Most of NIMBY legislature and processes that block private construction also block public construction. So most YIMBY arguments to improve the situation apply to both public and private constructions. (Not to mention that public construction has a plenty of problems specific to it.)

There is no trade-off or contradiction between public housing and YIMBY deregulation to allow more private development. I want both. They are complementary.

There's also overlap between YIMBYs are Georgists, they share some skepticism around private land ownership.

This is a fictitious trade-off. Deregulation (of parking minimums, height limits) helps ensure public housing is affordable for the taxpayer and environmentally friendly. If it also helps private developers as a side effect, and that is no loss for public housing.

You seem fairly keen on building public housing. Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? The YIMBYs are the lobby that tends to be pro-new-buildings.

If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea.

> Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY?

YIMBY is the pro-private-development lobby, as best I can tell. PHIMBY is the term I've seen.

> If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea.

I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this.

> I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this.

Well I'm not sure what you're proposing but if it can be characterised as "mass public housing" it sounds like a terrible idea on the face of it, and most people would probably oppose it on that ground. But the YIMBYs would have to agree that you're allowed to try it if you want, otherwise they'd be NIMBYs, on the basis that they are telling other people they can't build on their land.

We get it, you're a commie. No need to constantly repeat that you want public versions of everything that already exists.