This is wrong. NIMBYs should have a voice and say. Better to balance NIMBY vs YIMBY to get controlled densification
Yimbyies become nimbyies as soon as they buy a house
I have a few and I am still a YIMBY.
1 Like
You have kids and are altruistic. Most people only see their own interests.
Iām also not a NIMBY and I have owned a home for 10+ years.
1 Like
I think being a YIMBY is actually for my own interests, maybe itās long term rather than short term but still it lines up well with my self interests.
If we donāt build, we are driving the young people away, and we are letting other places a chance to out-compete us. If we had built enough, Austin would still be a cow town. We need to do change our way while we still have a competitive edge.
Another thing is that density is what makes everything interesting. SF is 10x more fun than SJ because itās denser and people still walk on streets to shop and dine. And Iād say NYC is another 5x more fun than SF still. You need a bare minimum density to make that work. In a sparse bedroom community with all SFHās nothing interesting happens.
2 Likes
I am not a nimby either. But have been attacked on this forum for being a yimby because somehow I might profit from it. It is an emotional issue. Nobody wants noisy intrusive neighbors that 4plexes will bring. It will not be resolved at the state level with these hastily written bills.
1 Like
I absolutely do not want a fourplex as my neighbor. Weāve enough problems with parking and traffic on my street as is.
1 Like
Ones persons idea of āfunā is another persons idea of annoying crowds. People that moved to suburbs to get away from urban āfunā donāt want it their neighborhoods, along with the noise, crime, overcrowding and lack of parking.
1 Like
I donāt know if it is the prospect of these new laws, or it is just normal seasonality with the Fall RE season approaching, but I notice another uptick in prices of nice suburban homes.
This house in Sunnyvale is 3 bed/2 bath 1600 sq ft on 6400 sq ft lot. Nice, but no great shakes. Earlier this year, would have sold for 2.4M or so. But it just sold for 2.7M, 550k above asking. Definitely feels like buyers bid above recent comps to get this one.
Similarly, another in Sunnyvale which just sold for $3.5M, almost 1M above the list price. Earlier this year, it would have sold for $3M or just above. Again seems like buyers were willing to pay well above recent comps
Thereās always South Dakota. The entire stateās population is just a hair more than San Francisco.
seems like SB9 applies only to urban areas
2 Likes
.
Want your cheese back?
.
Agree. Please densify SF and NYC, not their suburbs. Do densify SJ downtown, leave the rest of SJ be SFHs only.
Mountain View is pretty dense, yet SFH prices are continuing to go up. Density seems to be making the place more desirable
Supply issue. Hard to find SFH in MV. IMHO, the entire MV should be densified but then is unfair for those few who pay very high prices for their SFHs, so I donāt want to suggest it.
I think the folks who will benefit the most financially from these new laws are SFH owners in places like Mountain View and Sunnyvale. They are already dense and hence have a lot of the benefits that density brings (as @manch suggested). So, having a SFH in a desirable neighborhood of these dense, established cities is the best of both worlds - you get a nice subarban feel in your home and have dense amenities a short walk or ride away (within 1-2 miles)
1 Like
More density will drive up value of SFH. You canāt get a walkable downtown without some minimum density. Millennials pay premium for a walkable downtown. Partly explains why Cupertino price is lagging MV. Maybe even Sunnyvale will overtake Cupertino.
What YIMBY policies do is fill in the missing rungs in the housing ladder: rental apartments, condos, townhouses, and denser SFHās. So people with lesser means can afford a place in town too. The goodāo rancher on 10k lots will actually get more pricey.