here is where I would put my bike IF I HAD GODAMN A BIKE PATH houston, tx autism (sorry) Georgist - YIMBY
41 followers 164 following 1,187 posts
view profile on Bluesky
My roman empire is that the biggest barrier to housing today is the public understanding of what a speculator is and the role they play in land use and real estate. the general public rarely understands what a speculator is, much less understands how our laws around land use are made for them.
zoning isn't really to keep high impact away from residences and schools. You can do that with common sense permitting the actual point of zoning is to allow real estate speculators to predict what will be built and where. Zoning is and always has been antagonistic to affordability
The actual point behind zoning is to give real estate speculators the ability to predict what will be built where, which is deeply antagonistic to affordability.
Zoning is a mischevious concept. In theory the idea of "No landfills near residences" makes sense but every city would be better off eliminating their zoning code and just useing common sense when permitting high impact uses.
turns out you can't vote where you can't afford to live.
Leander has some of the worst zoning in the Austin metro area.
It is one of the most pro-LGBT things you could do is to acknowledge that trans people are capable of being awful and that it has nothing to do with them being trans, and everything to do with the fact that this person choose to be awful on their own accord.
people don't seem to understand that developers and landlords are actually two different parties that have conflicting interests. your landlord does not want a bunch of new housing to be built
- They lose the owners money on property taxes. vacancy rates in NYC (for example) are at a record low 4%. This includes units being renovated, units that are rented but haven't been moved in yet, and units undergoing legal processes like title issues.
Whats to stop hedge funds and investment banks from snapping up all these new properties specifically to keep prices high? - new supply. People who hold real estate want strict land use laws that prevent more supply from entering the market so the assets they hold go up in value due to scarcity.
what prevents these new buildings from being set at unaffordable prices? - new construction is usually more expensive, but it makes older buildings cheaper - what prevents them from being used as airbnbs? as of recently, hotels providing a better service
Who builds these new buildings? - construction workers who owns them? - depends if it's a rental or a condo who sets the prices? - supply/demand Is it the same people keeping prices high right now? - No. Real estate speculators want high real estate prices. Speculators don't build housing
you think single family zoning is a good regulation?
I think "we have eliminated single family zoning, setback mandates, and parking mandates citywide" is sexier
tell me you don't know the difference between local land use policy and federal policy without telling me.
your the one that's against the deregulation of exclusionary zoning, not me.
you mean...like land use regulations that prevent other people from building more housing in order to keep supply low? Houston has no zoning so yeah that's pretty anti rent-seeking
1. even nonprofit social housing has to collect rent to pay expenses. You could also buy a condo 2. Are you aware texas is the 2nd most populated state in the union? and Houston is the 4th most populated city in the US?
you mean the 4th largest metro in the US that also has an avarage rent of $1100? Gee it's almost like my city knows a thing or two about keeping rent low. But hey, keep waiting for your grand socialist revolution.
Ok but if you build more homes, that means more homes to seize when your grand socialist revolution happens
Abundance in 1890: Protestor, holding up a sign that says "deregulate Jim Crow": Leftist: stupid liberals, always trying to deregulate without understanding why those regulations exist.
I can keep providing you factual information until the end of time I can show you vacancy rates in major cities, I can show you the actual availible housing stock in major cities (which is abysmally low). You'll deny it It keeps looking like your solution is to ship homeless out to poor rural areas
Can't win with facts so you gotta result to ad hominems. Nice. I live in the 4th largest city in the US. One that also has the lowest rent in the country One that also has no city zoning laws It's almost if the whole "deregulating exclusionary zoning" concept has a point? More ad hominems plz
Yes the math is clear - Major metros in the US experiencing a housing crisis have record low vacancy rates, which include units that are unavailable for a wide variety of legitimate reasons. And if I was homeless, I would want a cheap pod hotel to sleep in like in Japan - Which is illegal in the US
Land use deregulation is a much more viable sell then public housing. Tokyo is a good example. Dense multifamily housing can be built anywhere and Tokyo has an avarage rent that is close to 1/4 of NYC at twice the size/population
Vacancies include - units being renovated - units that have buyers/tenants that haven't moved in - units that are going through legal processes like inspections or title issues - units that are undergoing repairs or mold remediation. Anecdotes aren't really viable here
Public housing isn't going to happen. Not against it, but considering the current US political climate, public housing is not a viable solution within the next decade or two. Homeless people aren't the only people that need homes. People living with parents or roommates add to demand too.
again, shipping the unhoused out to poor rural areas is not the solution. Cities have the lowest carbon footprint, provide the most services, educational opportunities, and jobs. If you want people to have the best life possible, major cities need to be accessible.
