Current Events > Obama going YIMBY as well!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/YIMBYLAND/status/1826121269055569996?t=czcN72-8_UCF1ohZ5kIlQA&s=19

Let's fucking go

I have to admit, I'm not able to keep up with these US political abbreviations anymore.

MeltraT posted...

I have to admit, I'm not able to keep up with these US political abbreviations anymore.

Yes in my back yard.

As opposed to Not in my backyard.

It's essentially a movement that's trying to emphasize that the main reason for high housing prices is that we simply don't build enough homes. With much of the reason for the lack of building being due to homeowners vetoing and slowing down the process, zoning, bad regulations/rules.
Essentially, we need to build build build.

But...building homes is a weirdly unpopular things in many areas.

MeltraT posted...

I have to admit, I'm not able to keep up with these US political abbreviations anymore.

"Yes in my back yard" I'm guessing?

It's essentially a movement that's trying to emphasize that the main reason for high housing prices is that we simply don't build enough homes. With much of the reason for the lack of building being due to homeowners vetoing and slowing down the process, zoning, bad regulations/rules.
Essentially, we need to build build build.

All new housing being tied up in HOAs probably doesn't help.

But...building homes is a weirdly unpopular things in many areas.

A lot of folks only want the" right" pepole to move in next to them and will shut down anything else.

Bump

Necronmon posted...

A lot of folks only want the" right" pepole to move in next to them and will shut down anything else.

And by "right" people, you mean rich white people. Because that's what it is.

Shit like homeowners' associations, condo boards, co-op boards, zoning panels...all that shit is designed by wealthy people who want to keep their neighborhoods wealthy. What we really need is a progressive sales tax on home sales to redistribute the wealth from "nice" neighborhoods and use it to build higher-density housing. We also need a restriction on corporate ownership of homes (frankly this should just be illegal outright) and severe taxes on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th properties. Like, if you own a 2nd house, the property taxes you pay should be double what you normally would if it were your primary residence. And so on.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

What we really need is a progressive sales tax on home sales to redistribute the wealth from "nice" neighborhoods and use it to build higher-density housing. We also need a restriction on corporate ownership of homes (frankly this should just be illegal outright) and severe taxes on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th properties. Like, if you own a 2nd house, the property taxes you pay should be double what you normally would if it were your primary residence. And so on.

Do you think that would significantly increase the costs for someone to rent a home?
Corporations shouldn't own homes, and it should also be significantly expensive to own another home that might be rented out? Who rents homes to people?

Is the idea that all rented homes should be managed by the govt?

Necronmon posted...

A lot of folks only want the" right" pepole to move in next to them and will shut down anything else.

Yep. A part of it is that people have strong aversions to change as well. They think their property rights extends outside of their homes essentially. That because they live in an area, they have a right to stop there being a change in aesthetics, views, etc.

I dont want some homeless person living next door to me

emblem-man posted...

Yes in my back yard.

As opposed to Not in my backyard.

So... I've seen NIMBY used online in arguments from time to time over the years, but never knew what it meant. Then when you just said it here, I was like, "Oh. Ooohhhhhhh. Yup... Yeah, that makes sense."

CableZL posted...

So... I've seen NIMBY used online in arguments from time to time over the years, but never knew what it meant. Then when you just said it here, I was like, "Oh. Ooohhhhhhh. Yup... Yeah, that makes sense."

It's not the most aesthetic sounding acronym,

emblem-man posted...

Do you think that would significantly increase the costs for someone to rent a home?
Corporations shouldn't own homes, and it should also be significantly expensive to own another home that might be rented out? Who rents homes to people?

Is the idea that all rented homes should be managed by the govt?

Eh, I think there still is a place for rental properties. But then they have to be run by certain corporations, specifically designated as rental properties, and subject to certain regulations.

What we *can't* have is corporations and investors going into a neighborhood and buying a condo or a single-family house, and then renting that house out. It is a drain on our society and makes the world into a worse place because it just increases costs to the consumer without providing any actual value. If we increase home ownership, that will lessen the competition for rental units, thereby bringing rental prices down - right now corporations can charge through the roof for rents because there is a limited supply and a strong demand for rentals since people can't afford to own anything.

There's a good chance that this might bankrupt or ruin the fortunes of a lot of landlords...but that is a good thing. Landlords don't contribute much to society.

emblem-man posted...

It's essentially a movement that's trying to emphasize that the main reason for high housing prices is that we simply don't build enough homes.

I don't think that's the main reason. Owners/landlords are just entitled/greedy as fuck, and I don't feel like there being more homes will stop this from being the case. Let's face it, landlords are basically (one of) the new "lawyer joke" targets of the modern generation, and many of us that have had to deal with them have at least one horror story regarding them, myself included.

