Cities After… From Exclusion to Gentrification: The NIMBY-YIMBY Politics

[@RuthmarieHicks]

Thank YOU! I've been saying this for 20 years and keep being told I'm fighting "progress" when I say YIMBYs are often the tools of big developers. The last thing we need in our area (25 miles north of Midtown Manhattan) is more luxury housing. The inventory has not brought rental rates down and if anything has made things worse. Once you build the wrong thing for a community - you are STUCK WITH IT. We need to think before we build and slogans like NIMBY/YIMBY only cloud the issue. This is an outstanding podcast.

[@arieldexler7571]

How did it make things worse?

[@dmike3507]

Man, Robles-Duran is the best thing to happen to this channel in years. Urbanism is an extremely important issue that should be at the forefront of our political consciousness, but sadly is almost never talked about.

[@frizellruckerjr3968]

Dr Wolf, You have excellent choices for Hosts in this Gentlemen and Dr Fraad. Congrats.

[@markrice3019]

😀 & most Certainly Mr. Miguel Robles-Duran! 😃

[@jackmccourt1541]

Very eye opening analysis, thank you

[@timmoore3188]

Thank you for doing this series on urban planning. The media just does not analyse this subject. What developers like to do is come in and green wash their projects. They will try to cram as much market profitable housing on the most build-able area of the parcel, then offer the remaining strip of land to environmentalists as natural open space, or a trail to the riding and hiking groups or a ball park to the soccer parents. This not only divides the community fighting over that strip of land, but ignores the regional impacts on traffic, wildlife corridors and services. I was on a planning group for several years and most of the board members are Realtors, builders, contractors and all white middle or upper middle class, those who had time and money to serve on the unpaid position, the 35% of the population that was Latinx never having any representation.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Yep!! I've seen it too many times. Thank you for sharing this. I'm not saying we shouldn't or can never have any private housing that makes a profit for its builder, I'm just saying I want to see it much much much much more heavily controlled than it is now. I find it shocking that private developers and those who operate on the principle of endless greed are allowed to set the terms and set the rules of which there are almost none and run the table. And local county officials bend over to spread them and give them everything they want. I'm not sure how to change this overnight but I know there are ways. Forcing local government criminals to come out of the shadows and put everything on a public ballot is one way.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Yeah it's all token nonsense. But every single local government official I've ever watched from a close or far is absolutely in thrall to these developers and will give them everything and ANYTHING, probably because they're taking payoffs behind the scenes. It's absolutely no shock that there's virtually no independent anti-corruption agencies or task forces on a local or state level. A few years ago when the progressive prosecutor tried to set one up in San Francisco they got rid of him fast. Criminals react briskly and with outrage when they are threatened, esp taxpayer-funded ones.

[@timmoore3188]

@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 the system is corrupt, because someone running for office needs wads of money to get elected and stay elected. I'm in favor of reducing the power of elected officials by implementing more direct democracy. One way is by creating citizen's councils, where participants are chosen by random lot not elected. I don't know how such a system can be created, haven't been involved in helping to create any myself, am looking into it, but just know the system we have in the US now only breeds homelessness and environmental destruction.

[@niteriderband4713]

We will be judged by how we made our species succeed and not by how a small subgroup succeeded. We need to move to a We too movement instead of a Me too one.

[@kevinschmidt2210]

Yes, we are all "me too!" when it comes to being molested by the oligarcy.

[@limitisillusion7]

No one is judging us. Whatever reality plays out is the judgement itself. If we continue to serve a tiny portion of the population, the stability will decay. If we serve everyone, stability will improve.

[@lynner1770]

Very good, thank you

[@daftjunk2008]

Very well said that the yimby-nimby dichotomy neutralises genuine debate/thought 💯

[@mariusfacktor3597]

17:46 The root causes of the housing crisis is a housing SHORTAGE due to restrictive zoning rules. This is well documented. YIMBYs say let's stop using the government to make housing more scarce because scarcity only makes the wealthy homeowners even richer at the expense of the renters. That's very straight forward.

[@RuthmarieHicks]

Except that in reality, IT DOESN'T WORK. Luxury rentals have been springing up like mushrooms all over our county and it has done NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, NOTTA to deal with the affordable housing crisis. In fact, it has made the problem WORSE.

[@mariusfacktor3597]

@@RuthmarieHicks The housing shortage is well documented. The problem is not enough housing. That's why it's so expensive. The reason it got this way is exclusionary zoning. The real "luxury" housing are the Single Family houses that are inherently very expensive. A unit in an apartment building will always cost less than a house on that same parcel of land. So continuing to ban apartments (low-cost housing) will only make the housing shortage worse.

