So does everything have to be YIMBY vs NIMBY now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

When it comes down to it, everyone is a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you build more houses doesn't mean prices necessarily fall. They could also go up as a result of more housing. Look at Navy Yard. Hardly anyone lived there 10 years ago. Now it's one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Because there's so many people there, lots of coffee shops and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. Because they're there, many more people want to live there too. So prices go up because demand is going up and demand is going up because supply went up. Economics doesn't always work like the simple models you learned in seventh grade.

THIS.

The GGWash and "Smart Growth" people need to learn this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

What? Who said I oppose dense mixed-use? A PP replied to my earlier post, where I said I didn’t think existing residents should get a veto over what gets built on adjacent property, by saying they’d try to open a nightclub next to my house. I’m all for dense mixed-use zoning, especially on commercial strips. And I have no problem at all with nightlife use.

I do still believe in the concept of zoning, but I’d change SFH zoning to also allow small apartment buildings on side streets, in addition to much higher density along main thoroughfares like the one I live a block away from.

What I ultimately oppose is letting the market determine what gets built — I don’t think housing should primarily involve long-term investor returns, and I’d support city-owned social housing all over, including in my immediate vicinity. But that’s a different question from the “NIMBY vs. YIMBY” one animating this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

In fact DC needs to do more to save the smaller, older apartment buildings - particularly in more pricey areas like Ward 3 - because that’s where the rent controlled units are. This is an important source of workforce and fixed income housing. Yet these buildings are ripe targets for tear down for market rate housing and mixed use, especially under the amended comprehensive plan. Even with a relative handful of IZ units (not really affordable housing), the result is a loss of more affordable units in our neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

What? Who said I oppose dense mixed-use? A PP replied to my earlier post, where I said I didn’t think existing residents should get a veto over what gets built on adjacent property, by saying they’d try to open a nightclub next to my house. I’m all for dense mixed-use zoning, especially on commercial strips. And I have no problem at all with nightlife use.

I do still believe in the concept of zoning, but I’d change SFH zoning to also allow small apartment buildings on side streets, in addition to much higher density along main thoroughfares like the one I live a block away from.

What I ultimately oppose is letting the market determine what gets built — I don’t think housing should primarily involve long-term investor returns, and I’d support city-owned social housing all over, including in my immediate vicinity. But that’s a different question from the “NIMBY vs. YIMBY” one animating this thread.

Do you have a problem with a nightclub in dense mixed use next to your house or not? If you don’t have a problem, you’re a YIMBY. It’s not realistic to try to limit the possible commercial tenants for mixed use because it increases vacancy risk for landlords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

What? Who said I oppose dense mixed-use? A PP replied to my earlier post, where I said I didn’t think existing residents should get a veto over what gets built on adjacent property, by saying they’d try to open a nightclub next to my house. I’m all for dense mixed-use zoning, especially on commercial strips. And I have no problem at all with nightlife use.

I do still believe in the concept of zoning, but I’d change SFH zoning to also allow small apartment buildings on side streets, in addition to much higher density along main thoroughfares like the one I live a block away from.

What I ultimately oppose is letting the market determine what gets built — I don’t think housing should primarily involve long-term investor returns, and I’d support city-owned social housing all over, including in my immediate vicinity. But that’s a different question from the “NIMBY vs. YIMBY” one animating this thread.

So you believe that existing zoning should be retained to ensure that land uses that you consider a nuisance or that are incompatible with your existing neighborhood don’t occur near you.

Where have I heard this argument before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

What? Who said I oppose dense mixed-use? A PP replied to my earlier post, where I said I didn’t think existing residents should get a veto over what gets built on adjacent property, by saying they’d try to open a nightclub next to my house. I’m all for dense mixed-use zoning, especially on commercial strips. And I have no problem at all with nightlife use.

I do still believe in the concept of zoning, but I’d change SFH zoning to also allow small apartment buildings on side streets, in addition to much higher density along main thoroughfares like the one I live a block away from.

What I ultimately oppose is letting the market determine what gets built — I don’t think housing should primarily involve long-term investor returns, and I’d support city-owned social housing all over, including in my immediate vicinity. But that’s a different question from the “NIMBY vs. YIMBY” one animating this thread.

So you believe that existing zoning should be retained to ensure that land uses that you consider a nuisance or that are incompatible with your existing neighborhood don’t occur near you.

Where have I heard this argument before?

I believe in the concept of zoning, so the city can exercise some broad planning over what uses go where rather than just leaving it up to whoever pays the most money for something.