Sure, go ahead and make more homes; it's not like that's suddenly a bad idea -- I just don't feel like it's going to resolve that particular problem.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

I dont want some homeless person living next door to me

If a homeless person is living next door in a house, they aren't homeless no more.

I appreacite the sentiment, but one thing is saying what people want to hear and another matter is turning it into action.

Philip027 posted...

Owners/landlords are just entitled/greedy as fuck, and I don't feel like there being more homes will stop this from being the case. Let's face it, landlords are basically (one of) the new "lawyer joke" targets of the modern generation, and many of us that have had to deal with them have at least one horror story regarding them, myself included.

Yes, nobody likes landlords. In many cases they're a drain on society. Unfortunately, 74 million people still voted for a landlord to be President of the United States.

We have to build more homes *and* introduce laws which restrict home ownership. If you own a 3rd property, you should have to pay double the normal property tax. A 2nd property? triple. A 4th property? Quadruple. Oh, your tax bill is gonna go up? Well...better sell that unit then. Oh wait, being a landlord is your career? Better find a new career then.

And this concept that a *corporation* can buy a single-family house and spin it as a rental is just wrong on its face.

Right now we're not even close. We even offer tax *breaks* for people who buy 2nd and 3rd properties, which is just wrong on so many levels.

Tmaster148 posted...

If a homeless person is living next door in a house, they aren't homeless no more.

Then how do you explain THIS??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vEpkzLgRug

So what happens when they build a bunch of homes in fly over states that no one wants to live in? No way am I ever leaving the east coast. The further from the coasts you get the weirder people are. Have you seen some of the foods they eat in fly over states? That tells me all I need to know about them. And just LOL is you think building more houses will make them more affordable. We all know it won't.

Quicksilver posted...

Have you seen some of the foods they eat in fly over states?

A lot of flyover states also have issues with housing shortages. House prices being high isn't just a problem in New York and California - they're high *everywhere*, including in red states. By building more properties and restricting ownership of those properties, the government can alleviate quality of life for all Americans regardless of locale.

Housing being expensive or inaccessible is one of the reasons people leave flyover states to begin with. There is such a limited supply of housing in rural America that if you're an adult trying to make it on your own...what are you going to do? You can't afford to buy a single-family house, and oftentimes there are so few rental properties available that they're essentially monopolies that are the only game in town. If we can get 20-30% of the people who currently rent to buy their houses, that will decrease competition for rental units and bring prices down.

The only country in the world that has figured out how to manage the cost of housing is Singapore, and the rest of the world has to learn from their example.

Also let's get everyone locked into 30 year mortgages cause the banks need more money. So you paid off your student loans good job here is another loan to carry around until the day you die.

Quicksilver posted...

Also let's get everyone locked into 30 year mortgages cause the banks need more money. So you paid off your student loans good job here is another loan to carry around until the day you die.

88% of people would rather own a home than rent, so your argument doesn't mean much.

Philip027 posted...

I don't think that's the main reason. Owners/landlords are just entitled/greedy as fuck, and I don't feel like there being more homes will stop this from being the case. Let's face it, landlords are basically (one of) the new "lawyer joke" targets of the modern generation, and many of us that have had to deal with them have at least one horror story regarding them, myself included.

It is the main reason.

All data shows that an increase in housing supply leads to cheaper homes. Landlords are and to be greedy because people looking for homes have fewer options due to a lack of supply.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/078012bb.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/89a18623.jpg

SSj4Wingzero posted...

Eh, I think there still is a place for rental properties. But then they have to be run by certain corporations, specifically designated as rental properties, and subject to certain regulations.

What type of regulation?
I just don't see how significantly increasing the cost to have multiple homes won't drastically increase the costs for renters.

Quicksilver posted...

Also let's get everyone locked into 30 year mortgages cause the banks need more money. So you paid off your student loans good job here is another loan to carry around until the day you die.

If someone wants a shorter mortgage loan, they can get one. 15 years exist. You can also pay it off whenever you want.

But it your post is about people who want to rent, them i agree that we should make renters have lower prices and more right as well.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

And this concept that a *corporation* can buy a single-family house and spin it as a rental is just wrong on its face.

I... I just don't really care if it's corporations or regular people who rent the home out. Someone needs to buy the home manage the rental. I don't really care who it is.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

A lot of flyover states also have issues with housing shortages. House prices being high isn't just a problem in New York and California - they're high *everywhere*, including in red states. By building more properties and restricting ownership of those properties, the government can alleviate quality of life for all Americans regardless of locale.

