Man, this housing thing is going to get REALLY ugly

[highland145]

I'd rather not be surrounded by people dumber than a box of rocks than have more money.

No shit. Your blue state bastards stay the eff away.

 

[Exterous]

Fundamentally, it's a supply and demand problem.

Get local busybodies out of the way by limiting local control, end exclusionary zoning, and let people build more housing on their properties by right.

So many areas and future residents would benefit if people could even put up duplexes to quadplexes on their properties.

Around here there is also the problem that most of the new construction is targeted towards the more affluent.

Same experience here in Chicago. About 8 years ago I was able to find some nice places where I lived around $150k. Now those same places are going for $250k.

I was curious how much of that was just straight inflation. Looks like around $30k. No point other than I was curious, looked it up, hit mutiquote and typed this out

 

[brianmanahan]

So blue states and the fleas are coming South after fucking up their own shit.
Imagine that.🙄

don't worry about me, i ain't coming south of i-70!

i have found about 500 ancestors in my family tree going back to the 1650s, and not a single one in the US has ever lived south of latitude 40

i don't want to break the streak

 

[MrSquished]

So blue states and the fleas are coming South after fucking up their own shit.
Imagine that.

I'm moving next to @IronWing. We might not agree on politics but we do on nature and rocks.

Better to be a blue state flea than a red state Trump party cockroach, any day of the week and twice in Sundays.

The punishment for the fleas was creating places so desirable to live for very smart people, but yet still being greedy with housing policy like the cockroaches.

It's time to change that cycle with smarter housing policy.

And here we have another guy making insane statements that kind of upzoning certain areas slightly means no nature and rocks in this grand nation.

Every day the internet amazes me with the dumbest statements people make. They always one up themselves.

 

[highland145]

don't worry about me, i ain't coming south of i-70!

i have found about 500 ancestors in my family tree going back to the 1650s, and not a single one in the US has ever lived south of latitude 40

i don't want to break the streak

You could move next to me.

 

[MrSquished]

I didn't force anything on anybody. They knew what they were buying when they bought it. Now they want to change the rules to the detriment of the rest of the neighborhood so they can grab a little cash.

So if you buy in an area, nothing can change. I mean it's not like the country changes, population changes, work situations change (see Covid), commerce changes (online retail), I mean it goes on. How can municipalities adjust? They can't according to your logic.

When is it ok for a population to adjust?

Let me guess. As long as it doesn't change a damn thing near you.

How does a society evolve if you don't let it?

Urban sprawl is already a horrific side effect of this mentality. Being against public transport, just another symptom.

 

[IronWing]

You could move next to me.

A neighborhood poet would be nice. Brian could put into words our feelings about junk cars in the front yard.

 

[highland145]

A neighborhood poet would be nice. Brian could put into words our feelings about junk cars in the front yard.

Naw, no junkers, the bodies on the floor.

 

[IronWing]

So if you buy in an area, nothing can change. I mean it's not like the country changes, population changes, work situations change (see Covid), commerce changes (online retail), I mean it goes on.

When is it ok for a population to adjust?

Let me guess. As long as it doesn't change a damn thing near you.

Terrible ideology.

How about when the voters vote for the change? The burn-the-village folks hate that the voters generally don’t support their schemes and therefore try to move these decisions to whichever level of government where the developers hold the most sway, voters be damned. The greed of the pre-growth lobby is insatiable.

 

[Torn Mind]

Building more housing will house more people and that is a bad thing. That's all this says.

Residing in housing is a contract between "The Authority" and "The Resident". "The Authority" sells the space to "The Resident" with the expectation that "The Resident" funds "The Authority". Building more housing will house "Residents" willing to play by "The Authority's" rule and rules.

The working class has use for SFHs as well, as space for their work and having some room for their kids, etc.

"The Authority" prefers high wage earners, thus it likes educated people and businesses the most.

"Building more housing" actually means more accommodation to wage earners or business revenue generators, and commercial space, along with a local school so kids do not have to commute across main thoroughfares and have an increased risk of an accident.

