Wouldn't YIYBY be a more suitable acronym? Yes In Your Back Yard.

[deleted]

[removed]

Nerds

its interesting that yimbys are disproportionately young yet they choose a brewery

Cool!

I was just thinking I was too old to go hang out at a brewery

Y'all know the organizer of this is a real estate agent right? She's trying to make money off this not improve your life.

You know we need more housing, right?

Sure we do, but not vertically stacked housing in the same "safe areas." We need to take care of the whole city which has ample space for housing and businesses.

I wouldn't assume a white woman from Bellevue would understand that though

You think I'm a white woman from Bellevue?

The organizer is and you have Bellevue as a tag

Still didn't defend your point

I would respond to your point if I could understand what your point is. I'm not proposing highrises in safe areas.

My opinion (and I am not the organizer of this event) is that Richmond needs more "missing middle" housing and that it would be great if we could prioritize redevelopment of empty lots and surface parking lots.

Lol. You're confirming all of our suspicions. You're trying to cram more stuff in to crowded places when there are parts of the city that have been in need of revitalization for over 50 years. Take a trip south on Richmond Highway. Pretty affordable housing that way, but I know for certain you and Sarah Foote would never dare to live there.

People think it's a simple supply and demand curve. But it's not.

that's racist. what does her skin color have to do with it.

Tell us how you really feel

Thanks Karen

who cares what their job is? The question is their mission valid.

We need housing. People try to block it. We need Yimbys to solve the problem

Lol and how have these yimbys made your rents lower? We have had more vertical housing in the last 5 years then ever and rents have skyrocketed. Because we crowd 1/2 of the city while ignoring even maintenance of the other half.

Real estate agents want to make sales not what is best for society or even their customers at times.

math. Rents are lower than they would otherwise be. The data has been posted here and can be googled

Economics... Demand curves are not linear and the data also shows that

It’s also kind of incorrect since urban NIMBYs tend to be upper class whites

economics yes. Your interpretation is on the face of it contrary to economics.

You think a supply shortage lowers prices?

You think adding supply raises prices?

They are going to give you a Nobel prize or laugh at you. Hint - not the nobel

Lol supply and demand are not linear curves. This is economics 101. Increasing supply in expensive areas will not lower prices. The demand is more inelastic here and RVA exhibits that to a T.

Please understand economics beyond the most simplistic supply and demand curve graph you once saw

Who?

Yes, we need more housing. But I agree with u/treestreestreesrva point that the focus seems to be more infill housing in the already densest - and oftentimes most expensive - urban neighborhoods. And my completely practical concern with that is you cannot make the numbers work because the dirt is too expensive. And then you get very limited solutions - like infill - that don't scale and/or yield expensive properties. So why not focus on places where the dirt continues to be sufficiently affordable? Such as Zip Code 23224, as you mentioned.

You’re right the curves are not linear. That’s also why with vacancy rates at historical lows even minor increases in demand (due to natural population growth or transplants) causes rents to spike faster than population growth rates. Coming back down from that spike would require a lot more housing than a few projects here or there but widespread regional construction which even under some of the rosiest forecasts by people (like myself mind you) isn’t going to happen. This is in part because even in a more permissive regulatory environment there’s going to be a mismatch between buyers and sellers due in part to rising interest rates on the cost of moving to a new home. To say nothing of sellers choosing to sell to a developer rather than an individual. But that’s part of why we need more widespread legalization of housing forms in the roughly 70% (will have to calculate this again) of this city is explicitly zoned for single family homes. This permissibility also makes it easier to build more of the much needed affordable housing too, for what it’s worth.

All housing is good and we need more of it at every price level. That’s it. (I’ll get off my soapbox now)

Except the numbers show that rents haven't spiked as much near Richmond Highway and other lower income places. They're up, but not like $1600/month for a single loft. You can still rent a whole house for less than that in many areas. We also haven't seen the trailer parks resurface or expand like they did in the 70s.