I didn't say I wanted to retain existing zones or zoning. At a minimum, I think existing SFH residential zones should automatically include by-right development for smaller apartment buildings. I also support significant upzoning, especially near transit, and if there was an actual proposal to rezone my neighborhood, I'd be likely to support it, although (a) there isn't and (b) I'd probably want to, you know, read a sentence or two about it before automatically declaring that I'm for it. I think massive public investment in affordable housing, without giving veto power to people who live near proposed sites, would be a better way to solve housing problems than just waiving away all regulations, though.

I also didn't say anything about opposing uses I consider a nuisance. I mostly just wanted to respond to a PP who thought their clever "oho, if you don't like the idea of neighbors getting to weigh in on land use, how about if I build a nightclub next to your house, HUH?" line was going to win the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a 'yimby' until I saw the hell by neighbor had to go to replace his deck that was built in ~1970. Another neighbor made it his life work to prevent that from happening.

IT WAS A LITTLE DECK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

I think the reaction 'nimbys' get is since they've really started overreaching.

Speaking of decks, the Bowser Administration is forcing Rodman’s on Wisconsin Ave. to dismantle an outdoor platform that was installed outside this independent, family-owned business that has served NW Washington for sixty years or so. At the same time, the DC government is happy to see unregulated, ratty streeteries remain, even in Wisconsin Ave. and also seems to jump through hoops whenever a large chain wants some government favor. Some speculate that the Bowser Administration at the behest of interested developers would just as well see Rodman’s forced to close so that the site can be developed for “vibrant, dense-mixed use.”

I heard the problem with the platform was that they didn't have a permit for it (and maybe it wasn't a permissible use, not sure). I live close by and had no problem with whatever they were planning to do there. Your speculation about someone forcing Rodman's to close as a favor to developers notwithstanding, objecting to something like a deck is usually the sort of thing that's associated with NIMBY positions in urban politics.

Personally, I would prefer changing exclusionary zoning and allowing people to build more densely in neighborhoods like mine, but I'd also strongly favor city-built affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods rather than having developers build small amounts of it at a profit here and there. I think if you had to categorize that position, it'd be broadly YIMBY, but since everyone here is convinced anyone who wants to change the current land-use policies in D.C. is also a stalking horse for developers, I don't know that I'd fit there, since if it were up to me, building housing wouldn't be something that the market was primarily in charge of.

Any developer would view Rodman's as a local amenity, and highlight it in their sales brochures anyway. Even if the parcel were redeveloped, I predict Rodman's stays.

Rodman's will definately remain in the neighborhood, but they would have to move or close while the building they are in is redeveloped.

Not sure that's true, but at any rate, has anyone heard of any plans to redevelop that building? They just redid the facade last year. Seems like it'd be much easier to buy some of the parking lot from the funeral home next door (or the huge empty field behind Rodman's) and develop that than it would be to redevelop the building Rodman's is in. Of course, most of my neighbors would oppose development on the parking lot or the field...

True. Parking lots are so passé in Smart DC Urbana. People going to the funeral home can just take scooters and e-bikes. And the Friendship Heights Metro is not far.

If the funeral home sold part of the lot, I’m sure it would be because they decided they didn’t need it. There’s also ample street parking. Might development of the space near me make it marginally harder for me to find parking on the street right in front of my house? Yes. Do I think that’s a good reason to oppose development nearby? No. But at any rate, my point was not “develop the parking lot!”, it was that there’s no reason for anyone to redo the Rodman’s building when there’s empty space all around it.

I like how folks like to make grand plans about other peoples property.

That’s actually precisely my point — if someone wants to develop that site, or not, it should be up to them, not to people like me who live nearby.

I look forward to your success so that I can open a nightclub next to your residence.

I don’t think “I was here first” is a good principle by which to organize urban politics.

I do believe in zoning, though, and I suspect you’d have a hard time opening a nightclub on property zoned residential. Most of my neighborhood’s zoning should be modified to allow small apartment buildings, and people like me shouldn’t get to object just because we don’t want more neighbors. But if Rodman’s wants to open up a bar, I don’t see why I should have a say in it.

This is really just a different way of saying you oppose change. You say you’re willing to accept some change, but dense mixed used generates the highest long-term returns for investors, so that’s what’s going to get built. Small apartment buildings aren’t worth the financial risk for investors. What you’ve articulated is a NIMBY position. Just because you were there first doesn’t mean you get to dictate that there can be no mixed use next door or in the neighborhood. And, yeah, some of the commercial in the mixed use is going to be nightlife oriented.

What? Who said I oppose dense mixed-use? A PP replied to my earlier post, where I said I didn’t think existing residents should get a veto over what gets built on adjacent property, by saying they’d try to open a nightclub next to my house. I’m all for dense mixed-use zoning, especially on commercial strips. And I have no problem at all with nightlife use.

