The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

That's who the incumbents are? try to shop for housing in a close in suburb. The vacancies are from people moving into nursing homes and estate sales.

Literally you cannot craft a reasonable argument to support your cause, so you resort to name calling, this person is racist, tjay person is an out of touch boomer etc. if you actually had anything of substance to say you wouldn’t be insulting people that have different viewpoints than you do.

If folks are going to celebrate that they got a retired judge....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

That's who the incumbents are? try to shop for housing in a close in suburb. The vacancies are from people moving into nursing homes and estate sales.

Literally you cannot craft a reasonable argument to support your cause, so you resort to name calling, this person is racist, tjay person is an out of touch boomer etc. if you actually had anything of substance to say you wouldn’t be insulting people that have different viewpoints than you do.

Let them vent, they had another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory over in Arlington.

Poor YImBY Brown tried kicking that football again.

The Arlington developers need to hire Tony and Bob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

what does reading his opinion have to do with it …?

I actually had this question too. I thought all court decisions came with a written opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

The YIMBYs are layering it on by calling them “wealthy homeowners.” As if wealth is offensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

The YIMBYs are layering it on by calling them “wealthy homeowners.” As if wealth is offensive

It is mostly wealthy homeowners vs. even wealthier developers. Even if wealth is offensive, it cancels out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

The YIMBYs are layering it on by calling them “wealthy homeowners.” As if wealth is offensive

It is mostly wealthy homeowners vs. even wealthier developers. Even if wealth is offensive, it cancels out.

Doesn't matter. The wealthy homeowners are in areas that are too expensive to do tear downs for Missing Middle. They are doing this to prove their power. The wealthy developers don't care because they can continue to build single houses on any lots they own or buy in the future.

Affected are those genuinely low income people that Arlington used to push the idea of Missing Middle and the renters who thought they could buy a condo or townhouse in a leafy North Arlington neighborhood with good schools, abundant parking, and kind neighbors. Well they were right about good schools and abundant parking but the aren't getting the kind neighbors or condos and townhouses for less than the cost of the existing condos and townhouses in those areas. No one is building three $800K townhouses on a piece of land they acquired for $1.3M because they can build three $1.5M townhouses on the same site and have plenty of buyers.

[Anonymous]

I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were REALLY fortunate we got a retired family court judge from Fairfax hearing the case. The County had to walk through everything from soup to nuts. When you have to explain so much about why it’s good poor people will live in four pieces next to your fellow judges’ homes, you’re gonna lose.

The County will try to appeal, but the judge read his decision so they wouldn’t have much to work with. We have good appellate judges who also don’t want to see this type of cancerous development and malignant tenants living next door. This is done.

It really is boomers all the way down.

Is this the new excuse? You couldn’t make racism stick so it’s the mean ol’ boomers that hurt your feelings this time?

Anything but accepting the faults in your arguments, I guess.

You are in the denial phase.

The YIMBYs are layering it on by calling them “wealthy homeowners.” As if wealth is offensive

They literally are wealthy homeowners. They are homeowners, and they are wealthy. Wealthy homeowners. Those awful YIMBYs, layering it on by stating facts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.

Which one of those is rock creek park?

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

How do you think those apartments were built? Because back then there was no zoning restricting them. Now they cannot be built. SFH only zoning needs to go, as do ridiculous “historical districts” and busybody ANCs weighing in on building permit applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

There's a problem with the YIMBY stuff when they say "get rid of single family zoning" and people think that you won't be able to have single family homes in that area. It just means that the mix is allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with more density but you can do it without getting rid of single family zoning. The great thing about DC is that it has a mix -- my neighborhood has a lot of single family homes and townhouses bounded by apartment buildings on the avenues. I don't want apartment buildings to replace the single family homes. It is good for the city to have some sth neighborhoods. I think what we are really missing is more townhomes. When they are built, they are HUGE. Let's build some more modest homes that are not apartments! Many families want a little green space.

There's a problem with the YIMBY stuff when they say "get rid of single family zoning" and people think that you won't be able to have single family homes in that area. It just means that the mix is allowed.

The are eliminating single family zoning so this statement is factually accurate. YIMBYs are enthusiastic about abolishing single family zoning and it is dishonest to phrase their agenda differently.