And to emphasize, vacant units includes units that are not habitable, units being renovated, units stuck in legal limbo because of title issues, ect. In productive major metros, the supply of actual availible and livable housing is incredibly lowm
Shipping the unhoused out to rural Missouri or west Texas is not a viable strategy. In productive major cities and metrod, like NYC, SF, LA, New England, ect. There is a MAJOR housing shortage. NYC has a record low vacancy rate of 4% (which includes condemnes units and units being renovated)
rent cap won't address our housing shortage though. Still millions of units short in every productive major city
are we just going to ship all of the homeless to Pecos, Texas? in productive major cities with jobs and opportunities, we do not have enough homes.
SCOTUS to everyone.
yeah I think there's a difference between like tobacco and cigarettes. tobacco smells pretty good especially if it's a good quality tobacco cigarettes are icky
I actually think both weed and cigarettes smell pretty good if it's a good strain. hyper processed tobacco is pretty icky but otherwise both smell good. People seem to forget that both are aromatic herbs that have been selectively bred to be that way.
because online leftists would rather fornicate themselves online over the idea of ushering ✨️the grand socialist revolution✨️ then do the boring and unpopular work of just of just...running for your local city council as a socialist and voting for other candidates who decide to run.
I think every person should be given a small lot of land in their city and be tasked with trying to build something. The only condition is that it is not a single family home. I think they will very quickly understand why we have a housing shortage.
There was a post on here from a left NIMBY about how YIMBY ignores class dynamics I commented "I'm blue collar and I can't buy land in my city and put a mobile home on it because it's illegal" I was told "no one cares about my personal anecdotes"
is this bluesky premium
It will. And yes, that is a good thing, considering we're getting out of an almost 40 year era of house size bloat.
No, I just don't have a wierd pathological hatred for smaller houses
I'm not looking for an investment? I'm looking for a place to live
More supply within each section of the market (smaller sqft detached housing) does decrease relative prices within that section of the market. Again basic economics is true regardless of whether you believe in it
The thing about basic economics is that it's true regardless of whether you believe in it. Go to zillow and look for houses below 800 sqft. Not many options is there? Low supply.
The only way to get those tiny houses down to a tiny price is to build more of them. Cmon man, don't you know what supply and demand is?
obviously they just...write off the vacant units.
I know these are a bit small but they work really well and don't need specialized washer/dryer hookups. If you have the space to put them it might be worth it.
ah I see you've also met the "No building housing until the socialist revolution" type.
I would love to buy one of these
This mindset is so crazy. Do you look every product on the market this way? What's wrong with someone wanting a smaller house? Don't you think there should be a wide variety of different sizes for housing on the market so everyone can choose the size that's right for them?
And it blows my mind because like, even if your the "only social housing and nonmarket housing should be built" type leftist How are you going to build that social housing when 70% of your city is single family zoned so you pay out the ass for land and then 500k in fees before you break ground?
I'm convinced the biggest problem in the housing crisis is education/culture The thing that made me a YIMBY was when I decided i wanted to build a tiny house on wheels and started looking for land to live on - Which lead to me finding out how insanely difficult that is.
I think fundamentally the difference between left-wing YIMBYs and NIMBYs is YIMBYs would be okay with developers making money, and some getting very rich, If it means solving the housing crisis. NIMBYs would be okay with worsening the housing crisis, if it means developers can't make money.
If the rent control crowd was also very serious about eliminating subjective barriers to building new housing (such as exclusionary zoning) ot would be easier to support, but I've never seen someone advocate for both rent control and eliminating Floor Area Ratio / Single Family Zoning concurrently
My stance on rent control: It's not inherently bad, it's just not helpful in the medium and long term and the people that usually are big on rent control are also not big on any of the actual solutions to the housing crisis. It usually ends up kicking the can down the road
I'm confused, you said they shouldn't be minimized? So you want the barriers...but also want to not have the barriers?
Those barriers shouldn't be minimized? you mean zoning and site approval or political feasibility and capacity? or all of them?
Left YIMBYs are OK with developers making money and some getting rich, if it means the housing crisis be solved. Left NIMBYs are OK with punishing working class people by blocking housing, if it means developers don't get to make money.
my point isn't that it will be hard, the point is that no matter who you want to build the housing, you have to eliminate exclusionary zoning laws. In other words the goal of that collective shouldn't be to build housing - The goal should be the complete elimination of exclusionary land use laws.
There's an inconsistency between the emergency status of the housing crisis in the US and the way it is treated. People want housing to be a high brow art, when in reality we need to put as many units down on the ground as quickly as possible regardless of how they look like.
The barriers a collective would face is the same barrier the private market and non-market faces. The city won't let you, and if they do, they won't let it be cheap. Permit fees, variance fees, setback mandates, floor area ratio...The city does not allow any cheap housing to be built by anyone.
Which is what leftists keep missing: You HAVE to get rid of exclusionary zoning. We have an entire network of land use laws that exist to enforce segregation-lite and those exclusionary laws need to be eliminated to allow mixed income and mixed density communities. Market or nonmarket housing.
