Reply to What do you think of YIMBYs?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "What do you think of YIMBYs?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

So NIMBYs would have been more effective in preventing growth than they are today? In Montgomery County, projects have been downsized at developers' requests, not residents' requests. The YIMBYs stomp their feet every time a community asks for a project to be smaller but never says a peep when developers come back and seek to reduce previously approved density. The outcome is the same: less housing. Why is one OK but the other isn't?[/quote]

Do you think YIMBYs should ask the county to [u]force[/u] developers to build projects?

Regardless, that's not the point. Your position is: building MY house THEN was ok even though the then-neighbors opposed it, but building YOUR house NOW is not ok because the now-neighbors oppose it.[/quote]

I think that YIMBYs should call out developers who make decisions counter to increasing housing supply.  [b]I also think local governments should look at imposing costs when developers seek to delay or downsize projects,[/b] and they should make short-term rental conversions very expensive to account for the societal impact of exacerbating the housing shortage.

Also, that's not my position. I'm pro development. I just don't find the case that NIMBYs or zoning are causing a housing shortage in the area to be a compelling one. The pipeline of approved projects just waiting for a developer to pull permits is plenty deep.[/quote]

A simpler solution is to shorten the allowable period between approval and construction. If you haven't broken ground within 3 years of approval, your approval should go away, and you should have to start over from scratch. That would remove the incentive to get approval for projects that are mostly speculative. Most of those approved projects in the pipeline of approved projects are never going to get built, and everyone knows it.

Changing the zoning would certainly have an effect, though. Think of all of the stupidly-big one-household teardowns in Bethesda. Lots of people don't even necessarily want a house that big, but that's what it makes sense for the builders to build. If the builders had had the option of building two-household buildings (i.e., duplexes) instead, there are some parts of Bethesda where the number of housing units would have doubled in the last 20 years or so.[/quote]

I support changing the zoning near transit for sure. It would be a game changer for housing supply because it would open the market to small and medium developers who take more modest returns than the high-rise developers. There's a bill to do this before the council but Hans Riemer has refused to move it through his committee and Planning recommended adding a number of regulatory requirements that would make it difficult for small and medium developers to work. It's puzzling that two of the loudest YIMBYs haven't supported the bill, which isn't perfect but is much better than what we have. It's almost as if they want to protect big developers from competition.

I'm not sure such a rigid restriction on the development window is the right way to go. Securing financing for these projects is hard because many of them are too big for banks, so the developers need to seek equity investment instead. Some kind of tolling fee -- which would terminate if the developer withdrew and escalate if the developer sought further delays -- would also get speculative projects off the books.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics