Human nature and the concrete jungle.

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps the solutions to so many of societies problems related to the availability of housing that appear stymied by local resistance to laws designed to increase housing density, and the continued political stalemate the proponents of such solutions face, aside from the obvious fact the residents of such more open space areas are easily plagued by visions of stepping into urine and feces as they often have to do high density places, have another source on top of NIMBYism. Perhaps the proponents of such solutions have experience unconsciously within themselves, via long exposure to high density unnaturally barren places themselves, an atrophying or perhaps even a genetic absence of an inner sensibility that lies behind that resistance to be jammed like rats or canned like sardines into cans from which those so called NIMBYs seek to protect themselves, and thereby seek to impose on others a level of density that simply goes against the grain of most people instinctively.

Perhaps then, by beating their heads against the wall of logical fallacy they themselves are unable themselves comprehend, they in fact seek to create living conditions that simply make impossible for others to experience and feel a common joy others have in being human beings:

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

 

[compuwiz1]

Joy in being human beings? For me, that is procreational, so fuck it.

Now what are you trying to say?

 

[repoman0]

TLDR: it’s cool that there’s so little housing that people have to shit on the streets because other people get to pretend it doesn’t exist so they can have a big backyard

 

[Moonbeam]

Joy in being human beings? For me, that is procreational, so fuck it.

Now what are you trying to say?

That driving from North Highlands to Natomas there was a light on in a trailer in acres of open land and that an old man I knew years and years ago while watching birds fly would astral travel.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps the solutions to so many of societies problems related to the availability of housing that appear stymied by local resistance to laws designed to increase housing density, and the continued political stalemate the proponents of such solutions face, aside from the obvious fact the residents of such more open space areas are easily plagued by visions of stepping into urine and feces as they often have to do high density places, have another source on top of NIMBYism. Perhaps the proponents of such solutions have experience unconsciously within themselves, via long exposure to high density unnaturally barren places themselves, an atrophying or perhaps even a genetic absence of an inner sensibility that lies behind that resistance to be jammed like rats or canned like sardines into cans from which those so called NIMBYs seek to protect themselves, and thereby seek to impose on others a level of density that simply goes against the grain of most people instinctively.

Perhaps then, by beating their heads against the wall of logical fallacy they themselves are unable themselves comprehend, they in fact seek to create living conditions that simply make impossible for others to experience and feel a common joy others have in being human beings:

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

The good news is that the stalemate is ending, pro-housing people are winning victories all over the place, especially in the hardest hit areas like California.

What's most interesting to me is your psychological projection on this issue. You think that pro-housing people want to force people to live a certain way when all they want is for YOU to stop forcing THEM to live in a certain way. This gets back to your fundamental lack of understanding of how other people think though.

Here's a radical thought, let humans live in whatever type of house they want to - stop trying to force them to live the way you want them to.

 

[fskimospy]

For a fun time I think you should go down to one of the mass homeless encampments in LA or San Francisco and record what happens when you tell them this is for their own good.

 

[Moonbeam]

The good news is that the stalemate is ending, pro-housing people are winning victories all over the place, especially in the hardest hit areas like California.

What's most interesting to me is your psychological projection on this issue. You think that pro-housing people want to force people to live a certain way when all they want is for YOU to stop forcing THEM to live in a certain way. This gets back to your fundamental lack of understanding of how other people think though.

Here's a radical thought, let humans live in whatever type of house they want to - stop trying to force them to live the way you want them to.

Yes, I know. Not devoting funds to improve community policing is victimizing those who know the only answer is to de-fund policing.Burn down the Amazon because people need meat. We need a world covered by 200 story Favelas, and here and there a museum with million dollar pressed flowers in frames on the walls from an era when once they were there for collecting, echos of the ghosts of people who were once were able to feel.

I wonder where all those science fiction films are coming from where the gardens of the elites lie somewhere floating above clouds of smog haze. It's wonderful to be an idealist, a wish that all people are equal especially when one's view of equality is that everybody equally mired in shit.

There are two ways to equality I can see. One would be to bring the bottom toward the top and the other to do the opposite. One is difficult and one is easy, fueled by anger, jealousy, greed, and rage.