People who have bad habits regardless of income are unfit to please any form of "The Authority". The government is the ultimate authority. Condos have HOAs with favorable laws that allow them to have extra lording power and essentially be a company with taxing powers. Landlords are a secondary authority.

Condos come with the lower purchase price but there is still the expectation that the prospective owner has:
The spending power to eventually pay off the mortgage(or straight up pay it in cash)
The spending power to pay the taxes
The spending power to pay the HOA fees
The willingness to submit to the rules of the state and HOA.

Thus, "desirable" condos can have taxes+fees to the tune of 10,000+ a year to make sure folks getting into one can afford such expenses. "The Maladjusted" are priced out.

I have traveled essentially the entire DC in pursuit of craigslist free shit. Wealthy areas that go condo are building high rises and townhomes to attract more multimillionaires. Some places like like Arlington Cemetary would be prime real estate but would anyone really just zone it out and destroy everything in their to build a few more houses?


Spaces like Bethesda, MD are too valuable to the professionals nearby to accommodate ghetto trash. When you have NIH scientists, AMerican university profs, etc, it makes no sense. Building condos in place of the SFHs would make sense only to accomodate people who will, in the future, enter such fields, i.e interns. But, pray tell, would an estabalished prof with work enjoy living in a giant condo which the younger neighbors party into the night and leave him sleep-deprived for work. No, and that's why high-income wage earners gravitate towards SFHs.

 

[MrSquished]

I didn't force anything on anybody. They knew what they were buying when they bought it. Now they want to change the rules to the detriment of the rest of the neighborhood so they can grab a little cash.

You have proved in zero ways that a tiny bit of upzoning would be detrimental to neighborhoods, in your words, destroy them.

I posted this before and you didn't address it. Minneapolis is just slightly allowing upzoning in single family areas, let's make a wager, will it be destroyed in 5 years?

How Minneapolis Freed Itself From the Stranglehold of Single-Family Homes

Desperate to build more housing, the city just rewrote its decades-old zoning rules.

www.politico.com

Willing to bet? Donation to a charity of something symbolic. A hundred bucks.

 

[MrSquished]

How about when the voters vote for the change? The burn-the-village folks hate that the voters generally don’t support their schemes and therefore try to move these decisions to whichever level of government where the developers hold the most sway, voters be damned. The greed of the pre-growth lobby is insatiable.

So developers are making population growth happen and making people want to live with affordable places near amenities like schools, hospitals, doctors, infrastructure, transportation, shopping and jobs?

That's pretty nefarious of them.

Burn the village lol You are hilarious.

 

[MrSquished]

This is why you need smart, planned density. Not like here where the little density we do have is shotgunned all over the fucking place.

The other problem is most American prefer single family homes, which do not lend themselves to public transportation at all. Even stilling, if cities would develop with high density commercial and residential districts, PT could be done, even with large amounts of single family homes in other districts.

You are correct. And for the people that like single family homes, well, don't move out of one then. And if that person next to you, gasp, turns their one family into a two family, then move before the neighborhood is destroyed, which could happen any minute.

 

[IronWing]

Being against public transport, just another symptom.

You pulled that out of your ass. Nowhere in my posting history will you find opposition to public transportation. You are desperately trying to rationalize screwing over current residents in favor of hypothetical future residents and, incidentally, greedy people who will make a quick buck on up-zoning.

 

[MrSquished]

You pulled that out of your ass. Nowhere in my posting history will you find opposition to public transportation. You are desperately trying to rationalize screwing over current residents in favor of hypothetical future residents and, incidentally, greedy people who will make a quick buck on up-zoning.

That was a general statement, but it does kind of pertain to you. Good public transit can work with single family zoning, but it needs some other type of zoning adjustment too, which you are against. There has to be some higher density somewhere to make it work. Try to respond to something directed at you as well:

So developers are making population growth happen and making people want to live with affordable places near amenities like schools, hospitals, doctors, infrastructure, transportation, shopping and jobs?

That's pretty nefarious of them.

Burn the village lol You are hilarious.

You have proved in zero ways that a tiny bit of upzoning would be detrimental to neighborhoods, or in your words, destroy them.