[@RuthmarieHicks]

A strawman argument. If you actually believe that an apartment costs less to occupy than a house, then come to my area. A 450 sf studio BOX in these luxury units is going for $2500/month. In fact, developers are trying to tear down older apartment complexes that ARE more affordable for more of these luxury complexes which increases the affordability crisis. Older people are not DOWNSIZING from their homes because even a 1 BR (going for about $3k/month) was costing them about the same amount of money as stayin in their homes. And with a house, at least you have the option of a roommate or a family member doubling up to bring down your expenses. You also have a thing called EQUITY. Which you don't have in an apartment. Outlay is also stabilized. This is all sans the granite countertops and in-house dog-grooming facility. But at least you have a roof over your head and some price stability. You bring that all down for a bunch of overpriced poorly constructed luxury units and you are effectively displacing Grandma. As the references explain, leaving many of these. units vacant while imposing extortionary rents works for a lot of landlords and can be highly profitable. Of course, if you are a developer or in that field, you know this already and are just blowing smoke. References: www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent www.propublica.org/article/realpage-accused-of-collusion-in-new-lawsuit kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHOUdKN3r516ack

[@mariusfacktor3597]

@@RuthmarieHicks Old housing tends to be cheaper than new housing. We both agree on that. But we need to build more new housing today in order to get more old housing in the future. The reason there is a housing crisis right now is because for the last 50 years, they under-built in urban areas. I understand that new apartments popping up now are really expensive. That's because there is such high demand for them. A new apartment may cost $2,500 per month (which I agree is too much), but a house on that same plot of land would rent for $4,500+. So again, the true luxury housing are these Single Family homes close to urban centers. Imagine, if you will, that Manhattan stopped building housing in the year 1920. There would be far less supply of housing, right? And even though each unit would be 100+ years old, they would be tremendously expensive because so many renters would need to compete for such few units. The idea that landlords are keeping rooms vacant is a myth. In fact, according to the data, there are particularly LOW vacancy rates right now. Historically, rent prices go UP when the vacancy rate is 5%. The rental vacancy rate in NYC is like 3-4%. So it's no wonder prices are going up. Go ahead and push for a vacancy tax, I'd support it. But you'll get something like a 1% increase in housing stock at most. The problem is undersupply. Of course I think we should not let residents get displaced, but that is happening RIGHT NOW, when they get outcompeted by other renters willing to pay more. So making it continually illegal to build more housing isn't working.

[@RuthmarieHicks]

@@mariusfacktor3597 Yes, but the only way to build that is to take down the old and DISPLACE people because developers will not build anything remotely affordable. They are ONLY interested in luxury housing and they are ONLY interested if they can buy their way out of any affordable units (even when mandated by the city charter). The result is more displacement, not less. Before you or any more of your developer cronies do any more damage, laws have to be implemented that will STICK. Every person potentially displaced MUST HAVE A GUARANTEED HOME at the same or less cost. Literally a guaranteed residence in the new complex. Then then inventory of affordable units must go up by at least 20% for each complex created. But no one will do that because developers are too damn greedy. But that's what you need to take care of the problem NOW. You can't just build and displace people and hope that 50 years from the ship is righted. And btw, the quality of the building is such crap, that stuff won't last 50 years. You are the king of strawman arguments that accomplish nothing.

[@ShaedeReshka]

This is a fantastic analysis. I am a socialist active in several organizations, one being a YIMBY group. I really do think that the majority of people who identify as a YIMBY do so with the sincere intention to help people. That being said, most are what I'd consider "terminally liberal". This doesn't mean you can't reason with them, or even change their minds, but you have to expect only a little movement towards understanding that the commodification of housing, and capitalism more broadly, are the real housing issue. What I think most can't imagine is an alternative to the economic system they take for granted as a force of nature. Another interesting organization gaining momentum is Strong Towns, which though libertarian in nature, has some socialist allies where there is overlap. Strong Towns is not quite as naive as the NIMBY movement, but does contain many of the same core problems as it's rare that capitalism is seen as an underlying problem. They do, however, understand the developers are not working in the benefit of individuals and communities. I think they represent a more realistic direction for the typical US liberal when addressing housing and city planning issues in the US and they're probably the most responsible for the sudden rise in interest in subjects like housing, transportation, etc. I'd love to see a video analyzing their arguments and strategies one day! Finally, you mentioned the DSA. I've worked with the DSA off and on for years, and honestly, though they understand the issue of capitalism, it's rare they have detailed knowledge of the workings of the US political process like the YIMBY groups I've seen (who tend to be working directly with politicians, usually Democrats) or have the ability to communicate their ideas to a broad audience like Strong Towns. The DSA also tends towards only being marginally socialist, as really, most people in the US are only very recently aware of anything about socialism. And this is kind of the situation in the US. We have a handful of very imperfect grassroots organizations that aren't knowledgeable, organized, or powerful enough to really change the situation from what is being determined by the capitalists in power. I am a bit at a loss what the path going forward looks like. My attempt has been one of radical solidarity. Talk to people, try to get the conversation about the core issues, and maybe shift the goals to the left of where they started. After all, the people who are activated now are the people who can work to change things now. I never had any luck activating people who weren't already involved in something, and I wonder if we even have enough time left to try to do that still.

