The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zoning means you are limited to SFHs. "abolishing single family zoning" means you are no longer limited to SFHs. The market will decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zoning means you are limited to SFHs. "abolishing single family zoning" means you are no longer limited to SFHs. The market will decide.

Just like how the market will decide to build new public school capacity, prevent excessive runoff from impervious surfaces, or protect the environment. The market won’t do these things, which is why zoning exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Living like that is mentally unhealthy. If we wanted to live on top of each other, we'd live in NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zoning means you are limited to SFHs. "abolishing single family zoning" means you are no longer limited to SFHs. The market will decide.

Just like how the market will decide to build new public school capacity, prevent excessive runoff from impervious surfaces, or protect the environment. The market won’t do these things, which is why zoning exists.

This is left-wing trickle down economics.

[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.

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.

It’s very ironic that a YIMBY wound call someone else a busybody. However, your opinions are noted. We don’t share them.

[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.

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.

There is no reason for ANCs to exist at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zoning means you are limited to SFHs. "abolishing single family zoning" means you are no longer limited to SFHs. The market will decide.

It’s very lazy. Just come up with a better solution.

At the very least, identify areas that can support it best and start there.

[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.

No, In MoCo, they aren't going for Potomac - developers will be targeting lower-income areas surrounding the purple line on the east side, e.g., where immigrants live around New Hampshire, University, and Piney Branch Aves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Think to yourself, is this why no one takes this movement seriously?

[Anonymous]

We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

[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.

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.

No, In MoCo, they aren't going for Potomac - developers will be targeting lower-income areas surrounding the purple line on the east side, e.g., where immigrants live around New Hampshire, University, and Piney Branch Aves.

And those are the areas with the most overburdened schools with the least resources, and a population least equipped to send heir kids to private. They also tend to drive and have multigenerational households, so a worse parking situation. The renters will be booted once the developers move in.

The YImBYs DO NOT CARE ABOUT HOUSING OR PEOPLE. I don’t know who is still fooled by their nonsense, but they need to hear this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

[Anonymous]

Allowing apartments and small condos next to sfhs allows young families to afford to live near their parents. People wouldn't have to leave for North Carolina or Texas to start a family somewhere affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to allow zoning for businesses in residential neighborhoods. Think about all the elderly people aging in isolation that don't leave the house as often as they should because it involves driving. If they were able to walk to get their groceries and stop to get coffee every day, it would do wonders for their mental and physical health, as well as have more people in the local community keeping their eye out on them every day.

It’s true, I’m tired of driving to get my vape supplies and bondage gear. Walkable medical marijuana distribution now!

Print this out when you're in your late 70s with cataracts and have to get on the Beltway to get your heart medication and groceries. You can't ask your children because they've moved to North Carolina when they couldn't come up with a 100k down payment for a McMansion near you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is no reason for ANCs to exist at all

Unless the YIMBYs control the ANCs. This has been the strategy of Greater Greater Washington and other groups on the D.C. development lobbyverse - to recuit, train, endorse and raise funds for compliant candidates for ANCs.