What do you think of YIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard = the opposite of NIMBY.

The pro-development, pro-any kind of housing at any cost, a movement that straddles the social justice left and the libertarian/pro-corporate right. Locally, YIMBY outlets include Greater Greater Washington, Just Up The Pike, and Market Urbanism Report.

The idea is that deregulating zoning and building everything everywhere, housing at all price points including luxury, will ease the supply/demand ratio and help solve the housing affordability problem. Criticisms from the right include potentially threatening property values of homeowners in wealthy neighborhoods and "social engineering", criticisms from the left include "shilling for corporate developers" and skepticism surrounding the concept of filtering (meaning that construction of new "luxury" units will enable wealthier residents to move into them and open up older, cheaper units for middle and lower income residents).
YIMBY politicians include Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer.

So what do you think of YIMBYs and their housing solutions? Does it work? Does it benefit high-earning young professionals exclusively? Does "filtering" work? What are your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I think they have their heads in the clouds and up their ass, and that they’d be the first people to flee their policies if they were implemented. But gosh does their worldview give them a sense of superiority and meaning in life!

[Anonymous]

YIMBY's love cloaking themselves in woke terminology and then guilting areas into YIMBY priorities and then feigning shock when the programs never amount to anything.

The densification argument is a classic YIMBY argument. Densification is not a new concept. Tell me where in DC housing prices have gone down or been stabilized based on new construction? How many below market rate houses are in the Navy Yard area? How many of those houses have families with kids in them? How many new schools have been built to accommodate the newly attracted families?

YIMBY is code for I have money invested in something involved with development.

[Anonymous]

I believe denser housing is the way to go for any metropole, but that for quality of life purposes, we need to integrate dense housing carefully in our urban planning to preserve a human-sized, pedestrian-friendly, environment.

I'm European and lived through some dense building periods, where very ugly high rises mushroomed everywhere without regard to how future residents would access services and transport, and without regard for existing residential areas or greenery. So it's very important we avoid hasty deregulation here, and think through every building project.

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm a YIMBY. I'm pro-density, pro-building new developments, pro-transit above car development. I'm not invested in anything related to development apart from my townhouse which I plan to live in until I can't anymore. The bottom line for me is that the population is rising rapidly and those people have to live somewhere. We have to make sure services are available to those people though, especially schools, but that can be done.

[Anonymous]

We do need more housing, including density, for people to be able to live and work here.

But! I don't believe that trickle-down housing is any more right than trickle-down economics. We should be using construction in a way that benefits communities that have been historically marginalized. I don't want this done in a way that just boosts property values for homeowners. My house has gone up in value way more than is reasonable. I'd rather see sustainable investment in the community. I don't see how we do that without more housing.

Also, we can't just talk about housing without freaking with all the other problems our communities are facing.

[Anonymous]

They don't believe in trickle-down housing. They believe in trickle-down gentrification, which is what their end goal is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We do need more housing, including density, for people to be able to live and work here.

But! I don't believe that trickle-down housing is any more right than trickle-down economics. We should be using construction in a way that benefits communities that have been historically marginalized. I don't want this done in a way that just boosts property values for homeowners. My house has gone up in value way more than is reasonable. I'd rather see sustainable investment in the community. I don't see how we do that without more housing.

Also, we can't just talk about housing without freaking with all the other problems our communities are facing.

Laughable statement based on no factual data at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'm a YIMBY. I'm pro-density, pro-building new developments, pro-transit above car development. I'm not invested in anything related to development apart from my townhouse which I plan to live in until I can't anymore. The bottom line for me is that the population is rising rapidly and those people have to live somewhere. We have to make sure services are available to those people though, especially schools, but that can be done.

+1

Population growth without housing to match is a disaster.
Building more single family housing on farms in lieu of making the central areas more dense is a disaster.
Focus density and transportation so people don't have to live "way out" and drive cars. It's the only sensible way forward.

[Anonymous]

The YIMBYs in my neighborhood (within 1 mile of a metro station, so would be affected by the proposed zoning change) tend to be older, with with kids in high school or out of school altogether. They don’t have to worry about their kids sitting in overcrowded portables when, inevitably, school capacity fails to keep up with population growth. I’m not anti-development by any means, but careful planning is needed to ensure that services increase proportionately.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do need more housing, including density, for people to be able to live and work here.

But! I don't believe that trickle-down housing is any more right than trickle-down economics. We should be using construction in a way that benefits communities that have been historically marginalized. I don't want this done in a way that just boosts property values for homeowners. My house has gone up in value way more than is reasonable. I'd rather see sustainable investment in the community. I don't see how we do that without more housing.

Also, we can't just talk about housing without freaking with all the other problems our communities are facing.

Laughable statement based on no factual data at all.

You can't find any data about housing shortage in the DC area? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the YIMBY concept in principle but the YIMBYs in the groups the OP mentioned are knee-jerk defenders of developers and their tax breaks. Zoning reform is one solution but it isn’t THE solution. YIMBY platforms tend to be too one-sided in that developers can do no wrong. If they just get this or that tax break then all will be right with the world
Developers like to point to zoning codes and taxes and fees as reasons why they can’t build any middle income housing, when in fact these things are just bites around the edges and they just want to milk the local government for anything they can get with no intention on building anything cheaper. The reason is because by definition private developers must maximize profit and deliver a minimum 6% return on investment to investors. They legally HAVE to maximize profit - this is the problem. And they can, because housing isn’t like a typical market commodity that people can choose to do without or have more leeway to economize. You can choose not to buy new shoes or a new phone. But you have to have a home, and there is only so much “economizing” you can do. Especially since a lack of multi bedroom family sized inventory makes it hard even to divide it up among roommates. So instead of shopping around or doing without, people just go into debt or spend 50+% of their incomes on housing. So the supply and demand model doesn’t work if it’s something people have little choice but to spend. And developers get away with that.

What law requires real-estate developers to maximize profit?

Who needs a law? Contacts and fiduciary responsibilities between private parties.

So actually it's not true, and private developers don't actually have to maximize profit? How about that.