Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

You're conflating causality here in a way that's either disingenuous or ignorant. A place like Navy Yard didn't see rising housing prices because high density housing was built. High density housing was built because Navy Yard became more desirable, transitioning from an area dominated by warehouses, surface parking lots, and light industry into an actual neighborhood anchored by a ballpark and riverfront parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

You're conflating causality here in a way that's either disingenuous or ignorant. A place like Navy Yard didn't see rising housing prices because high density housing was built. High density housing was built because Navy Yard became more desirable, transitioning from an area dominated by warehouses, surface parking lots, and light industry into an actual neighborhood anchored by a ballpark and riverfront parks.

The whole supply theory of housing is based on filtering. New “luxury” supply in one location, e.g. Navy Yard, will see depreciated former “luxury” stock in other areas become more affordable, e.g. upper Connecticut Ave. And so on.

You don’t seem to even understand the underlying theories of your own cause. So odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

You're conflating causality here in a way that's either disingenuous or ignorant. A place like Navy Yard didn't see rising housing prices because high density housing was built. High density housing was built because Navy Yard became more desirable, transitioning from an area dominated by warehouses, surface parking lots, and light industry into an actual neighborhood anchored by a ballpark and riverfront parks.

The whole supply theory of housing is based on filtering. New “luxury” supply in one location, e.g. Navy Yard, will see depreciated former “luxury” stock in other areas become more affordable, e.g. upper Connecticut Ave. And so on.

You don’t seem to even understand the underlying theories of your own cause. So odd.

So your theory is build nothing, and rents will go down. INTERESTING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

You're conflating causality here in a way that's either disingenuous or ignorant. A place like Navy Yard didn't see rising housing prices because high density housing was built. High density housing was built because Navy Yard became more desirable, transitioning from an area dominated by warehouses, surface parking lots, and light industry into an actual neighborhood anchored by a ballpark and riverfront parks.

The whole supply theory of housing is based on filtering. New “luxury” supply in one location, e.g. Navy Yard, will see depreciated former “luxury” stock in other areas become more affordable, e.g. upper Connecticut Ave. And so on.

You don’t seem to even understand the underlying theories of your own cause. So odd.

What an odd non sequitur. I was specifically responding to your claim that increasing supply in a neighborhood may locally drive up prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

I guess if our options are binary then that would be a logical conclusion. But since we're in reality that's just silly.

Recognize it's complex and proceed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

Vacancy is not a problem. Please, take 1 minute and imagine a world with 0% vacancy.

How would anyone, ever, move to a new apartment?

NIMBYs love to talk about vacancy. It's not a problem.

[Anonymous]

To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

I'm curious what "other vacant" is, it seems to be the biggest category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

Vacancy is not a problem. Please, take 1 minute and imagine a world with 0% vacancy.

How would anyone, ever, move to a new apartment?

NIMBYs love to talk about vacancy. It's not a problem.

Anything beyond a frictional level of vacancy -- which is what you describe -- is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

Vacancy is not a problem. Please, take 1 minute and imagine a world with 0% vacancy.

How would anyone, ever, move to a new apartment?

NIMBYs love to talk about vacancy. It's not a problem.

Anything beyond a frictional level of vacancy -- which is what you describe -- is a problem.

I’ve yet to hear a YIMBY explain why developers’ interest in preserving scarcity isn’t something that public policy should address. Could it be because YIMBYism is an astroturf movement that takes its cues from developer-funded lobbyists pretending to be think tanks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

Vacancy is not a problem. Please, take 1 minute and imagine a world with 0% vacancy.

How would anyone, ever, move to a new apartment?

NIMBYs love to talk about vacancy. It's not a problem.

Anything beyond a frictional level of vacancy -- which is what you describe -- is a problem.

I’ve yet to hear a YIMBY explain why developers’ interest in preserving scarcity isn’t something that public policy should address. Could it be because YIMBYism is an astroturf movement that takes its cues from developer-funded lobbyists pretending to be think tanks?

Hold up, are developers the ones who are protesting the McMillan development? Are developers the ones who are declaring that the development at the Masonic Temple is a hulking monstrosity and demanding that green space be kept open? Are developers the ones who are up in arms about the possibility of more apartment buildings in Ward 3? Are developers the ones who are hyperventilating about a five-story mixed-use building proposed for upper 14th street?

All this time I thought it was NIMBY homeowners with an interest in preserving scarcity who were behind these things, but perhaps I've been tragically mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

I mean, just look at New York City. It’s almost nothing but condos and apartments and it’s so affordable?