But the fun part for me is that the one issue you didn't address is the impulse toward the love of nature seeks natural spaces around one's self as a genetically encoded characteristic and what that implies to the drive to that greater density as a utilitarian solution goes against human instinct. What does it matter if you are winning politically. As I have said so many times before, the main goal of people who seek psychotherapy or self improvement politically or otherwise is to be better at being sick. It is you who, in my opinion, are intellectually hampered by thinking, not to know what people actually feel, as opposed to that they think they feel.

I mean, if you are a lover of utilitarian logic as solutions, clearly extermination of the poor and the homeless is the way to go. I do admit, though, life as a rat would be an improvement, personally speaking, over that.

As far as telling my story to the homeless I would cite lack of interest. What impact would the fact that it am likely out 40,000 a year in lost income from rent and paying the bills in near total support of two otherwise disabled, would be homeless people. I wager I am doing slightly more than the average to ameliorate the situation, even with all of my selfish self interest. Thanks.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I know. Not devoting funds to improve community policing is victimizing those who know the only answer is to de-fund policing.Burn down the Amazon because people need meat. We need a world covered by 200 story Favelas, and here and there a museum with million dollar pressed flowers in frames on the walls from an era when once they were there for collecting, echos of the ghosts of people who were once were able to feel.

I wonder where all those science fiction films are coming from where the gardens of the elites lie somewhere floating above clouds of smog haze. It's wonderful to be an idealist, a wish that all people are equal especially when one's view of equality is that everybody equally mired in shit.

There are two ways to equality I can see. One would be to bring the bottom toward the top and the other to do the opposite. One is difficult and one is easy, fueled by anger, jealousy, greed, and rage.

But the fun part for me is that the one issue you didn't address is the impulse toward the love of nature seeks natural spaces around one's self as a genetically encoded characteristic and what that implies to the drive to that greater density as a utilitarian solution goes against human instinct. What does it matter if you are winning politically. As I have said so many times before, the main goal of people who seek psychotherapy or self improvement politically or otherwise is to be better at being sick. It is you who, in my opinion, are intellectually hampered by thinking, not to know what people actually feel, as opposed to that they think they feel.

I mean, if you are a lover of utilitarian logic as solutions, clearly extermination of the poor and the homeless is the way to go. I do admit, though, life as a rat would be an improvement, personally speaking, over that.

That’s the beauty of my position. If people want to go live in sparsely populated areas they are free to do that! If they want to live in densely populated areas they are free to do that too - everyone gets to choose what works best for them.

Your position on the other hand is because you know what’s best, residences you disapprove of must be banned. It’s exactly because you know people wouldn’t choose to live the way you want that you feel compelled to force them.

That’s really the difference between our positions. I want people to live however makes them happiest, you think people must be punished until they think like you do.

As far as telling my story to the homeless I would cite lack of interest. What impact would the fact that it am likely out 40,000 a year in lost income from rent and paying the bills in near total support of two otherwise disabled, would be homeless people. I wager I am doing slightly more than the average to ameliorate the situation, even with all of my selfish self interest. Thanks.

I’m sure the homeless would take great comfort that despite advocating for policies that have destroyed their lives and thousands of others in your boundless generosity you have decided to exempt two other people from that misery. Also, you view immiserating them as doing them a favor, haha.

This is another unfortunately common human trait, people have an enormous ability to convince themselves their evil acts are necessary, or even good.

 

[Greenman]

TLDR: it’s cool that there’s so little housing that people have to shit on the streets because other people get to pretend it doesn’t exist so they can have a big backyard

Are you suggesting that we're running short of buildable land?
The fundamental problem with affordable housing is that it doesn't exist. Housing is expensive, affordable housing is housing that someone else pays for.
There are millions of acres available for housing, the primary issue is that no one wants to pay for it, the secondary issue is that no matter how much is built, we will always need more.
In most areas density has an upper limit imposed by infrastructure. Consumables need to be brought in, waste needs to be taken out. In parts of California the power grid is already at it's upper limit, not only in production but in distribution.

All that said, I have no issue at all building hives. Just build them in the hive area.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you suggesting that we're running short of buildable land?
The fundamental problem with affordable housing is that it doesn't exist. Housing is expensive, affordable housing is housing that someone else pays for.
There are millions of acres available for housing, the primary issue is that no one wants to pay for it, the secondary issue is that no matter how much is built, we will always need more.
In most areas density has an upper limit imposed by infrastructure. Consumables need to be brought in, waste needs to be taken out. In parts of California the power grid is already at it's upper limit, not only in production but in distribution.

