Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't get it. There are literally neighborhoods for every interest/type people want in the city. You can live among big apartment buildings (NOMA), fourplexes (Trinidad/Ivy City), row houses (everywhere), and single family homes (AU Park, Chevy Chase, Palisades). Why on earth would you move to one neighborhood and demand that it is remade into another neighborhood type than just moving to that other neighborhood? There are so many options at your disposal.

When you decided where to live, did you say, "I want to live in [housing type], I don't care where!"?

Or did you say, "I want to live in [area]."?

Huh? This makes no sense. I actually have to turn the question back on you. What attracts you to a neighborhood and what qualities are important to you?

It makes a lot more sense than "If you want to live in a fourplex, you should have to move to Trinidad; if you want to live in a big apartment building, you should have to move to NoMA; if you want to live in AU Park, you should only get to do so if you can afford a single-family-detached house."

DP. No it doesn’t. If you want to live in a specific type of residence, you should look to where there are lots of that kind of residences. That’s your best bet at finding that kind of residence. And the people who live in the neighborhood with those kinds of residences probably also like living in a neighborhood with those kinds of residences.

Do you think that people are saying, "I want to live in a fourplex!" or do you think people are saying, "I want to live in [the area where the PP keeps complaining about YIMBYs]"?

The qualities that make these different neighborhoods appealing to different groups are closely tied to their predominant housing/development type.

You pick your neighborhood because of the characters of the residences there! You can always change/remodel/rebuild your residence; you yourself can't change the character of the neighboring residences. If you buy a SFH in a neighborhood, you want a neighborhood of SFHs, not something else. The end result of upzoning will be the departure of folks from DC. DC has done well financially over the last several decades, because they wealthy have done well. If you drive them out, you lose your tax base. What COVID has made clear is that many of these folks do not need to be in DC. In fact, the number of folks working remotely from beach houses is huge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

May I ask you, Ward 3, where all this density you desire will be built? Tearing down 1920s homes and trees, perhaps? Building on the small pieces of greenspace that exist?

Maybe you ask AU to build some of that housing on its campus? Instead of dorms?

There is a tremendous amount of development going on now (view from Maine Avenue and over to Nats park and then some) in D.C. But - yes, you do you and build a condo in your back yard.

I am a different Ward 3 resident.

There are a ton of surface parking lots that can be developed.
The Wardman as a site can be a lot of new buildings.
The entirety of Friendship Heights can be redeveloped.
There can be moderate increased density allowed on parts of Connecticut Avenue that could allow for some expansions or infill development.
Property owners can be encouraged to add ADUs.
Just like all of those garden apartments, there can be added density in that form up and down all of our transit corridors.
There can be new structures built that look like a single family home, but are, in fact, 2,3 or 4-plexes.

So yes, there are a lot of places where new density can go without impinging on your single family house.

Sounds charming! Send us your traffic impact reports on Western/Wisconsin area and Connecticut - which already has a slew of condo buildings. Maybe bring a Dollar Store or Five Below too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

And here we go. This is where you totally lose me because it is clear that you are only thinking about the bubble of you and your cohort’s limited wants and needs.

As you yourself confirm, the YIMBY calls for more housing come with an asterisk. I guess the acronym should be changed to “yes, but only in the yards that I want.”

If your foundational belief is doing everything possible to increase affordable market rate housing supply, the truth is that new build greenfield housing has historically been the only proven and effective means to do it. Which makes it odd that it is the only type of housing that you absolutely do not want.

If you got out of your bubble, what you would learn is that:
- Way more people live in the suburbs than in the city.
- Way more jobs in the suburbs than in the city.
- Greenfield is the only housing type that can be built at low unit cost to provide market rate “affordable housing”.
- These new developments are highly racially integrated, particularly including a lot of immigrant families realizing their own American dream.
- The most “dense” cities in the world have massive suburbs. Manhattan, for example, is surrounded by a 4 state area of suburbs of varying density extending from northern NJ, to PA, to the Hudson River Valley, to Fairfield and up to New Haven and the across Island Sound.

I think you all need to get out and start meeting people outside of your limited friend groups. Pretty ironic for people that have somehow anointed themselves as the champions of diversity.

It’s funny to me that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

Too many silly TP types hold this view. Destroy wealthy SFH neighborhoods, damage property values, reduce property tax revenues. And people flee the area, or move to VA, further reducing tax revenues. Enjoy.

no one is talking about 'destroying wealthy SFH neighborhoods'

Anonymous wrote:I'm all about dense housing which should decrease how much farmland we transition into subdivisions.

Hopefully, it will also create demand for local businesses which make neighborhoods more walkable and thus decrease how much driving we do.

Am I for removing all barriers to development? No. But I'm all for businesses near houses. I'm all for affordable housing next to expensive homes. I am in favor of really good public schools so that different kinds of people will mix and get to know each other.

Too many NIMBYs who are just negative without being proactive about envisioning the future of our society.

Too many silly TP types hold this view. Destroy wealthy SFH neighborhoods, damage property values, reduce property tax revenues. And people flee the area, or move to VA, further reducing tax revenues. Enjoy.

Anonymous wrote:I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Tearing up farms to build farther out is not sustainable. What happens when there is no more arable land, so that people can have single family houses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

May I ask you, Ward 3, where all this density you desire will be built? Tearing down 1920s homes and trees, perhaps? Building on the small pieces of greenspace that exist?