Even if it doesn’t lower the costs in less expensive areas having more options in “more desirable locations” will prevent the wealthy from displacing lower income people in the less wealthy ones. That seems like a win in and of itself.

I agree with you that we should have far more development in the underdeveloped areas as well however.

The increases in those neighborhoods is more meaningful to those who live there because they’re already low income and disproportionately more rent burdened. And because most of the area around there is zoned for single family homes(when not industrial) developing anything other than that (even just low rise apartments or other lower cost housing) is more expensive for the private sector because they would have to go through a long and expensive variance process, getting neighborhood feedback, etc.

part of the reason there hasn’t been expansion of trailer parks is because of our zoning as well.

Finally as someone else said, expanding supply of “market rate” housing in wealthier areas keeps rents from rising elsewhere even in low income communities https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/307/

Cool and I'll counter with Richmond's low income housing projects of the past that have failed and all have begun to be replaced with houses not apartments because it has better outcomes.

Yes, but that has clearly not happened repeatedly in Richmond because of the lack of equity between areas (for many reasons.) The saying rising tides raise all ships isn't true here.

If we really want to talk about displacing low income individuals with housing we should be looking at VCU...

Im confused as to what it is that you want? In general yimbys want strict zoning laws “softened” so that multifamily homes and other alternatives to single family homes can be built in a particular area.

People advocating for that in one area doesn’t preclude it from happening elsewhere. While I agree that the developers need to start paying attention to other parts of the city it’s not like this group is actively courting them and paying them off to only develop north of the river. If anything I would think this group would be happy to see that kind of investment in poorer areas as well.

No developers, no multi-family. Proper management of increased assessments and other taxes so that it isn't continually funneled toward a few areas. We should be pushing home ownership over more rental properties. Owning makes you care more about your house and your community.

but our dense neighborhoods just aren't dense. They are suburban by most cities lights. I like cities, so I want the density to increase. We can increase Richmond's density by 7x before we get to London, which isn't all that dense a city in most neighborhoods.

Charles, we are NEVER going to be London or Paris. It just ain't happening. Pro-YIMBY people need to stop talking about that. It's foolish.

The biggest issue is affordable housing in a sufficient amount to address the needs NOW. Infill doesn't cut it for that. Too limited, too expensive, and we need affordable housing for sale, not just rent.

And all of the not-for-profits - looking at you BHC - need to STOP trying to be developers. They aren't good at it. Raise money to fund the development and give it to private developers who know what to do and can get it done at scale on a timeline. Yes, you will have to give the Hated Dreaded Developers financial incentives to do projects, so they make money. But everyone needs to get over that objection if they truly want more affordable housing sooner rather than LOTS later.

It's not that we are going to become them. It's that that density is really not something to be scared of. People think Manhattan, and that's not what happens with triplexes

Here's my issue: People are using additional density as a stand-in for affordable housing and IT'S NOT. You cannot solve the affordable housing issues AT SCALE with infill density. It's too slow a process. And the land is way too expensive where infill density will initially go. If the City REALLY wanted to do something about the affordable housing crisis it would provide incentives - and I don't mean LIHTC - for real estate developers to do projects somewhere where the dirt is cheap enough to do affordable housing.

I know you know what I am talking about. But as an example: When I have clients who have $250,000 to spend and they tell me they want to buy something in the Fan District, it's my job to be realistic with them. I am not a magician. You cannot under any circumstances buy a house in the Fan for $250,0000. That is just the facts. You *might* be able to buy a very small condo. So then I have to figure out what it is they really want - walkability? A yard for their dog? Something on the Pulse or at least near transportation? And then I have to try to find them something that meets their *real* wants and needs that they can actually afford. It wastes my time and theirs if we spin our wheels looking for a unicorn that doesn't exist - a $250,000 house in the Fan.

