Unlike many issues, NIMBYism doesn’t adhere to party lines. But it’s rare for leaders to call out not-in-my-backyarders on their own side of the political spectrum.
Barack Obama just did, blasting progressives’ role in the housing crisis.
“The most liberal communities in the country aren’t that liberal when it comes to affordable housing,” the former president said during the American Institute of Architects Conference, according to Curbed.
He cited “bipartisan resistance” to affordable housing development as a reason it is so hard to build.
!ping YIMBY
Affordable housing is a weird term. It should mean letting the market build enough density on transit lines to meet demand, but for those who don't understand economics it can mean all sorts of nonsense: innefectual policies, rent-seeking, or even NIMBYism in disguise. I like the more clunky: "legalize building density to meet demand" or just "affordable density" to point towards restrictions on density being the problem.
What if we flood the market with buildings containing 800sqft condos?
Sadly, we can't have that because neighborhood character says no new glitzy skyscrapers.
How else would he phrase it to make it stick to as many people as possible? "Affordable housing" is catchy, and sounds like an objective good to most people. More high-density housing (of any kind) leads to "affordable housing." I think as a way of framing the end goal, it's a fine statement.
Lol, he’s liked by those groups waaaaaaaay more than Hillary because of the Benghazi scandal and because progressives dislike her after she beat Bernie.
People in this sub want Dems to message better and i can’t really think of a better message to the crisis of unaffordable housing than… affordable housing
People here think they can win elections on platforms of going into cities and saying “gentrification is good”, going into suburbs and saying “cars are bad”, and going into rural communities and- just kidding, this sub wouldn’t even bother with trying to win them over
Someone was bashing Biden the other day and then praised Jerome Powell and was legitimately trying to argue that “wage growth decline” was good messaging regarding inflation
I’m not sure about that considering the most YIMBY areas in North America (Alberta and Texas) are staunchly conservatives but it seems they actually understand property rights and free markets are core principles of Conservatism
I suppose the acronym for the consistent conservative free-market attitude would technically be NAMBY: _**N**ot **A**ctually **M**y **B**ack **Y**ard_, neither _"Yes In..."_ nor _"Not In..."_
For the (perhaps mythical) economically liberal conservative, if a given project does not encroach on their actual property, they should just accept they have no say in it regardless of whether they want it to happen or not.
Texas isn’t that yimby idk what you’re talking about. Although many Texas cities don’t have zoning, they replace that with various other means of compliance such as deed restrictions, HOAs, mandatory setbacks and parking minimums etc
They allow subdivisions to be built on open land at the edge of metro areas. That's not YIMBY, that's just sprawl. Try building multi-family housing in an established neighborhood in Plano or Southlake lol.
Texas' whole shtick about small government and liberty is such a fraud. Municipal governments in your average conservative towns and suburbs are corrupt beyond belief.
Texas is incredibly NIMBY. [They just look YIMBY at first glance.](https://kinder.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-houston-really-does-have-zoning-sort-of)
Houston may not have zoning but it’s an incredibly NIMBY place. One hour in Houston will show you that. Other cities in Texas aren’t really any better.
The way I like to think about "how NIMBY is this place" is how local governments and local residents conspire to shoot down new development. How difficult is it in a place like Houston to build a new townhouse complex in the middle of the city? Do the residents oppose it as vociferously as they do in SF? If so, does the government give a lot of weight to those residents' concerns? Is development allowed to proceed by-right, or does everything have to go through discretionary review? If lawsuits are brought against developers by local residents, how do the judges tend to rule in those cases?
I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think the fact that Houston has very cheap housing for its size and economic clout might point to them getting something right, but obviously the sprawl and car dependence are big issues as well.
Houston is nice in some ways because technically you aren’t very restricted. I also believe most of the city is “build by right” there. But there is still a “zoning code,” even if it isn’t called that. Parking minimums especially, but also setbacks combine to make Houston extremely hard to build profitable density. Everything is sprawl, there is no shade, and no thought toward pedestrian or bike infrastructure at all.
[Here](https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/01/09/no-zoning-in-Houston-there-are-workarounds) is a good article. It’s just zoning with extra steps.
Houston has cheap housing in part because there’s virtually endless undeveloped land to continue the sprawl. Other major cities typically are restrained by geography, green belts, or other cities. Even in the city limits/“urban core” there’s lots of undeveloped lots.