I posted this before and you didn't address it. Minneapolis is just slightly allowing upzoning in single family areas, let's make a wager, will it be destroyed in 5 years?

How Minneapolis Freed Itself From the Stranglehold of Single-Family Homes

Desperate to build more housing, the city just rewrote its decades-old zoning rules.

www.politico.com

Willing to bet? Donation to a charity of something symbolic. A hundred bucks.

It's amazing. If your parents get old and frail or lonely, or a family member needs help, one can't even make a little private second home/unit for them on your property as it breaks zoning laws. And people are cool with this.

 

[IronWing]

It's amazing. If your parents get old and frail or lonely, or a family member needs help, one can't even make a little private second home/unit for them on your property as it breaks zoning laws. And people are cool with this.

Play that violin! You want a multi-family unit, move where they are zoned. Otherwise, live with the person in a single family unit.

Also, I am under no obligation to address any particular point you might choose to raise.

 

[Zorba]

You are correct. And for the people that like single family homes, well, don't move out of one then. And if that person next to you, gasp, turns their one family into a two family, then move before the neighborhood is destroyed, which could happen any minute.

I'm a believer in zoning, but with real planning. I don't have an issue with up zoning an area with a plan. I don't think people should have unlimited rights to do whatever they want on "their land," especially without a central plan. That is a big part of why we are in this mess, we basically let development happen however someone wanted to do it with no planning or forethought.

 

[MrSquished]

Play that violin! You want a multi-family unit, move where they are zoned. Otherwise, live with the person in a single family unit.

Also, I am under no obligation to address any particular point you might choose to raise.

No you are under no obligation at all. But it helps make your points look ludicrous when you refuse to address them. Time after time.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm a believer in zoning, but with real planning. I don't have an issue with up zoning an area with a plan. I don't think people should have unlimited rights to do whatever they want on "their land," especially without a central plan. That is a big part of why we are in this mess, we basically let development happen however someone wanted to do it with no planning or forethought.

Planning is essential. Infrastructure must be able to work with increased density, etc... And the surrounding areas.

But what you have, as we see here, are NIMBYs that won't address a damn thing except say 'destruction' 'you will kill nature and rocks' 'development must mean we destroy iconic parks' 'stay off my lawn and do with yours what I say just because what you might do might piss me off' 'who cares if the world changes' 'developers are making people want to live near stuff'

They have no nuance to their positions at all, no malleability. Pure ideological nimbyism and nothing more.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

We should start building over golf courses and cemeteries. Those are massive wastes of land that could be used for housing and other stuff that matters, like foot massage places.

Wasn't there a documentary in the 1980's about this. I think it was called Poltergeist or something.

 

[Meghan54]

Just checked in our area...same floor plan, same neighborhood as our house, sold for $100k more than we bought in 2018 We also added a pool...so there's that as well.

Dear God.

There goes your $100k appreciation.

 

[sdifox]

So blue states and the fleas are coming South after fucking up their own shit.
Imagine that.🙄

I'm moving next to @IronWing. We might not agree on politics but we do on nature and rocks.

Last I checked porcupines don't need loan sharks.

 

[jpiniero]

Around here there is also the problem that most of the new construction is targeted towards the more affluent.

Mentioned that already, it has to be that way because of the costs involved in building.

 

[highland145]

Last I checked porcupines don't need loan sharks.

I'm branching out.

 

[Zorba]

Planning is essential. Infrastructure must be able to work with increased density, etc... And the surrounding areas.

But what you have, as we see here, are NIMBYs that won't address a damn thing except say 'destruction' 'you will kill nature and rocks' 'development must mean we destroy iconic parks' 'stay off my lawn and do with yours what I say just because what you might do might piss me off' 'who cares if the world changes' 'developers are making people want to live near stuff'

They have no nuance to their positions at all, no malleability. Pure ideological nimbyism and nothing more.

I agree a lot of people have no nuance. Just like the people claiming "Your neighbor should be able to do whatever they want with 'their' property."

If cities came in, and said this whole area is going to be redeveloped with this zoning and this goal, I think that is great. Rando in a neighborhood deciding to put in a 4 family unit in a single family neighborhood, not so great IMHO.