[@JasonGoodfellow]

I love how you nail the specifics of development Great work!

[@scowlistic]

Taxing the ownership of multiple dwelling units until it is financially PAINFUL to keep them is my 2¢.

[@daftjunk2008]

This is excellent

[@J3unG]

With respect to the YIMBY phenomena in California, please take a look at Assemblyman Scott Weiner, a progressive Democrat who seems to represent Millenial concerns for 'affordable' housing. Apparently, some of Weiner's contributions come from the real estate industry. Another progressive Democrat is Phil Ting who also supports legislation to build more to offset the housing crisis. Neither of them openly advocate rent control or reform and are silent on the rise in private equity controlling the housing market in California. They are perfect studies for the advocates of YIMBY. For the record, I oppose NIMBY as well with it's inherent discriminatory features on ethnicity and economic background. YIMBY philosophy is not the counter of it especially when, as you correctly described, it benefits commercial developers and doesn't diminish housing crises.

[@darploin5071]

And that's when Governor newsome should have sent the the national guard in and removed the city council of Huntington Beach

[@cafesituationniste2411]

Very relevant and urgent ✊🏽

[@jillfryer6699]

Yimby was new. Might be sign movement is gaining traction. As long as you don't get entwined with them.

[@guidocasero1178]

I would love to join any true Progressive movement that advocates rent control, of course I do not belong to one for fear of being used against my own interest. It's not fair that those folks who's been in their community for 40 or 50 Yrs be pushed out that's why rent control has to be on the top of the list, fear paralyzes most folks and I realize the Hawks benefit form that BUT Oh WELL

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Yes serious rent control and community protection measures are needed

[@patricialongo5870]

True progress would mean no rent. Housing isn't a business.

[@jillfryer6699]

@@patricialongo5870 Can you afford to mend the hole in the roof? The broken windows from the storm or to quibble with insurance companies to get it done? its a pill.

[@patricialongo5870]

@@jillfryer6699 We homeless people just keep making camp.

[@michellpolicarpio]

Rent control policies only destroy the housing market and make it harder for people to find a home. This happened in Berlin, New York and Stockholm.

[@arieldexler7571]

Why is it ok for my neighbor to buy a luxury car from a private car company but not ok for me to want to spend more money living in a comfortable home? If the community can't tell you what car you should drive, why should it tell you what housing you should have? Why do I need to subject my life to nosy busybodies?

[@SpencerHeckwolf]

NIMBYism is not a movement.

[@patricialongo5870]

It's hard for the people accustomed to unfairness to even picture us - the homeless - in the best locations. We're already here, among you. Hamptons, Waikiki, Vegas whatever -. You can pay, we just don't.

[@DerekSpeareDSD]

I am pretty sick and tired of this "supply and demand" myth the capital pigs love to sing. It's patently absurd and overlooks the dynamics of human interactions and mutual accommodation. Instead of considering humans to have a variety of characteristics, traits, behaviours and responses in a given set circumstances, capitalists prefer to tell us that GREED is the only meaningful value in any human interaction. They then go on to tell that this is the "Law" of supply and demand, following by beating us in the heads with it saying it is so. It's a vile way to approach the very nature of how us humans have been getting along. While this is a simplistic example of my point, consider an unfortunate person who has been in the desert without water for some time. He then encounters a well and a person there having access to it. This putative "law" would suggest that the water has lots of value and if the man cannot pay, he's out of luck and doomed to die of thirst. However, what if the person with control of the well was a decent one and helped the man get all he can drink? That's a possible outcome, yes? Capitalists would love us to believe that their beautiful market solutions are due and that if the thirsty man cannot pay, that's his problem...but this is the essence of their system, and if you can't pay, you're dead. This is not a solution. Capitalism is not a solution to all the needs any society has. It simply is a con job the few use to subjugate the masses and extract as much wealth as possible from them. Humanity does not need capitalists. They must be rendered extinct.

[@rcmrcm3370]

JIMBY

[@rustyshackleford4801]

Bimby?

