lack transparency about the source of their funds even though they are engaged in political activity and lobbying? Are you curious to know who financially supports and organization whose editorial views you consume? Or I guess not.

Now that you mention it, here is the total amount I received from GGW for my posts that they ran: $0.

Why are you people so obnoxious and glib? Have fun being a foot soldier for Libertarian billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

I also hate that wording, and similarly "segregated schools" for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

You said it friend. And the insinuations are gross and paper-thin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nope. Try again.

Yep, I noticed a lot of the "neighbors" testifying at ANC meetings were quite young yuppies who'd just had a kid or were about to have a kid and didn't feel like they had enough space in their apartment in the neighborhood they felt entitled to live in. Do they not realize that high density, building more apartments, is not going to bring down the price of the next level/size home they want? Also, have they not heard of starter homes?? I lived in cramped dwellings with my first child for years as a trade off for location. It's a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

Provided they have enough money...

"Market Urbanists" now hate the free market? This is why I think YIMBYs are FOS.

Eh? No. It's just that "no one is excluded from buying a SFH" is a foolish statement without the proviso that you have to have enough money to be able to afford to buy a SFH. People who do not have enough money to buy a SFH are, in fact, excluded from buying a SFH.

It a capitalist economy, this applies to every good or service.

Except most goods and services have laws against anticompetitive practices, whereas zoning has laws that guarantee it.

If Congress passed a law that forbade building any new car factories in Michigan bigger than Ford's we would rightfully be outraged, yet there are vast swaths of NW DC where it is literally illegal to build housing that's denser than the existing structures specifically so that the existing structures will be worth more and "the wrong people" can't afford to live there and that's just fine to you?