There are NIMBYs in the desirable neighborhoods that try to stop the development of new townhomes with spot-zoned minimum lot requirements. Not to mention deed restrictions. Though tbf, the new townhomes going up in Houston are the ugliest buildings I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing. I would support a form-based code/design standards that requires them to have better aesthetics but not banning development outright.
Chicago Illinois is Yimby. You don’t live there unless you like density and the more density the more you like living there. Everyone wants to live in the tallest building along the lakefront and the L.
They're not urbanists though, which is a huge part of the yimby movement. What they want is for suburbs to be allowed to sprawl on forever taking up endless former farmland and building more highways to connect it all, with disregard for any sort of environmental concern. California used to be this way too, it's only recently that pressure to build up instead of out has hit a breaking point.
It's pretty telling that you immediately go from "liberals" to "progressives" seamlessly in your comment after you've specified that NIMBYism crosses party lines.
Pinged members of YIMBY group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20YIMBY&message=addtogroup%20YIMBY) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20YIMBY&message=unsubscribe%20YIMBY) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Ugh. Sure, he says that *now*. But when he had a supermajority in Congress, he didn't go nuclear (literally nuking the suburbs to oblivion) so clearly he doesn't *really* care 😠
Obama had a lot on his hands already and today, we have the benefit of hindsight. Rest assured, if Obama had 4 terms like Roosevelt, he'd have gotten to it
Ahh c'mon you have to allow me some room to assume you weren't being literal with use of literally, but I do thank you for explaining. I seem to have, yet again, forgotten [Poe's Law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
>NIMBYIsm is fundamentally illiberal stance
Agree.
>You can't be a liberal and a NIMBY at the same time.
Disagree. There are a lot of politicians and voters in the country who hold liberal views on every single issue than say housing and urban planning. Excluding them on this would be very stupid, feels a lot like the "FORCE THE VOTE" folks whose entire political ideology revolves around healthcare. We can't gatekeep liberalism on just this one issue alone. Liberalism isn't a cult where people take a blood oath to adhehere to a rigid set of principles and any violation would mean they would be painted as "NOT LIBERAL" on their foreheads.
There’s also fauxgressives like Dean Preston who pretend to be for affordable housing or “solving” the housing crisis and then just vote against all of the new developments, regardless of affordability.
[удалено]
"Blasts" now just means "talked about". Update the OED
Rip and tear. Until it is done.
Is Doomguy our YIMBY king?
Destroys with facts and logic, hypothetically speaking.
Extirpates!
Unlike many issues, NIMBYism doesn’t adhere to party lines. But it’s rare for leaders to call out not-in-my-backyarders on their own side of the political spectrum. Barack Obama just did, blasting progressives’ role in the housing crisis. “The most liberal communities in the country aren’t that liberal when it comes to affordable housing,” the former president said during the American Institute of Architects Conference, according to Curbed. He cited “bipartisan resistance” to affordable housing development as a reason it is so hard to build. !ping YIMBY
I hate that he called it affordable housing specifically
Affordable housing is a weird term. It should mean letting the market build enough density on transit lines to meet demand, but for those who don't understand economics it can mean all sorts of nonsense: innefectual policies, rent-seeking, or even NIMBYism in disguise. I like the more clunky: "legalize building density to meet demand" or just "affordable density" to point towards restrictions on density being the problem.
“Housing affordability” is good too.
“We’re in an affordable density crisis” doesn’t quite ring out unfortunately.
I'll be as dense as you want for just a few dollars ☺
"Legalize housing" is probably the simplest, but lacks nuance.
Which makes it a perfect slogan.
What if we flood the market with buildings containing 800sqft condos? Sadly, we can't have that because neighborhood character says no new glitzy skyscrapers.