Maybe you ask AU to build some of that housing on its campus? Instead of dorms?

There is a tremendous amount of development going on now (view from Maine Avenue and over to Nats park and then some) in D.C. But - yes, you do you and build a condo in your back yard.

I am a different Ward 3 resident.

There are a ton of surface parking lots that can be developed.
The Wardman as a site can be a lot of new buildings.
The entirety of Friendship Heights can be redeveloped.
There can be moderate increased density allowed on parts of Connecticut Avenue that could allow for some expansions or infill development.
Property owners can be encouraged to add ADUs.
Just like all of those garden apartments, there can be added density in that form up and down all of our transit corridors.
There can be new structures built that look like a single family home, but are, in fact, 2,3 or 4-plexes.

So yes, there are a lot of places where new density can go without impinging on your single family house.

I concur with a PP who stated that YIMBYism relies on a basic failure of understanding economics. But it’s worse than that, because it’s also a failure of understanding basic finance.

If the expectation is that increasing the supply of infill housing units will drive down rental costs, then no one would invest in multi-family residential RE because there would be no profit.

Trust me, the PE funds, REITs, asset managers and developers understand the finance and economics of this a lot more than you do and they will never, ever invest in anything without a near guarantee of maximizing profits at high margins.

Also, I find it a bit odd that YIMBYs claim that we desperately need housing but turn their noses up at the new housing that is built or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Just because you personally don’t like the tens of thousands of new units of single family homes, townhomes and apartments being built in Clarksburg or Leesburg doesn’t mean that it’s not real and that a lot of people do want it and prefer it.

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

May I ask you, Ward 3, where all this density you desire will be built? Tearing down 1920s homes and trees, perhaps? Building on the small pieces of greenspace that exist?

Maybe you ask AU to build some of that housing on its campus? Instead of dorms?

There is a tremendous amount of development going on now (view from Maine Avenue and over to Nats park and then some) in D.C. But - yes, you do you and build a condo in your back yard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

Wow look at you saving the world by sharing your remarkable neighborhood with the poors!!! Except now less desirable Places like suitland and SE DC will never get sufficiently developed and resourced, whoops! Yimby’s like you are well meaning but just make greedy developers richer.

Just look at Houston which has no zoning laws and it’s just a sprawling traffic nightmare clusterf$ck with much worse class segregation than dc.

I guess you ddn't know how many billions of dollars are being invested in SE DC right now, between historic Anacostia, St Elizabeths, Minnesota Avenue, Benning Road and Congress Heights. It is literally boomtown with more housing units, more retail and more affordable housing units. It is wonderful.

I like to watch the urbanhell subreddit to see pictures of what is coming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:London School of Economics study: "Policies such as blanket upzoning, which will principally unleash market forces that serve high income earners, are therefore likely to reinforce the effects of income inequality rather than tempering them.”

YIMBYs want nothing less than blanket upzoning.

http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1914.pdf

We would be much better off upzoning the suburbs than upzoning DC itself. It's a much more viable goal.

https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-increase-affordability-but-only-if-you-build-it-in-the-right-places-urban_housing/

"For the past couple of years, there have been a growing number of voices saying that to address the housing affordability problem, what we need to do is build more housing— not necessarily more affordable housing, but more housing, period."

Nice try. Another nice try would be to try to conceal the cold sweat on your brow now that you've tipped your hand and revealed the fact that you are desperately trying to give any reason not to bust up your precious SFH zoning but have inadvertently given away the game.

Yep, more housing isn't the solution. Affordable housing is. What we need to do is wrest the inefficient SFH land from the grasp of the 1% and turn it into public, affordable housing.

Thanks for giving us evidence that your wasteful, bourgeoise land hoarding can't simply be solved by upzoning. Now we know we need to take it by force from the parasites and give it to the truly deserving.

Anonymous wrote:This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?

Wow look at you saving the world by sharing your remarkable neighborhood with the poors!!! Except now less desirable Places like suitland and SE DC will never get sufficiently developed and resourced, whoops! Yimby’s like you are well meaning but just make greedy developers richer.

Just look at Houston which has no zoning laws and it’s just a sprawling traffic nightmare clusterf$ck with much worse class segregation than dc.

London School of Economics study: "Policies such as blanket upzoning, which will principally unleash market forces that serve high income earners, are therefore likely to reinforce the effects of income inequality rather than tempering them.”

YIMBYs want nothing less than blanket upzoning.

http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1914.pdf

We would be much better off upzoning the suburbs than upzoning DC itself. It's a much more viable goal.

https://shelterforce.org/2020/06/19/more-housing-could-increase-affordability-but-only-if-you-build-it-in-the-right-places-urban_housing/

This "entitlement" stuff really relies on twisting the literal meaning of YIMBY. I live in upper NW Ward 3, in a single-family house that we own, and I'm in favor of building much more density here, especially affordable housing but also both small and large apartment buildings. So I'd consider myself a YIMBY because -- unlike NIMBYs -- I don't oppose new development near my house ("in my backyard"). How is it "entitled" for me to want things to happen that, according to all the people here who oppose YIMBYism, will make my neighborhood less pleasant, change its character, reduce my home value and increase crowding in my kids' schools?