All that said, I have no issue at all building hives. Just build them in the hive area.

Surely you realize the infrastructure limit was zero before anything was built there, right? Infrastructure follows development.

All pro-housing people are asking is to allow the free market to make these decisions as opposed to central planning. I would think conservatives would like this!

 

[Greenman]

Surely you realize the infrastructure limit was zero before anything was built there, right? Infrastructure follows development.

All pro-housing people are asking is to allow the free market to make these decisions as opposed to central planning. I would think conservatives would like this!

You're exactly right about infrastructure, but it's far more costly to upgrade than to start from scratch. The reason is having room to work, no traffic to reroute, no need to keep services operational while doing the work.
The reality is that the free market has already made the decisions, but now we want to change them. No thank you. If we want high density areas lets build high density areas.

NIMBYism isn't a bad thing, it's a normal thing, it's a logical thing.

 

[IronWing]

LOL at the patent dishonesty of folks claiming that up zoning will benefit the homeless in any way. All it will do is infill the alleyways in which they sleep. Builders will do what they are already doing, building the largest, most expensive, most ostentatious shitpiles they can possibly squeeze on a lot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Surely you realize the infrastructure limit was zero before anything was built there, right? Infrastructure follows development.

All pro-housing people are asking is to allow the free market to make these decisions as opposed to central planning. I would think conservatives would like this!

Actually, infrastructure is the first thing that goes in before new construction is built. That is because most of it is underground and it's easier to dig trenches etc on open ground than it is to dig under buildings. So when you say infrastructure follows development what you mean is that development can't happen unless infrastructure can be built to support it. In cases where such addition exceeds the capacity of the existent to accommodate, all new infrastructure must be additional to the existing. This means that cost and affordable are in conflict and may be beyond the ability of demand to compensate. All of the affordable housing in my area I could never afford and also would never be able to qualify for and it is a pitiful small percentage of the housing in any one new project proposed.

And when it comes to accommodating increased traffic it's pretty hard to make roads bigger once they are built around.

 

[Moonbeam]

LOL at the patent dishonesty of folks claiming that up zoning will benefit the homeless in any way. All it will do is infill the alleyways in which they sleep. Builders will do what they are already doing, building the largest, most expensive, most ostentatious shitpiles they can possibly squeeze on a lot.

Hehe. I just can't believe it's the Real Estate industry that would be involved in pushing density housing and paying off politicians to get laws passed in their favor while pulling the wool over sympathetic liberals' eyes. We are going to save the homeless.

 

[Moonbeam]

That’s the beauty of my position. If people want to go live in sparsely populated areas they are free to do that! If they want to live in densely populated areas they are free to do that too - everyone gets to choose what works best for them.

Your position on the other hand is because you know what’s best, residences you disapprove of must be banned. It’s exactly because you know people wouldn’t choose to live the way you want that you feel compelled to force them.

That’s really the difference between our positions. I want people to live however makes them happiest, you think people must be punished until they think like you do.


I’m sure the homeless would take great comfort that despite advocating for policies that have destroyed their lives and thousands of others in your boundless generosity you have decided to exempt two other people from that misery. Also, you view immiserating them as doing them a favor, haha.

This is another unfortunately common human trait, people have an enormous ability to convince themselves their evil acts are necessary, or even good.

Jesus, great analysis except you left out time in your musings.

I already decided to live in as sparsely populated area as I could that I could afford and that I could tolerate the commute time to and from work. Now all I want is for the disgusting life in high density areas not to follow me like a growing fungus and impose it's will on what was once my free choice. I already did what was best and now you and your fellow compassionate liberals want to force me out so you can chose to live where I did because you hadn't come along and ruined it yet. In years to come everything that you spoil in your endless desire to destroy the good that others have created, there will be others hounding your heals demanding the lifeless conditions you happily adapt to be made more lifeless still. You are pressing down on the lever of a giant toilet and it is starting to swirl. Unfortunately you are infected with a common human trait. You do not know what you feel.