Housing being expensive or inaccessible is one of the reasons people leave flyover states to begin with. There is such a limited supply of housing in rural America that if you're an adult trying to make it on your own...what are you going to do? You can't afford to buy a single-family house, and oftentimes there are so few rental properties available that they're essentially monopolies that are the only game in town. If we can get 20-30% of the people who currently rent to buy their houses, that will decrease competition for rental units and bring prices down.

The only country in the world that has figured out how to manage the cost of housing is Singapore, and the rest of the world has to learn from their example.

Doubtful then what happens to all the industries supported by landlords? What happens to the office staff the maintenance staff etc... I have never seen rent prices go down and I am seeing lots of new apartment buildings go up. The government won't fix this problem because it is past the tipping point the time for action was years ago and they missed it. They should have just made it so corporations can't buy up houses, and that people can't buy homes just to turn them into air bnbs. There isn't a housing crisis there is a greed crisis.

Quicksilver posted...

So what happens when they build a bunch of homes in fly over states that no one wants to live in? No way am I ever leaving the east coast. The further from the coasts you get the weirder people are. Have you seen some of the foods they eat in fly over states? That tells me all I need to know about them. And just LOL is you think building more houses will make them more affordable. We all know it won't.

Do you think flyover states don't have large cities with diverse food choices and activities. This is one of those "go touch grass" situations

I don't have to think. I can look at all the data that shows that it does.

Quicksilver posted...

Doubtful then what happens to all the industries supported by landlords? What happens to the office staff the maintenance staff etc... I have never seen rent prices go down and I am seeing lots of new apartment buildings go up. The government won't fix this problem because it is past the tipping point the time for action was years ago and they missed it. They should have just made it so corporations can't buy up houses, and that people can't buy homes just to turn them into air bnbs. There isn't a housing crisis there is a greed crisis.

I posted links that show exactly that

emblem-man posted...

But...building homes is a weirdly unpopular things in many areas.

Not against the idea of building homes, but it's easy to understand why people don't like new homes being built in some communities.

New homes sound nice in thought, but depending on pricing and location, there's no escaping they can bring in characters to a neighborhood. Which ultimately can bring in unwanted crime, and bring down property values. It doesnt even have to necessarily be crime, it could just be unfavorable behavior like weed hangouts, or people tossing trash on the streets in neighborhoods that use to be clean or relatively clean. It is why they tend to be unpopular depending on the community.

My only point is, if we want to get people more on board with new homes being built in certain communities, we have to be honest and open about why some are against it. And no, it's not just about nefarious reasons like greed some love to jump to.

emblem-man posted...

Do you think flyover states don't have large cities with diverse food choices and activities.

I don't have to think. I can look at all the data that shows that it does.

Yeah I have been to Nebraska it was weird seeing stuff that was trendy 10 years ago just taking off and people acting like it was new. The interior states are just weird.

NatsuSama posted...

Not against the idea of building homes, but it's easy to understand why people don't like new homes being built.

New homes sound nice in thought, but depending on pricing and location, there's no escaping they can bring in characters to a neighborhood. Which ultimately can bring in unwanted crime, and bring down property values. It doesnt even have to necessarily be crime, it could just be unfavorable behavior like weed hangouts, or people tossing trash on the streets in neighborhoods that use to be clean or relatively clean. It is why they tend to be unpopular depending on the community.

My only point is, if we want to get people more on board with new homes being built in certain communities, we have to be honest and open about why some are against it. And no, it's not just about nefarious reasons like greed some love to jump to.

You're just sugarcoating racism.

Also we shouldn't treat homes as an investment meant to make you more money, because that's the only reason people care about property values.

emblem-man posted...

Do you think flyover states don't have large cities with diverse food choices and activities. This is one of those "go touch grass" situations

I don't have to think. I can look at all the data that shows that it does.

He's shitposting.

NatsuSama posted...

Not against the idea of building homes, but it's easy to understand why people don't like new homes being built.

New homes sound nice in thought, but depending on pricing and location, there's no escaping they can bring in characters to a neighborhood. Which ultimately can bring in unwanted crime, and bring down property values. It doesnt even have to necessarily be crime, it could just be unfavorable behavior like weed hangouts, or people tossing trash on the streets in neighborhoods that use to be clean or relatively clean. It is why they tend to be unpopular depending on the community.

My only point is, if we want to get people more on board with new homes being built in certain communities, we have to be honest and open about why some are against it. And no, it's not just about greed like some jump to.

Oh I don't think it's greed. There's definitely a sunset of homeowners who know that limiting supply ends up increasing their current home value.