That's kind of why public housing has failed in the past When public housing is - built away from the rich people via income segregation - only has the lowest income people living there. You concentrate poverty and get buildings that produce high crime rates and incentivize disinvestment
Left NIMBYs: YIMBYs ignore the class struggle in housing blue collar guy: hey I just bought land, I can't live on it unless i build a 2000sqft single family home, also I need to pay 50 grand in development fees on top of it Left NIMBYs: ??? I dont care? This isn't about your personal anecdotes.
Have you gotten your beastiality fetish friend to calm down?
more people throwing a tantrum? fun
buddy you've spent this entire thread lashing out, look at how many personal attacks you've thrown. That's what children throwing a tantrum do
I thought you were done with your tantrum? you ready to have an adult discussion on zoning deregulation?
I hope you don't make wierd beastiality comments in public places lmfao
I love how you assume follower count means anything at all, your not exactly Mr popular either
I was calling OP out for resorting to personal attacks, which is completely fair for me to do because it was absolutely childish and an asshole move
for reference, yes it is OK to question left NIMBYs on their ideas on public posts that they make on public profiles. Bluesky does allow you to turn profiles private, maybe you should consider that option?
Again, you posted publicly on a public forum about a public issue and started throwing a tantrum when someone commented something you didn't agree with. I'm not the one making wierd beastiality comments dude, I just questioned views on land use deregulation and both of you flew into a rage.
1. You posted publically on a Public forum about a highly public issue. I am free to comment 2. I was not rude in the slightest. I simply posted an example of 20 land use regulations and asked which ones you supported. You both proceeded to throw a tantrum
As usual, cannot admit that your ideas might be flawed and maybe exclusionary zoning is actually a huge problem Gotta resort to insults like a child
Blackstone themselves literally said in their SEC filings (which they will go to jail if they lie in) that the reason they are buying homes is because of a shortage caused by local land use regulations. Clear as day.
This is how you get "luxury condos". Everything cheap is illegal, so developers have to build the most expensive things possible to be profitable
"I do not want the industry to make cheaper housing products for people because they might make a profit off of it." This is the anti-abundance crowd in a nutshell
So which of the 20 land use regulations that I named do you support?
So you support zoning that excludes working people, you deliberately came out in support of exclusionary zoning.
I'm not projecting anything. You deliberately came out in support of exclusionary zoning. If you don't want people assuming you support ideas that you don't maybe you should take ideas based on what they are rather then your emotional reaction to the people presenting them?
You support exclusionary zoning. My comment was pointing out the insane depth of exclusionary zoning in the US, you came out in support of exclusionary zoning. You can go back and look at the comment threads.
your a child lmao
My entire comment was about exclusionary zoning, you posted against exclusionary zoning because you support it. Why do you support exclusionary zoning but claim to care about the housing crisis?
Being adult means that you understand anything you post in public can be scrutinized and interacted with in any way. Choosing to act like a child when faced with very genuine points is immature. Again, why do you support exclusionary zoning?
You just said you supported exclusionary zoning in the previous comment
Nobody in real life agrees with you dude
I just told you. I named 20 land use regulations that I believe need to be deregulated. I'm asking you to act like an adult and tell me which of those 20 you believe need to stay.
You support single family zoning though, even with section 8 there's not gonna be enough housing if 70% of the city is single family homes.
YIMBYS have been deregulating land in cities all across the US. What policy changes has the anti-abundance crowd been implementing? None.
You believe in everyone being unhoused it seems
Your posting in a public place, I can comment anything I choose. Everyone who reads this can see who's being clear and direct and who's being a snarky child. The snarky child is you. I'm asking the people who support the continuation of the housing crisis to justify their stance
Left NIMBYs are children, I've never seen one that actually has anything to say when faced with the sheer depth and breath of exclusionary zoning in the US. Do you just not give a shit about people getting to be housed? Because I do, a lot.
In giving you the facts. Those 20 exclusionary land use regulations are real and are part of every city. Whether you choose to engage with the facts or choose to act like a child is your choice. Do you believe that these 20 land use regulations are justified? You can choose be an adult.
no seriously, I just named 20 land use regulations in every city that I believe need to be deregulated. are your ideas so fragile that you can't address them when their put in front of you? You have to act like a child before admitting that maybe your viewpoints are flawed?
which of those 20 regulations do you support? you insist land use deregulation is bad. Which of those do you think are so harmful?
For left NIMBYs, its either they support all the exclusionary zoning regulations listed above and think public housing is a magic bullet, or they actually support zoning deregulation but are just scared of the word deregulation because they think all regulations are good.
- RV bans (on their own land, not public streets) - rooming house bans - aesthetic mandates - units-per-acre caps - conditional use permits for normal housing types - adu restrictions - lot width/frontage minimums - demolition/“conservation” overlays
"it's just more deregulation" the regulations: - single family zoning - single use zoning - lot size minimums - parking mandates - height limits - sqft minimums - floor area ratio - setback mandates - lot coverage maximums - occupancy limits - high permit/development fees - manufactured home bans
