The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Jeebus this sounds bleak. Domestic servant as the "alternative" to filling developers pockets. Just let people build more housing.

They were talking about allowing multi-family occupancy in a SFH for two households -- that of the older person in their 70s with cataracts (the example provided above) and the household of their now grown child (the one finding it hard to obtain housing in that neighborhood).

People currently can have live-in help as part of the household, but that wasn't the scenario posited about the child having moved to NC for lack of a McMansion down payment.

I suppoae that ia density, but I don't know if advocates for density were talking about just living with your parents as a grown up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

Except that's not how it works in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

Except that's not how it works in practice.

+1 and the formulas they use to predict the amount of new students in schools is always woefully low too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

Is this real, or are you acting this naive to make the YIMBYs look bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

Except that's not how it works in practice.

Yep. When 5333 Connecticut Ave opened about 10 years ago, the residents were not supposed to be able to get Zone 3 RPP passes. Naturally, like half the building was able to procure them because of a very convenient "glitch" at the DMV. It took a few years to fix the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There was a speaker at the MoCo listening session in Chevy Chase that pointed out that there had been a request, not acted on, to address this and similar issues by allowing SFHs to be occupied by a second family for puroposes of their providing for the care of the first. You see, there are alternatives, though they may not be ones that fill developers pockets.

Jeebus this sounds bleak. Domestic servant as the "alternative" to filling developers pockets. Just let people build more housing.

They were talking about allowing multi-family occupancy in a SFH for two households -- that of the older person in their 70s with cataracts (the example provided above) and the household of their now grown child (the one finding it hard to obtain housing in that neighborhood).

People currently can have live-in help as part of the household, but that wasn't the scenario posited about the child having moved to NC for lack of a McMansion down payment.

I suppoae that ia density, but I don't know if advocates for density were talking about just living with your parents as a grown up.

I mean, I agree that many would not want to live in the same building as their parents, though some might. That doesn't mean that the option wouldn't solve the "North Carolina" problem noted by the above poster, presenting an alternative to the current proposal for density for that use case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, so many elderly people love walking with their canes, walkers, and wheelchairs to go pick up groceries and coffee and lug it all back home. Sometimes it feels like all of these comments are written by people in their 30’s who have never experienced life with elderly people.

And then the same YIMBY “activists” are fine with eliminating off street parking requirements under zoning as well as street parking near pharmacies and other businesses. The sneer and call it “car storage” and want dedicated bike lanes in place of convenient street parking that less mobile people depend on to run essential errands.

The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there.

Like such responses on most of these threads, it approaches the conditions imposed as though everyone who might live there is making the choice from the outside.

Want to live there with yhe new reality? Great! You can!

Don't want to live there with the new reality? Great! You don't have to! (but you'll need to move, disrupt your family and neighbor relationships, etc., etc. -- and let's just not mention that)

You know where that kind of choice works? Greenfield development.

[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.

More offensive is their "Legalize Housing" and "Illegal Housing." They are trying to do what "pro-choice" did for "pro-abortion," but haven't gotten it right.

[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.

Actually, they are not eliminating single family zoning. If a lot is zoned R-8, a single family house being built on the lot and has to conform to the R-8 zoning requirements. They are allowing other types of housing to be built on a lot zoned R-8. As long as 6 plex conforms to the R-8 requirements it can be built on the lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're seeing the consequences of McMansion-only zoning in the Eldercare forum. How many threads are there about an elderly person who isn't safe to live in their 4000 sqft home anymore, but they don't want to downsize to something safer because it means moving far away from their neighborhood. That's because nothing smaller and safer was allowed to be built in their neighborhood!

Or they are old, set in their ways, and do not want to move to a retirement community or assisted living as needed. Staying in the neighborhood is an excuse for annoying their kids.

[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.

Actually, they are not eliminating single family zoning. If a lot is zoned R-8, a single family house being built on the lot and has to conform to the R-8 zoning requirements. They are allowing other types of housing to be built on a lot zoned R-8. As long as 6 plex conforms to the R-8 requirements it can be built on the lot.

That is redefining what most people would consider to be multi-family as single family. But, sure, go defend that hill since the past poster didn't say "detached single family zoning" when, again, common parlance is to refer to detached homes as "single family" (as opposed to "townhouses", "duplexes" and the like).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything...

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density".

[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.

Actually, they are not eliminating single family zoning. If a lot is zoned R-8, a single family house being built on the lot and has to conform to the R-8 zoning requirements. They are allowing other types of housing to be built on a lot zoned R-8. As long as 6 plex conforms to the R-8 requirements it can be built on the lot.

Not sure if this logic is Orwellian … or Trumpian.