I think most people just have an emotional distaste for change and fear of things getting worse. There's a reason why HOAs are actually quite popular regardless of people saying they hate them.

I think this behavior is very common and many don't see the dissonance of images like this. They claim to support affordable homes and diverse neighborhoods, but will fight against apartment buildings being built.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b3cb285f.jpg

emblem-man posted...

I posted links that show exactly that

But who wants to live in Texas? Yeah it is nice they have cheaper housing but can the electric companies actually keep the lights on? And who wants to deal with the heat.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

The only country in the world that has figured out how to manage the cost of housing is Singapore, and the rest of the world has to learn from their example.

Have you been to Singapore? They don't know how to manage the cost of anything there. Everything is insane.

I mean, they have that one guy selling like $4 bowls of chicken rice out of his hawker stall that has a Michelin star, but that's kind of the exception...

emblem-man posted...

All data shows that an increase in housing supply leads to cheaper homes. Landlords are and to be greedy because people looking for homes have fewer options due to a lack of supply.

Opportunists don't stop being opportunists just because more competition arrives.

Incidentally, my own rent continues to go up annually by as high as they're legally allowed to raise it, despite the fact that many new properties have been showing up in my area, one of them literally in my own backyard.

Quicksilver posted...

But who wants to live in Texas? Yeah it is nice they have cheaper housing but can the electric companies actually keep the lights on? And who wants to deal with the heat.

Housing isn't even cheaper when you factor in the property taxes

Tmaster148 posted...

You're just sugarcoating racism.

Also we shouldn't treat homes as an investment meant to make you more money, because that's the only reason people care about property values.

FFS, shit like this isn't helping. This desperate need to polarize the conversation. I never mentioned or implied race. My post applied to anyone of any race or creed.

Not everything that doesn't 100% lockstep with you, is hidden racism or sexism or whatever buzzword hatred you want to link to bigotry.

What I posted isn't about race. I also stated there's far more reasons than just property value why certain communities are against it. By communities, I mean the residents, not their race. As here's a lil fun fact, there's plenty of non white communities against new homes being built as well to keep unwanted variables, out. Variables, that again for many, has nothing to do with race. Variables that don't even necessarily put emphasis on property values.

As I said in my last post, Im not against new homes being built. I simply said its easy to understand why some are against it. Not everyone against it is because of money or racism. There are plenty of other reasons people are against it. Until you have a genuine want to understand that, your polarization push that it just has to be racism.... isn't helping bring them on board. It's just pushing them to continue to be against it.

Quicksilver posted...

But who wants to live in Texas? Yeah it is nice they have cheaper housing but can the electric companies actually keep the lights on? And who wants to deal with the heat.

Texas is one of the most populous states we have...

Murphiroth posted...

He's shitposting.

Yeah, this seems to be true.

Philip027 posted...

Opportunists don't stop being opportunists just because more competition arrives

I agree, they find some other way to be opportunists, but they are ultimately forced to lower rent when more supply is built.

Philip027 posted...

Incidentally, my own rent continues to go up annually by as high as they're legally allowed to raise it, despite the fact that many new properties have been showing up in my area, one of them literally in my own backyard.

Sounds like your city needs to build even more housing.

emblem-man posted...

I agree, they find some other way to be opportunists, but they are ultimately forced to lower rent when more supply is built.

Clearly that isn't always true. There's also nothing stopping the new properties from being even more expensive than the existing options, too.

Sounds like your city needs to build even more housing.

No, I think that's just not the universal answer to this problem, as I stated above.

NatsuSama posted...

there's plenty of non white communities against new homes being built as well to keep unwanted variables, out. Variables, that again for many, has nothing to do with race.

This is true. Discourse that makes this about white people is incorrect. People, of all races, do not like change or the idea of having "bad neighbors".

I perfectly understand the reflexive distaste some of them have, I just think they're completely wrong and their distaste leads to increased costs of living for everyone and a stagnation of society.

I would work hard to remove the taboo of being a renter or living in an apartment building, as many think those things are what poor people do. And they then think poor people will be bad neighbors and will do crime.

Like, I think it's really just people being classist against the poor. If I was trying to convince someone of my position, I wouldn't actually say that though. I'd just emphasize the benefits of more growth, more affordable housing for people, more resources due to the growth, etc.

We don't need more housing and over-development, we just need to exterminate corporate ownership of existing homes.

A good portion of new houses being built around me never even hit the market because they're build-to-rent.

NatsuSama posted...

I simply said its easy to understand why some are against it. Not everyone against it is because of money or racism.

Whether people are actively and knowingly being racist or not... doesn't make their opposition something that stops being rooted in something systemic and institutional.

