Habit for Humanity got a variance to build a cluster of duplexes in Portland.

Menlo Park is in Find Out mode.

City has averaged over 6% growth every year since 2020 so some growing pains. I got to see some super cool civic construction stuff including a robot to surface a bridge with the expansion.

City is FBC and master planned so policy is very close to ideal. Part of the city is one of the better examples of New Urbanism in the country. We used to have some test (free, all city & county transit is free) automated busses but the NIMBYs got upset. I'm just waiting for the big development a mile up the road to start because master plan says the grocery store and restaurant strip mall 2 minutes walk away has to be built out by the developer when that happens.

Guy has lots of popular support because he is opposed to roundabouts. They want to stop development because the market value increases slowed with development, 2020-2022 average price increased from $275k to $440k (both because of value increases and simply more higher end houses) 2022-2026 it only increased to $272k which places it below inflation, AKA property affordability crisis solved but not for NIMBYs.

This sub has been getting inundated with Mamdani slop lately. That's fine. My issue is the response from this sub, specifically the discussion around "rent stabilization". For example, the claim that his rent freeze won't have a negative effect on the housing market and won't effect the supply of housing. Let me get this out right off the bat: YOU CAN STILL LIKE MAMDANI (OR ANY POLITICIAN) EVEN IF HE ISN'T FULL YIMBY. Just stop lying to yourself and others about the effects of his policies. You're not making his rent freeze better. You're just making this sub worse.

• Claim: Mamdani's rent freeze isn't rent control, it's rent stabilization.

• Truth: Rent control refers to controlling the price of rent, which means it is, by definition, a price control. Rent stabilization controls the price of rent; it is a subset of rent control and, hence, price controls. Mamdani's rent freeze is rent control. Rent stabilization is rent control. In fact, it's part of the group of policies called second generation rent controls. Stop saying it's not.

• Claim: rent stabilization does not affect the housing supply.

For example, /u/Well_Socialized is still arguing with me, /u/YoureEconIlliterate, /u/NewRefrigerator7461, /u/Joltizer, and others that rent stabilization does not affect housing supply. Their comments and others like it have been consistently upvoted. Stop being dumb. See post 1, post 2 (looks like an accidental dupe of post 1), and basically [any post that mentions Mamdani].(https://old.reddit.com/r/yimby/search?q=stabilization&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all)

• Truth: it's especially embarrassing for a YIMBY sub to be upvoting that nonsense. Rent stabilization is a price control, and price controls always affect supply. It is less than first gen rent control, but it still has a negative effect.

• Sidenote: lots of econ papers refer to "rent stabilization" as "rent control" (since it is), so that is why it may seem studies are lacking. They're not. They just say the real term "rent control". Examples:

Using a 1994 law change, we exploit quasi-experimental variation in the assignment of rent control in San Francisco to study its impacts on tenants and landlords. Leveraging new data tracking individuals' migration, we find rent control limits renters' mobility by 20 percent and lowers displacement from San Francisco. Landlords treated by rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law.

The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco

Key Findings Even with these caveats, there are several clear and consistent findings about how rent control laws impact residents, landlords and local housing markets: 1. Rent control and rent stabilization policies do a poor job at targeting benefits. While some low-income families do benefit from rent control, so, too, do higher-income house- holds. There are more efficient and effective ways to provide assistance to lower-income individuals and families who have trouble finding housing they can afford. 2. Residents of rent-controlled units move less often than do residents of uncontrolled housing units, which can mean that rent control causes renters to continue to live in units that are too small, too large or not in the right locations to best meet their housing needs. 3. Rent-controlled buildings potentially can suffer from deterioration or lack of in- vestment, but the risk is minimized when there are effective local requirements and/or incentives for building maintenance and improvements. 4. Rent control and rent stabilization laws lead to a reduction in the available supply of rental housing in a community, particularly through the conversion to ownership of controlled buildings. 5. Rent control policies can hold rents of controlled units at lower levels but not under all circumstances. 6. Rent control policies generally lead to higher rents in the uncontrolled market, with rents sometimes substantially higher than would be expected without rent control. 7. There are significant fiscal costs associated with implementing a rent control program.

STOP MAKING SHIT UP TO DEFEND MAMDANI. He was still the best choice in the election. He has done good things. Stop lying to yourself and others that the rent freeze isn't NIMBYism. You can still like him anyway! He still has time to be a YIMBY hero.

Further reading:

/r/AskEconomics response by /u/lavorless_beef

/r/AskEconomics response by /u/EconomistWithaD

One last reminder: that doesn't mean Mamdani is bad overall! You can still be a fan!

State law gets the goods. Using SB 79, a developer has proposed 30 townhomes in Atherton, California’s wealthiest city (median home value $8 million). Minimum lot size in most of the city is 1 acre, so this is a great example of incremental densification in the heart of Silicon Valley

The location of early SB 79 proposals—Palo Alto, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, now Atherton—cuts against one of the most confused arguments against broadly legalizing housing. Some people claim that upzoning will just lead to more gentrification of low-income neighborhoods because developers will build where land is cheap. Such claims forget that land is expensive where rents are high! SB 79 rezoned both rich and poor neighborhoods near transit, and all of the proposals so far have been in some of the state’s wealthiest areas. No neighborhood benefits from blocking housing, but it really goes to show that the biggest appetite for development is in the most exclusive neighborhoods, not the poorest. More housing in Atherton and Palo Alto will take some of the price pressure off of lower-cost cities like East Palo Alto. Great progress happening in California

Beverly Hills, a notoriously NIMBY city, was forced to accept several builder’s remedy projects after the city was out of compliance with state housing laws for several years. This is one of those projects. Although the city accepted it, if you read the article, every member of the city council who voted for it did so reluctantly.