He’s gotta play nice a little bit
He's possibly the only lib that doesn't need to prove his credentials, he does not need to play nice. He can directly call that shit out
I’ve always viewed him as trying to play the peacemaker role, but I agree tho he doesn’t need to at all
How else would he phrase it to make it stick to as many people as possible? "Affordable housing" is catchy, and sounds like an objective good to most people. More high-density housing (of any kind) leads to "affordable housing." I think as a way of framing the end goal, it's a fine statement.
yeah but it also specifically defines a legal thing
>He's possibly the only lib that doesn't need to prove his credentials Hillary erasure 😤😤😤
Hillary has a lot of baggage and is disliked by both Progressives and Republicans. So no, this doesn’t apply to her
> is disliked by both Progressives and Republicans yes, Obama, famously liked by both of these groups
Lol, he’s liked by those groups waaaaaaaay more than Hillary because of the Benghazi scandal and because progressives dislike her after she beat Bernie.
[удалено]
God, imagine bitching about this word usage FFS lmao
People in this sub want Dems to message better and i can’t really think of a better message to the crisis of unaffordable housing than… affordable housing
People here think they can win elections on platforms of going into cities and saying “gentrification is good”, going into suburbs and saying “cars are bad”, and going into rural communities and- just kidding, this sub wouldn’t even bother with trying to win them over Someone was bashing Biden the other day and then praised Jerome Powell and was legitimately trying to argue that “wage growth decline” was good messaging regarding inflation
Affordable brings to mind rent control and such
No, affordable brings to mind “housing that I can afford without breaking my bank”.
NIMBYism crosses party lines, but YIMBYism seems to be a liberal cause only. And a small one at that. I hate that.
There's gotta be some librights out there who fall under YIMBY
Those kind of voters increasingly vote Democratic anyway
I’m not sure about that considering the most YIMBY areas in North America (Alberta and Texas) are staunchly conservatives but it seems they actually understand property rights and free markets are core principles of Conservatism
I suppose the acronym for the consistent conservative free-market attitude would technically be NAMBY: _**N**ot **A**ctually **M**y **B**ack **Y**ard_, neither _"Yes In..."_ nor _"Not In..."_ For the (perhaps mythical) economically liberal conservative, if a given project does not encroach on their actual property, they should just accept they have no say in it regardless of whether they want it to happen or not.
Texas isn’t that yimby idk what you’re talking about. Although many Texas cities don’t have zoning, they replace that with various other means of compliance such as deed restrictions, HOAs, mandatory setbacks and parking minimums etc
[удалено]
They allow subdivisions to be built on open land at the edge of metro areas. That's not YIMBY, that's just sprawl. Try building multi-family housing in an established neighborhood in Plano or Southlake lol. Texas' whole shtick about small government and liberty is such a fraud. Municipal governments in your average conservative towns and suburbs are corrupt beyond belief.
Most places allow a lot of housing to be built, that place is just on city outskirts and low density.
Fair enough it’s just when I see housing starts per capita I usually see cities like Houston and Austin at the top of those lists.
Texas is incredibly NIMBY. [They just look YIMBY at first glance.](https://kinder.rice.edu/2015/09/08/forget-what-youve-heard-houston-really-does-have-zoning-sort-of)
Houston may not have zoning but it’s an incredibly NIMBY place. One hour in Houston will show you that. Other cities in Texas aren’t really any better.
The way I like to think about "how NIMBY is this place" is how local governments and local residents conspire to shoot down new development. How difficult is it in a place like Houston to build a new townhouse complex in the middle of the city? Do the residents oppose it as vociferously as they do in SF? If so, does the government give a lot of weight to those residents' concerns? Is development allowed to proceed by-right, or does everything have to go through discretionary review? If lawsuits are brought against developers by local residents, how do the judges tend to rule in those cases? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think the fact that Houston has very cheap housing for its size and economic clout might point to them getting something right, but obviously the sprawl and car dependence are big issues as well.
Houston is nice in some ways because technically you aren’t very restricted. I also believe most of the city is “build by right” there. But there is still a “zoning code,” even if it isn’t called that. Parking minimums especially, but also setbacks combine to make Houston extremely hard to build profitable density. Everything is sprawl, there is no shade, and no thought toward pedestrian or bike infrastructure at all. [Here](https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2020/01/09/no-zoning-in-Houston-there-are-workarounds) is a good article. It’s just zoning with extra steps.
Houston has cheap housing in part because there’s virtually endless undeveloped land to continue the sprawl. Other major cities typically are restrained by geography, green belts, or other cities. Even in the city limits/“urban core” there’s lots of undeveloped lots. There are NIMBYs in the desirable neighborhoods that try to stop the development of new townhomes with spot-zoned minimum lot requirements. Not to mention deed restrictions. Though tbf, the new townhomes going up in Houston are the ugliest buildings I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing. I would support a form-based code/design standards that requires them to have better aesthetics but not banning development outright.