There are people, for example, who "just want a nice neighborhood" and to "keep the property values up." Just one example. They think that just means people who don't keep tidy lawns or people changing the oil of their car in the driveway. They might never know or understand that language is... basically code for redlining, and left over from that practice ("left over" being a bit of a misnomer, as you can see it still existing in trends today, but a little more sneaky).

They don't know it's racism. But people able to see the bigger picture and the context will understand that such opposition... doesn't coke from a good place.

Philip027 posted...

Clearly that isn't always true. There's also nothing stopping the new properties from being even more expensive than the existing options, too

There's the fact that people won't rent in this new property that's more expensive if they have cheaper options. So this new one has to lower prices.

And it's actually fine if the new place has newer amenities that makes it higher prices, because then you have high income renters choosing to rent at this new place, therefore opening up their past cheaper rental place for someone that's lower income.

Filtering between different levels of rentals property is a thing. I'd rather have high income people go rent the "luxury apartment" than have them take up space at a lower cost apartment that a lower income person would want.

emblem-man posted...

Like, I think it's really just people being classiest against the poor.

Classism in America is rooted in racism. They skip down the gold brick road of capitalism, hand in hand, singing.

DnDer posted...

Whether people are actively and knowingly being racist or not... doesn't make their opposition something that stops being rooted in something systemic and institutional.

NatsuSama posted...

there's plenty of non white communities against new homes being built as well to keep unwanted variables, out. Variables, that again for many, has nothing to do with race. Variables that don't even necessarily put emphasis on property values.

Not everyone against new homes is rooted in race.

This hard push to make it always that, is not helping especially given plenty of multicultural non white communities exist who dont want new homes. There are in fact other variables at play why many are against it. Variables that isn't always about race or property values.

The fact that some are unwilling to recognize that, isn't helping the housing problem either. Jumping to it just has to be rooted in racism and greed all the time, is not helping.

Mearcstapa posted...

We don't need more housing

Yes, we do.

DnDer posted...

Classism in America is rooted in racism. They skip down the gold brick road of capitalism, hand in hand, singing.

Sure, but it's not a form of racism that's specific to white people. I want to harp on this because there are plenty of non white NIMBYs and I don't see the benefit in calling them racist. It might be true, but it's an argument that leads nowhere. I really do want to convince people that they should be accepting of building homes, and I don't believe calling racist helps.

Like, we're on CE. We're not trying to be activists and convince the general populace. We're just talking ,so whatever. But it's definitely not a talking point that's helpful to bring up in an actual conversation with someone you're trying to convince.

NatsuSama posted...

there's plenty of non white communities against new homes

And there's plenty of black cops against "bad neighborhoods."

Stop for a minute and look at what they have in common. Participation in systemic racism.

(Yes. Black cops can be racist. Non-white neighborhoods can be racist, too. That's why we use the words systemic and institutional.)

DnDer posted...

And there's plenty of black cops against "bad neighborhoods."

Stop for a minute and look at what they have in common. Participation in systemic racism.

(Yes. Black cops can be racist. Non-white neighborhoods can be racist, too. That's why we use the words systemic and institutional.)

Your statement in itself that you are pushing to be a default is just plain false.

Racist cops of any race existing does not mean all of them are racist if they are against new homes in their communities. A black or Asian or Latino cop capable of beinf racist, doesnt mean all of them are. Nor does it mean they all have reasons rooted in race, or a reason that at all has to do with race.

Trying to push everything has to about racism isn't helping. Ignoring genuine concerns that have nothing to do with race. But you desperately want to make it about race, is not helping. This btw isnt meant to mean actual racist, and institutional racism isn't a problem. But this idea that EVERYONE against new homes are hidden racist includes black, brown, Asian, non white communities just ALL have to be racist because a racist can possibly exist.... isn't helping.

There are plenty of multicultural communities that exist who dont want new homes. There are plenty of non white communities that exist who dont want new homes. Hard news flash, not all of them are against a specific race, or against it for reasons rooted in institutional racism, or even greed. There are literally other reasons these multicultural and or non white communities are against new homes. Reasons that can affect a community/neighborhood regardless of whatever race or creed new residents come from.

All you are doing is belittling the meaning of the word racism when you toss around the word like it's going out of style to explain anything and everything for someone not 100% agreeing with you.

emblem-man posted...

There's a reason why HOAs are actually quite popular regardless of people saying they hate them.

Yeah, ots because it takes very little buy-in to create one, and once it's made, every house in an area is forced to join.

A handful of bored, power hungry retirees can form one in a week, leaving an entire complex saddled with it forever.