[@markrice3019]

@@rustyshackleford4801 🙃🤡

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

Here's my plan to address all affordable housing needs that I have posted elsewhere, updated with some key points from this video- This problem is so easy to solve, here's how: 1. Hard and binding rent control NOW. Details as follows: - Rent pegged to income, max 20% of net income, OR no more than 125% of landlords' mortgage installment of the unit currently under mortgage; whichever is larger. - for units owned free and clear, tenant pays landlord no more than a maximum of 20% of net income For designated low-income tenants (based on household size): 15% of income to be set as maximum rent amount, no exceptions. In cases where this is insufficient to cover the desired rent being assessed (provided it is within the 125% limit), govt subsidies can be used to supplement the difference. 2. Full eviction protections in both public and private housing. Aggressive support and intervention given via local housing agencies to attempt to resolve all disputes positively and prior to resorting to eviction proceedings. Enact comprehensive Distressed Renter programs to include periods of partial rent, paused rent and rent cancellation for predetermined qualified circumstances. Where this would affect an owner's ability to make their mortgage payment, owner can be automatically entered into a "special temporary adjustment" program which adjusts the required mortgage payment accordingly during duration of tenant's participation in program. 3. Mandate universal Section 8 acceptance, no Section 8 discrimination allowed. 4. Sharply increase the Section 8 program in coverage amounts and numbers of persons covered 5. Sharply increase public housing inventory in all 50 states. Make wide use of manufactured home communities and small plexes when possible, over high-density high rises, but use both as necessary. 6. Provide prompt assistance to any renter at risk of homelessness for any reason 7. Actual justice in Tenant Court mandated with full legal representation guaranteed for EVERY tenant under eviction proceeding. 8. Community protection, anti-gentrification and gentrification-limiting measures 9. Finally, let's all remember that housing security matters. Housing stability is the foundation for a better life we all deserve. Affordable housing is EVERYONE'S right. BAM I've done it. Am I a genius??? No. Just a person with common sense and a conscience. Why won't politicians do this?? Because they're trash, they're elite, they don't have the empathy, and they just don't care. We need people who will.

[@philg7528]

The obligation is on us to form a workers political party to push for this.

[@andreac6024]

It’s not going to happen! Things are too entrenched and ppl will pay what the market will bear. For one they’re so many traveling workers who are able to pay hefty sums; your not going to force anyone to cap rent at 20% on properties owned free and clear, for example. People would rather not rent their property and availability is do right, they can choose renters and avoid caps. Some parts of your proposal could work with political will, but good luck on that. I agree that commercial renters should not be able to discriminate section 8 holders and real low income housing should be available. The country’s moral bankruptcy is evident is so many ways, including mass homelessness right beside empty buildings.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

@@andreac6024 we'll see. I'm willing to fight for this for the next 50 years if necessary. Rent needs to be squashed down to what is fair and manageable for all. It's beyond out of control right now. Nobody has the right to make rent this kind of enslavement. There should be some profit in it I won't deny, because one is paying for a service and an asset I understand that, but it has to be controlled! Otherwise you get what we have now. Unacceptable. Sorry to would-be landlords but allowing them to set the rules is madness. It's a conflict of interest and the fox guarding the henhouse.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

@@philg7528 that's right

[@usernameryan5982]

You have absolutely no clue how housing economics work at all

[@uhohhotdog]

“Gentrification” happens from lack of density because everyone keeps stopping new and more denser housing and having market housing It’s not so much that more housing solves the problem, it’s more that blocking housing is only making things worse.

[@clarestucki5151]

When people like this guy use the term "Affordable Housing", they really mean "Housing Paid For and Maintained by Somebody Other Than Those Who Live in it". They say we need to provide free housing for low earners because it is a "human right". That means some humans have the right to consume the fruits of other humans' labors. Not sure about that myself.

[@EvelynEmillia]

Creating another source of income in these difficult times is the best thing to do. Not only does it guarantee returns, it also helps you plan and save for future expenses. It can be quite difficult to make an investment without sound knowledge or guidance, which is why it is advisable to work with an investment advisor like Mr Patrick Arthur Rice who has made many of us financially free today

[@screenarts]

Real-estate is not equal, the problem is the homeless want to live on some of the most desirable and expensive real-estate in the world. It's expensive because of demand, we all want to live on the beach or even close to it. Real-estate is not generic it's not equal at all.

[@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999]

I don't think any homeless or low-income person cares about having a special location, just access to safe, habitable decent housing. I'm alright with some more premium, lower availability housing types costing more, but even there, there needs to be limit. Market Rate is a dirty con and open code for "the greatest cost greedy landlords and developers can force people to pay". Uh huh. Not if I ever have anything to say about it.

[@rockinray6197]

is sand and salt .. come to think of it.

[@dmike3507]

That's because the best places to be houseless are the places with the best weather, as they are unlikely to experience extreme temperatures. Homeless people aren't any more greedy than anyone else, they're just trying not to die.

[@patricialongo5870]

I already do. Wouldn't camp as anywhere but luxury and resort destinations, no settings. I bet you just hate the thought. I never pay and it's just lovely. I'm not the only one. It's okay to be here for everyone. You folks just didn't get the memo.

[@patricialongo5870]

​@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 I do, and I'm not alone. Waikiki, not Camden. Million dollar houses around the camp -. Not the freeway. We all have our tastes. We all blend in. Burns you up?