I do still believe in the concept of zoning, but I’d change SFH zoning to also allow small apartment buildings on side streets, in addition to much higher density along main thoroughfares like the one I live a block away from.

What I ultimately oppose is letting the market determine what gets built — I don’t think housing should primarily involve long-term investor returns, and I’d support city-owned social housing all over, including in my immediate vicinity. But that’s a different question from the “NIMBY vs. YIMBY” one animating this thread.

Do you have a problem with a nightclub in dense mixed use next to your house or not? If you don’t have a problem, you’re a YIMBY. It’s not realistic to try to limit the possible commercial tenants for mixed use because it increases vacancy risk for landlords.

Well, I have two answers to that question. Would I want a nightclub next to my house? No, not particularly, and I wouldn't be very happy about it. But do I think I ought to be able to determine whether there's a nightclub next to my house? No.

It probably is more realistic than you think to limit commercial uses, though -- in my neighborhood's case, I seriously doubt a nightclub would do very good business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you build more houses doesn't mean prices necessarily fall. They could also go up as a result of more housing. Look at Navy Yard. Hardly anyone lived there 10 years ago. Now it's one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Because there's so many people there, lots of coffee shops and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. Because they're there, many more people want to live there too. So prices go up because demand is going up and demand is going up because supply went up. Economics doesn't always work like the simple models you learned in seventh grade.

Before we rebranded gentrification as "increasing density," no one disputed what it would do to housing prices, and the answer wasn't "push them down."

(Oh, and before someone points out that this one time they built a new apartment building in Ward 3, and that area is already wealthy so how can that be gentrification -- let's remember that 99 percent of the new housing units in D.C. are in non-rich areas).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you build more houses doesn't mean prices necessarily fall. They could also go up as a result of more housing. Look at Navy Yard. Hardly anyone lived there 10 years ago. Now it's one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Because there's so many people there, lots of coffee shops and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. Because they're there, many more people want to live there too. So prices go up because demand is going up and demand is going up because supply went up. Economics doesn't always work like the simple models you learned in seventh grade.

Before we rebranded gentrification as "increasing density," no one disputed what it would do to housing prices, and the answer wasn't "push them down."

(Oh, and before someone points out that this one time they built a new apartment building in Ward 3, and that area is already wealthy so how can that be gentrification -- let's remember that 99 percent of the new housing units in D.C. are in non-rich areas).

But there is gentrification going on in Ward 3 of a different type. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city. But developers, backed by the incentives of District government policies, are rapidly shrinking the number of rent controlled units in favor of luxury housing.

[Anonymous]

There's a difference between advocating for responsible development for example wanting to make sure there is the necessary infrastructure, amenities and livability factors including green space and community space, services et cetera needed to support the added population, versus being a "nimby" yet the obnoxious a-hole GGWash'ers and so-called "Smart Growthers" sling the "nimby" pejorative the second anyone deigns to raise a single question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you build more houses doesn't mean prices necessarily fall. They could also go up as a result of more housing. Look at Navy Yard. Hardly anyone lived there 10 years ago. Now it's one of the most densely populated parts of the city. Because there's so many people there, lots of coffee shops and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. Because they're there, many more people want to live there too. So prices go up because demand is going up and demand is going up because supply went up. Economics doesn't always work like the simple models you learned in seventh grade.

Before we rebranded gentrification as "increasing density," no one disputed what it would do to housing prices, and the answer wasn't "push them down."

(Oh, and before someone points out that this one time they built a new apartment building in Ward 3, and that area is already wealthy so how can that be gentrification -- let's remember that 99 percent of the new housing units in D.C. are in non-rich areas).

But there is gentrification going on in Ward 3 of a different type. Ward 3 has the second highest number of rent controlled units in the city. But developers, backed by the incentives of District government policies, are rapidly shrinking the number of rent controlled units in favor of luxury housing.

Which is why building additional new housing with rent controls or other affordability mechanisms in Ward 3 is a good idea -- both to relieve rent/pricing pressure on less wealthy areas and to preserve the limited housing affordability in Ward 3 already. This can't be just left up to the market to take care of, though, and it also can't be done through half-hearted attempts to push IZ. Needs much bigger government intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a difference between advocating for responsible development for example wanting to make sure there is the necessary infrastructure, amenities and livability factors including green space and community space, services et cetera needed to support the added population, versus being a "nimby" yet the obnoxious a-hole GGWash'ers and so-called "Smart Growthers" sling the "nimby" pejorative the second anyone deigns to raise a single question.

+1