Talk:YIMBY movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge with PIMBY?

They do seem rather similar. Communisthamster 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Added today.90.244.82.61 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Example

Nearly everybody wants low speed limits in front of their house, and sometimes even speed bumps on their street. Most of the drivers on the road do not want these things, but only the locals get a vote. These things would go away if we could reach an agreement: you get rid of yours, and I'll get rid of mine. 50.89.71.42 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Racial segregation via strict land use policy

Research shows that strict land use policies play an important role in racial housing segregation. I added some research on this but it was reverted with some WP:OR justifications.[1] The book that I cited explicitly mentions YIMBY, so it's certainly on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it an edit war if you added the sources that specifically mentioned yimby along with a quote in the citation. but fyi the most segregated schools are in highly urbanized areas, and you would need to make sure that youre not claiming zoning is THE major contributor. sure, it contributes in some areas. but there are probably a lot of minority areas that are single-family, and integrated areas too. nyc literally has the most segregated schools in the whole country. yimbys want to make their cities look like that. just make sure your additions are accurate and fit into the article. it's been very challenging to even make this article resemble something factual because the research is so new and there are so many biased interests trying to write the narrative. looking at your edits, snoogans, i know youre a big fan of peer review, so im sure you wont have any trouble adding this.

my only objection to your prior edit was that this movement is very unusual in that it doesnt involve the traditional dynamics of white/minority, renter/owner. it's very spatial and confined to a few small areas in california, where tech companies are basically trying to keep the network effects that make their businesses strong by changing zoning and tax laws so they dont have to keep opening satellite offices. they dont really want to get involved with fixing segregation, although some will use the link between segregation and zoning as a political tactic. the arguments for/against are far more nuanced than what you put in there and i implore you make future additions with care. good luck

On Wikipedia, we reflect what reliable sources say. The two studies I cited found that strict land use policies contribute to racial segregation. Here's the tl;dr of the journal article: "I show that restrictive land use helps to explain metropolitan area segregation patterns over time... These results strongly suggest that even facially race-neutral land use policies have contributed to racial segregation." Whether you or I agree or disagree with those findings is irrelevant. That's not a reason to keep it out of the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Is racial segregation a primary motive or target of the yimby "movement"? readers deserve a factual, focused, and concise article. there are many examples of lengthy and unfocused articles on wikipedia and the road to that hell is likely paved with many small instances of good intentions on the part of many different editors with different points of view. can we at least quantify the contribution of zoning to segregation vs. overt methods like redlining? it's also a tough call because you have very respected scholars saying yimby policies would really only benefit high earners, a lot of them whites. that's not even in this article right now. by adding a quip about segregation, we would be suggesting that the primary motive of this movement is civil rights, social justice and desegregation. if high earning whites are the beneficiaries (and low earners are actually the victims per the sorting argument)...you see what i am saying? sure, zoning has been implicated in segregation. it also doesn't necessarily cause segregation because segregation can occur in regions with very liberal zoning rules. we need to find a way to integrate both the relative impact on segregation and the demographics of the yimby policy beneficiaries, preferably in the same section.

Some proponents of YIMBYism argue that yes, strict land use policies contribute to racial segregation (the book explicitly says that YIMBYism is one way to alleviate the problem). I don't fully understand your other point: if studies differ, then we're dutybound to include both types of studise per the NPOV guideline, not to remove one type of study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. PS I like the new and improved Snoogans and want to commend you for the way you handled this dispute— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B04A:5EE9:7494:C41F:64FC:DDE6 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

IP editor with a strong POV

There's an editor who clearly has experience with Wikipedia editing, yet is editing as an IP account and without disclosing their current and past accounts. I note that this and related pages have a track record of sockpuppetry from POV accounts.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Massive amount of sockpuppetry

This page has been subjected to an enormous amount of sockpuppet editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Henrymancini333. Please make sure to clean up all the edits by these accounts and to not put up with any tendentious editing from new accounts and IP numbers. A tag should probably also be placed at the top of this page warning of these sockpuppets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether SEQUENTIALLY changing accounts (never coming back to old accounts, with alternating IP editing) = abusive use of multiple accounts: Please see my comments in the Sockpuppet investigation you started. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming organizations

In the Examples section, the the article does not often name organizations. I believe it would be helpful to readers to identify YIMBY organizations by name. For Toronto, I made an edit listing More Neighbours Toronto (MNTO) and HousingNowTO. I hope to make further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificDepths (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Austin, Texas, USA

The YIMBY group in Austin, TX, USA is "AURA". https://aura-atx.org/

Reference: https://nextcity.org/features/austin-yimby-movement-city-hall

I would add the link, but I'm on the Board of the organization.

Mdnahas (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Added to "List of YIMBY Organizations". I am hard pressed to fine sources for AURA that are newer than 2017. PacificDepths (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

Given that YIMBY has its fair share of critics, why no criticism section? In CA a whole host of entities (corporations, developers) stand to benefit. Given the densest city in the US is expensive with the most segregated schools, there is plenty of critique to go around.69Avatar69 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the criticism is notable and well covered I don't see a need. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 22:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Clean up tags on Political Debate

There are three several month old tags on the political debate created but no talk section discussion any of them specifically which is not helpful for improving the article. These include over-coverage for the state of California, unreliable sources, and original research. It may be the current state of the section but reading it, I don't believe any of these tags are valid and I feel this might be a WP:OVERTAG .