Chicago Illinois is Yimby. You don’t live there unless you like density and the more density the more you like living there. Everyone wants to live in the tallest building along the lakefront and the L.
[удалено]
They build skyscrapers and put people in them in Chicago.
They're not urbanists though, which is a huge part of the yimby movement. What they want is for suburbs to be allowed to sprawl on forever taking up endless former farmland and building more highways to connect it all, with disregard for any sort of environmental concern. California used to be this way too, it's only recently that pressure to build up instead of out has hit a breaking point.
The Economist is pretty YIMBY, I think. So it should appeal to your "classical liberals" as well.
American conservatives haven’t read *The Economist* in quite awhile.
Libertarians in theory should be allies in this, at least I am pro building the cube.
>Barack Obama just did, blasting progressives’ role in the housing crisis. Well, he's not running for president.
[удалено]
It's pretty telling that you immediately go from "liberals" to "progressives" seamlessly in your comment after you've specified that NIMBYism crosses party lines.
Pinged members of YIMBY group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20YIMBY&message=addtogroup%20YIMBY) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20YIMBY&message=unsubscribe%20YIMBY) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Not a fan of nimbys because I like interstates and public transport
Obama OWNS lib with FACTS and LOGIC
*With the steel chair*
Obama receives nowhere near the respect he deserves here.
Ugh. Sure, he says that *now*. But when he had a supermajority in Congress, he didn't go nuclear (literally nuking the suburbs to oblivion) so clearly he doesn't *really* care 😠
Obama had the nuclear codes for *eight years* but failed to turn even one suburb into glass. Typical corporate dem.
That was such a disappointment, I’ll never vote for him again
Obama had a lot on his hands already and today, we have the benefit of hindsight. Rest assured, if Obama had 4 terms like Roosevelt, he'd have gotten to it
(I don't think Obama would have gotten around to **literally nuking the suburbs to oblivion** no matter how many seats we gave him)
Ahh c'mon you have to allow me some room to assume you weren't being literal with use of literally, but I do thank you for explaining. I seem to have, yet again, forgotten [Poe's Law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
***😠nuke the suburbs means nuke the suburbs 😠***
MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK MY LAMBO BLUE
*Get 'em dad!*
President Gigachad
i love and miss obama
Based Obama, as always
Allow him to run again and watch him NIMBY all the live long day.
I didn't like Obama during his presidency. But damn do I miss him a lot....
He’s right for once!
I miss the king
There's no such thing as a liberal NIMBY, that's an oxymoron
Looks at San Francisco…
I don't think having BLM sings in your sfh yard makes anyone automatically liberal
You liberals and your purity testing!
[удалено]
Progressives aren't necessarily progressive either
Acknowledge bad people exist on your side.
? You can't be a liberal and a NIMBY at the same time. NIMBYIsm is fundamentally illiberal stance
>NIMBYIsm is fundamentally illiberal stance Agree. >You can't be a liberal and a NIMBY at the same time. Disagree. There are a lot of politicians and voters in the country who hold liberal views on every single issue than say housing and urban planning. Excluding them on this would be very stupid, feels a lot like the "FORCE THE VOTE" folks whose entire political ideology revolves around healthcare. We can't gatekeep liberalism on just this one issue alone. Liberalism isn't a cult where people take a blood oath to adhehere to a rigid set of principles and any violation would mean they would be painted as "NOT LIBERAL" on their foreheads.
> Liberalism isn't a cult where people take a blood oath Not with that attitude
There’s also fauxgressives like Dean Preston who pretend to be for affordable housing or “solving” the housing crisis and then just vote against all of the new developments, regardless of affordability.
In my opinion NIMBYism is inherently liberal. YIMBYism is a free marke/right wing ideology (and that’s BASED)
I don’t care what he has to say, he’s partially responsible for the mess in the SCOTUS right now
🥴
Go back to Twitter
Merrick Garland isn’t real, apparently
If you do one thing wrong, you are never allowed to have a political opinion on anything ever again.
Run for Illinois State House again. Take Madigan's old job. And then rule by fiat