4 ms·

Do you have some examples of this? Given that yimbys are usually definitionally the "yes build it, yes at market rate, yes it can skip the environmental impact

Do you have some examples of this? Given that yimbys are usually definitionally the "yes build it, yes at market rate, yes it can skip the environmental impact assessment" folks, what did they do to block this?

kurthr 3y ago
It's the same thing that just happened in east San Jose using the "builder's remedy" to reduce the number of units by 5x. YIMBY's like to think the builders are on their side, but they aren't. They'll take the low cost property and either sit on it for years or turn it into luxury townhomes and empty commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the profits and socialize the loss. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/11/05/remedy-for-whom-bay-area-developers-use-builders-remedy-loophole-to-downsize-housing-projects/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/11/05/remedy-for-w... One development, initially planned near the Berryessa BART station, was intended to accommodate up to nearly 3,500 housing units and vast commercial space. However, the current proposal only includes 451 townhomes, 399 apartments, and 90 condominiums, alongside 45,000 square feet of commercial space. Google was a little different here, but got treated the same. They wanted to build a transit hub complex for their growing and aging employees. YIMBYs saw this as gentrification (yes it was and would be), but the reason housing there is low cost is because of empty commercial and blight (next to the railroad tracks/highway). Adding 10k+ homes/office would have helped revitalize the commercial in the area and probably raised local prices (people from Google move in). So they pushed hard for lots of mitigation for locals and low cost housing, which delayed it for a business cycle so now you have dozens of contemned buildings and no prospect for building. Or you'll get the most profitable disorganized "builders remedy" instead, which will be fewer units, higher priced, and less integrated into the neighborhood. Perfect is the enemy of good.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  > Perfect is the enemy of good. > commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the profits and socialize the loss. Correct, and while not perfect, this is good, because it still results in a net increase in housing! The question to ask is not "is this as good as the original plan" but instead "would this project have proceeded at all if not for the changes to the plan"? Something we consistently see in SF is grand housing plans with significant low income requirements that sounds fantastic in theory, but are never actually built. The YIMBY response to that is absolutely yes loosen regulations so we actually build real housing today, instead of theoretical better housing in 3-5 years. > YIMBYs saw this as gentrification YIMBY's are completely fine with gentrification. Once again, the YIMBY position is that literally only building market-rate luxury-techie-fishbowl-highrises is still progress, because it results in more housing, lowering rates for other properties. > So they pushed hard for lots of mitigation for locals and low cost housing This is not the YIMBY position. YIMBY's are against low-income housing requirements. (that is, generally, streamlining permitting and densification to allow the construction of some housing takes precedence over ensuring income accessibility within any individual project) YIMBY's do generally prefer funding and incentives for low-income housing, but that's positive incentives, not blockage.
  - kurthr 3y ago
    2500 fewer units, no affordable housing, but more profits for builders and higher taxes for the citizenry because utilities/roads can't be sustained. If that's the YIMBY position, they might as well just say they're funded by builders like the rest of the city council has been for 50 years, which got us where we are. I give the YIMBYs more credit in that they actually want something good for the place they live. I talked to them at planning meetings. They just aren't always successful and don't often have the best plans.

kurthr 3y ago

It's the same thing that just happened in east San Jose using the "builder's remedy" to reduce the number of units by 5x. YIMBY's like to think the builders are on their side, but they aren't. They'll take the low cost property and either sit on it for years or turn it into luxury townhomes and empty commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the profits and socialize the loss. https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/11/05/remedy-for-whom-bay-area-developers-use-builders-remedy-loophole-to-downsize-housing-projects/ https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/11/05/remedy-for-w... One development, initially planned near the Berryessa BART station, was intended to accommodate up to nearly 3,500 housing units and vast commercial space. However, the current proposal only includes 451 townhomes, 399 apartments, and 90 condominiums, alongside 45,000 square feet of commercial space. Google was a little different here, but got treated the same. They wanted to build a transit hub complex for their growing and aging employees. YIMBYs saw this as gentrification (yes it was and would be), but the reason housing there is low cost is because of empty commercial and blight (next to the railroad tracks/highway). Adding 10k+ homes/office would have helped revitalize the commercial in the area and probably raised local prices (people from Google move in). So they pushed hard for lots of mitigation for locals and low cost housing, which delayed it for a business cycle so now you have dozens of contemned buildings and no prospect for building. Or you'll get the most profitable disorganized "builders remedy" instead, which will be fewer units, higher priced, and less integrated into the neighborhood. Perfect is the enemy of good.

joshuamorton 3y ago
> Perfect is the enemy of good. > commercial space with minimal low cost housing, green space or anything else using public transit as an excuse. Privatize the profits and socialize the loss. Correct, and while not perfect, this is good, because it still results in a net increase in housing! The question to ask is not "is this as good as the original plan" but instead "would this project have proceeded at all if not for the changes to the plan"? Something we consistently see in SF is grand housing plans with significant low income requirements that sounds fantastic in theory, but are never actually built. The YIMBY response to that is absolutely yes loosen regulations so we actually build real housing today, instead of theoretical better housing in 3-5 years. > YIMBYs saw this as gentrification YIMBY's are completely fine with gentrification. Once again, the YIMBY position is that literally only building market-rate luxury-techie-fishbowl-highrises is still progress, because it results in more housing, lowering rates for other properties. > So they pushed hard for lots of mitigation for locals and low cost housing This is not the YIMBY position. YIMBY's are against low-income housing requirements. (that is, generally, streamlining permitting and densification to allow the construction of some housing takes precedence over ensuring income accessibility within any individual project) YIMBY's do generally prefer funding and incentives for low-income housing, but that's positive incentives, not blockage.
- kurthr 3y ago
  2500 fewer units, no affordable housing, but more profits for builders and higher taxes for the citizenry because utilities/roads can't be sustained. If that's the YIMBY position, they might as well just say they're funded by builders like the rest of the city council has been for 50 years, which got us where we are. I give the YIMBYs more credit in that they actually want something good for the place they live. I talked to them at planning meetings. They just aren't always successful and don't often have the best plans.