What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Property owners should be able to build whatever they want on their property.

This would produce more homes, which would make housing more affordable.

Which would improve the lives of the poor, who spend an inordinate amount on housing in order to live near the physical, in-person jobs the work, and the family meme era they cannot afford to *not* depend on.

All of the ills of “crowding” from parking to grocery stores, to traffic, and schools are easily solved by deregulated market-rate solutions, from Uber to grocery delivery, to jitney buses, to homeschool pods, education vouchers, and market-rate street parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

+1

[Anonymous]

Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Property owners should be able to build whatever they want on their property.

This would produce more homes, which would make housing more affordable.

Which would improve the lives of the poor, who spend an inordinate amount on housing in order to live near the physical, in-person jobs the work, and the family meme era they cannot afford to *not* depend on.

All of the ills of “crowding” from parking to grocery stores, to traffic, and schools are easily solved by deregulated market-rate solutions, from Uber to grocery delivery, to jitney buses, to homeschool pods, education vouchers, and market-rate street parking.

+1; people love to control others - why NIMBYism is so appealing to many.

[Anonymous]

It’s all about wealth redistribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Yeah, but thats pretty reasonable. There are a decent amount of YIMBY zealots on twitter who complain about "% of income" and the like, as if every neighborhood should be affordable to every income level, and again- thats just not how life works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

YIMBYism is really about white people with champagne tastes and beer budgets doing everything they can to avoid moving into predominantly black neighborhoods. There is more than a whiff of racism to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Yeah, but thats pretty reasonable. There are a decent amount of YIMBY zealots on twitter who complain about "% of income" and the like, as if every neighborhood should be affordable to every income level, and again- thats just not how life works.

It's not how life works due to the policy decisions we've made over the last 120 years in the US. If we made different policy decisions, life would work differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Yeah, but thats pretty reasonable. There are a decent amount of YIMBY zealots on twitter who complain about "% of income" and the like, as if every neighborhood should be affordable to every income level, and again- thats just not how life works.

It's not how life works due to the policy decisions we've made over the last 120 years in the US. If we made different policy decisions, life would work differently.

It's not a "policy decision" for a house to cost x, and someone not being able to afford that! That's life, bud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Yeah, but thats pretty reasonable. There are a decent amount of YIMBY zealots on twitter who complain about "% of income" and the like, as if every neighborhood should be affordable to every income level, and again- thats just not how life works.

It's not how life works due to the policy decisions we've made over the last 120 years in the US. If we made different policy decisions, life would work differently.

It's not a "policy decision" for a house to cost x, and someone not being able to afford that! That's life, bud.

I sure hope you're being intentionally obtuse because nobody should have to go through life as stupid as you sound.

The policy decision is not allowing multifamily zoning. There are multitudes of people out there who can't afford a house that costs X, but can afford an apartment that costs Y, but there are no apartments for them to rent because we made policy decisions that say you aren't allowed to build them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Theres also this mindset that people should be able to live and maybe even buy in whatever neighborhood they please, regardless of income. Thats just not how life works.

Well yeah, that's kind of the whole point of YIMBYism, that we want to change how life works because we think it could be better.

Nobody is saying anyone who wants a 5br house in AU Park should have one, we're just saying maybe there shouldn't be laws that prevent property owners building multifamily housing on their own property so that someone who can't afford a 5BR house but can afford a studio apartment can live there.

Yeah, but thats pretty reasonable. There are a decent amount of YIMBY zealots on twitter who complain about "% of income" and the like, as if every neighborhood should be affordable to every income level, and again- thats just not how life works.

It's not how life works due to the policy decisions we've made over the last 120 years in the US. If we made different policy decisions, life would work differently.

It's not a "policy decision" for a house to cost x, and someone not being able to afford that! That's life, bud.

However, it IS a policy decision for the only housing available in an area to be a house that costs x.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

Here are the total amounts I have received so far to advocate for transit and housing near transit:

$0 from the Koch brothers
$0 from real estate developers
$0 from George Soros
$0 from the Bicycle Lobby
$0 from the War On Cars

How often do you read Greater Greater Washington? Did you know that they lack transparency about the source of their funds even though they are engaged in political activity and lobbying? Are you curious to know who financially supports and organization whose editorial views you consume? Or I guess not.

I am a DP so you are not directing this at me.

GG was founded by someone who was able to self finance and pursue their interest in transportation and development in DC and later the suburbs.

It was only as they decided to expand mission that they sought funding from things like grants for specific deliverables - papers, outreach etc.

Ultimately their goals are the same as mine, and like the PP, I get zero dollars or any other compensation for advocacy around a greener more sustainable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be willing to bet if one followed the money in YIMBYism it would probably lead to people like the Koch's who have zero altruistic values. YIMBYism seems to be a vehicle for changing laws and policies to favor strengthening individual property rights and reducing or even removing regulations and not just land use. Many YIMBYs think construction codes are too strict which increases housing costs. It seems to be a its root a Libertarian ideology.

What fascinates me about YIMBYs is that there is actually a lot of existing housing stock in rural areas throughout this country that is cheap because a lot of small towns are depopulating while urban areas are growing. Probably the most sensible fix, if one was truly focused on getting people into homes, is to support economic policies to help rural areas and small towns thrive.

Relatedly, I always find it funny that when YIMBYs talk about "affordability" they only talk about costs but not incomes. This is why I will always question YIMBY motives, because affordability has a numerator and denominator and they only focus on one of those things and not the other. Good paying jobs makes housing more affordable too!

I also just find it gross that they have adopted the term "exclusionary zoning" to refer to SFH neighborhoods to make them seem racist. No one is excluded from buying a SFH. It's gross that they have tried to make this insinuation.

The point is that many SFH neighborhoods were built on the premise of exclusion - red-lining, zoning and covenants.

How do we undo or repair the damage done by practices that have been in place for decades or a century?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

Because packing more people into a given area creates economics of scale for businesses. When more people live in a given area, more bars and restaurants and stores want to be there too because it looks to them like an underserved market. That attracts more people who want to live within walking distance of those places. Because more people want to live there, the price of housing goes up.

This has happened in every single neighborhood in DC that has gentrified. There isn't a single example anywhere in DC where increasing density has resulted in lower housing prices.

+1