• On the first issue over coverage of California, it's state in the article and referenced that much of the movement began in California. Even so I don't see a strong California lean in the current version.
• On unreliable sources and original research, these are vague given it's a section tag and not anything specific. I don't consider anything thing here to be an unreliable source. I think some of the sources were being discussed in parts of this talk from several months ago but I tend to lean that that is well sourced at this point.
• Original research I think is the biggest stretch for tags and doesn't match with anything in this section today.

I'm going to remove the tags unless there is some discussion and then we can add them back later. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 22:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes on some contentious sources.

Some anonymous contributions (see also) removed some of the bits I'd added. I've reverted much of this; I'm putting my reasoning here, so that there can be a discussion if desired.

• This edit removed a link to Slow Boring; this was a literature review from Matt Yglesias, who's a published author (The Rent is Too Damned High) and journalist on housing issues. I believe this fits under WP:BLOGS.
• This edit removed a link to Darrell Owens' blog; the author is a data and policy analyst for California YIMBY. I'm less certain of this, but it seems to be a good summary of the issue: the number of vacant houses, as a metric, is more complicated than it seems. I'm certainly open to replacing it with another source.
• "LOL you can’t use a poll literally done by a pro development lobbying group like this in wikivoice"; this poll was performed by Lake Research Partners, which states that "For three consecutive cycles, fivethirtyeight.com rated Lake Research at the top of all Democratic polling firms in terms of accuracy." From what I can tell, this is a legitimate polling outfit.
• This edit removed another Substack link; this was written by Noah Smith, a Bloomberg journalist who writes on housing issues (for example). Again, this seems to fit under WP:BLOGS.
• This edit removed a link to a list of SB 50 supporters; unfortunately, the canonical source for supporter information doesn't permit permalinks, but if you download the most recent PDF available, the list of supporters checks out. I'm not aware of a better way to source this.

I agree that the page is too California-centric at this point, but unfortunately, that's where a lot of the action is. I think it's reasonable to split out a "List of YIMBY Groups" page. grendel|khan 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m at a loss at how an admin here can be playing so fast and loose with WP:RS with that kind of rationalization of the use of self-publications by clear partisans. You can find a lot of information in normal mainstream sources. I think you are unwittingly down a rabbit hole on this stuff, and I don’t think it’s even necessary to incorporate what you want. 2600:1012:B05C:F5C5:694D:4795:112C:3344 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not acting as an admin here, just an editor; my voice should have no more weight than anyone else's.

I may well be too in-the-weeds. As I understand it, the central issue under contention is: what is the effect of adding market-rate housing in hot markets? I see claims that there's no housing shortage because vacancies outnumber homeless people, that new units sit empty, that new market-rate units, even if they don't displace anyone, cause displacement. (This has recently shown up in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors refusing to turn a valet parking lot into housing, for example. You also see it in things like tweets from public intellectuals and statesmen.)

The facts I'd like to appropriately cite are:

• Where rent is high, it generally corresponds to a housing shortage.
• In an expensive market, building more housing leads to lower prices and less displacement nearby compared to the no-build alternative.
• YIMBYism has a broad coalition in support, mostly on the center-left; there is also a broad coalition in opposition which also includes the right and elements of the far-left.
• Polling generally shows people in favor of building more, but in practice, they resist changes in their own neighborhoods. Thus, a more local level of control leads to less building overall.

(If these are wrong, I want to know that as well.) Are you the same anonymous editor? I encourage you to get an account. How would you suggest that these be sourced? Can you suggest some of these "normal mainstream sources" for these concepts? grendel|khan 05:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ just had a good piece today that linked to a Brookings report that covers the different states (the WSJ is paywalled but I’m sure you could find the report with a search). One thing that stood out for me is that density is secondary, per the WSJ. It seems like density is the partisan differentiator (remember, both dems and repubs either want or don’t want development). CA has the history of low-slung suburbia but Arnold signed into law sprawl restrictions (relevant to green goals), so therein lies the tension (Arnold was very much a centrist and was around way before these partisan lines emerged). The Brookings report says it is in the majority of states in 100+ local chapters, but in CA, the article quotes an insider who says it driven by tech executives (that doesn’t mean there aren’t grassroot elements). This is a good place to start. 2600:1012:B006:6700:8C57:71E5:FBCF:FC2F (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomberg profile for Noah Smith labels him a "former Bloomberg Opinion columnist", not a journalist. Teaching finance does not make one a subject-matter expert on housing. The politics section relies far too much on WP:SPS from figures from within the debates themselves (including Owens and Yglesias). NPOV requires that we rely more on disinterested secondary and tertiary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Article title

"YIMBY" can refer to individual people (self-described YIMBYs") or the broader activist movement (the "YIMBY movement"). since the article is about the movement as a whole, not the term "YIMBY", a title such as YIMBYism or YIMBY movement would be more appropriate. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How about "YIMBY movements". (Note the plural, since there are many unrelated organizations, but there is also an overall YIMBY movement.) But that brings up the same point about NIMBY, which is an article not about the term, but the actions of individuals and groups. Though NIMBY's have no broad city-wide or larger organization(s), they usually coalesce to oppose individual projects in their locality and then disband. I suggest that maybe that article should be renamed to "NIMBYism", with appropriate re-directs. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic is described in the lead sentence as a pro-housing movement. The various regional YIMBY movements mentioned in the article still fall under the umbrella of the larger movement. This is consistent with similar titles in Category:Political movements in the United States, and Category:Social movements in the United States, even those with various subdivisions. I still think the WP:SINGULAR title is best. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Good points, thanks for explaining. You've convinced me for the singular. I support "YIMBY movement". ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)