So if the goal is to build affordable housing - and I think that is one of Richmond's most pressing issues right now, and I also believe affordable housing should include for sale housing, not just apartments - then the land has to be cheap enough to work. That's just basic economics. And I hate to tell people - ADUs are a great concept, but they also will not add sufficient additional housing at scale because you cannot get financing to build them. To add an ADU to your property you will need to pay cash out of pocket to build one, or perhaps borrow against your home with a HELOC. Which has its own issues.

That's my issue. Infill cannot add enough additional housing at scale. So we shouldn't be conflating two different issues - additional density and affordability.

A great article about why the YIMBY model doesn’t work, and actually harms poor and working class communities—the same communities YIMBYs claim to help.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

That article fails to provide any realistic alternative. The best it can muster (in the final paragraph):

>There’s no reason why good public housing can’t be built. It is done elsewhere successfully. (See, e.g., the remarkable Vienna model or the public housing success of Singapore.)

I don't even need to start reciting the laundry list of problems with public housing or with RRHA or the issue of funding. I'll merely point out that zoning laws prevent public housing from being constructed nearly everywhere in Richmond.

You might enjoy this article. Among other things it addresses the Singapore model: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/01/14/four-reasons-why-more-public-housing-isnt-the-solution-to-affordability-concerns/

[removed]

The article you linked is informative, though I still think it fails to address the major pitfalls of the YIMBY model. If the YIMBY model is to work for poor and working class communities, developers must be incentivized to build affordable housing for low-income people. There is little reason for them to do that when they can build high-end housing for the wealthy and make more money.

The YIMBY model is built upon the idea of trickle-down housing (when better housing is built, the rich will leave their nice homes for them, and then low-income people can move into their previous housing). But, just like trickle-down economics, this doesn’t usually work in the real world. Instead the rich take multiple homes, rent out their old home at a high rent price, or they simply remain in their homes and these new high-end developments go empty. Even if certain instances of trickle-down housing do work, it is highly inefficient. On top of construction time (which all models have) you also have to wait for the rich to make their moves, which can add years to the process.

The article you linked is based on the idea that public housing will be the same as it’s been in the past, but this doesn’t need to be the case. The Vienna model in particular holds great promise with their idea of social housing—government owned land is sold to private companies which then own and operate housing with public oversight. Social housing is also placed in desirable areas and meets health and safety standards. It is available to people of all incomes. Higher-income people pay market prices which subsidize the cheaper rents of low-income people.

Low-income people cannot rely on the flaky goodwill of the rich in order for their lives to improve. Instead of tax dollars being given to developers who build housing inaccessible to most of us, we need to realize that housing is a human right and shouldn’t be left up to the free market. The free market rarely helps those that need it the most. If we are, first and foremost, trying to help low-income people, then social housing is the better model.

There was a comment above that you are a realtor. If this is so, it seems suspect to me as a low-income person that you would promote a model on the idea of its morals when more free market housing would allow you to make more money. Are you honestly trying to help low-income people? Or are you trying to live in a world that doesn’t exist where you can say you’ve helped low-income people while increasing your net-worth? I hope it’s the former, and I hope you change your mind on the best model to do so. All the best.

(Edited: twice for clarity)

>the idea that public housing will be the same as it’s been in the past, but this doesn’t need to be the case.

In an ideal world, no. But all evidence suggests it will continue to be the case. Meanwhile, public housing concentrates poverty and thereby attracts crime.

A better approach might be vouchers that can be spent on housing on the free market. It doesn't concentrate poverty and gives low income individuals more choice in where they live.

>There was a comment above that you are a realtor.

I'm sorry, this is really distracting: I'm not (nor have I ever been) a realtor nor a property developer, nor have I worked in related fields like finance or property management or landlording or construction or what have you. I don't profit from construction. I am a homeowner, and so some would argue that increased development that I favor might decrease my property value...

I agree. Our current public housing model, in order to work properly, needs loads of reform.

Within the YIMBY model, I like your idea of vouchers, which would help low-income people in the free market.

I appreciate you providing clarity on your position and motivations.

Hell yeah! We need more housing especially affordable housing, more density, car-light neighborhoods, and strengthen public transit