NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[Zorba]

So how do people who rent get by? Rent increased much faster than household income in a lot of markets.

People generally buy a house as a hedge against housing inflation and to plant roots.

 

[Moonbeam]

Step 1: Endorse policies that make housing prices skyrocket.

Step 2: say you need special tax preferences to save you from skyrocketing house prices.

Cure one disease by imposing a greater disease.

Ever question why on this point with your build up without limit that others on this forum than me see you as you claim you see me?

 

[dank69]

Cure one disease by imposing a greater disease.

Ever question why on this point with your build up without limit that others on this forum than me see you as you claim you see me?

Okay so here we have another straw man. As far as I can tell, even if fskimo theoretically supports no limits on build up, there are geological limits. What he has actually said is that allowing another story or two would vastly help reduce housing prices. Try attacking that specific claim instead of the vincible "no limits" you are beating to death.

 

[Greenman]

Step 1: Endorse policies that make housing prices skyrocket.

Step 2: say you need special tax preferences to save you from skyrocketing house prices.

I would say "endorse policies that create environments where pretty much everyone wants to live, and control a foolish wasteful government that sees you as nothing but a cash cow".

The reality is this argument is moot. Virtually every city has some controls on density and segregating industry from residential, it's an absolute necessity. There was a bone thrown to residential construction in the form of ADU's here in CA, but they haven't taken off as expected. I've built two over the years, the cost is such that very few can afford to build them. In the areas where I work a homeowner will have around $20K invested before the first nail is driven. Construction costs that start at around $450 per square foot insure that only the well healed can afford them.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say "endorse policies that create environments where pretty much everyone wants to live, and control a foolish wasteful government that sees you as nothing but a cash cow".

Interesting - you should go try and tell the people living in tent cities that you're just creating environments where everyone wants to live. Please report back on how that goes.

It's astounding to me that people don't realize you are creating environments where YOU want to live, and pushing the costs of that on to everyone else. Where do you think all these homeless came from? Your choices!

The reality is this argument is moot. Virtually every city has some controls on density and segregating industry from residential, it's an absolute necessity. There was a bone thrown to residential construction in the form of ADU's here in CA, but they haven't taken off as expected.

The reality is states with high cost areas are finally waking up to the disaster and are slowly removing these controls, which is smart. Just have to keep pushing to abolish them entirely.

I've built two over the years, the cost is such that very few can afford to build them. In the areas where I work a homeowner will have around $20K invested before the first nail is driven. Construction costs that start at around $450 per square foot insure that only the well healed can afford them.

I am genuinely baffled by arguments like this. New cars are expensive and only the well heeled can afford them - so what do the less well heeled do?

 

[Brainonska511]

The reality is this argument is moot. Virtually every city has some controls on density and segregating industry from residential, it's an absolute necessity.

Cities have an interest in controlling how building is planned, sure. But city governments are under a form of regulatory capture, where incumbent interests (eg, homeowners with single-family homes under single-family zoning) ensure that nothing will change that.

Zoning reform isn't about allowing someone to make a nuisance industry next door. And no one is going to throw up a skyscraper on their quarter acre lot if zoning laws are relaxed. It's about allowing people to simply build more housing, and much of it would probably be simple things like duplex to quadplexes (of varying configurations).

 

[fskimospy]

Cities have an interest in controlling how building is planned, sure. But city governments are under a form of regulatory capture, where incumbent interests (eg, homeowners with single-family homes under single-family zoning) ensure that nothing will change that.

Zoning reform isn't about allowing someone to make a nuisance industry next door. And no one is going to throw up a skyscraper on their quarter acre lot if zoning laws are relaxed. It's about allowing people to simply build more housing, and much of it would probably be simple things like duplex to quadplexes (of varying configurations).

I'm never sure if it's ignorance or some sort of straw man but nobody can ever explain to me why in this no zoning world people are suddenly throwing up skyscrapers in the suburbs. Like, what's the economic case for that?

I think it's more that these people are homeowners and like the current situation because it puts money in their pocket and so when confronted with the mass suffering it's causing they conjure up extreme scenarios to justify something they know is pretty awful.

 

[Greenman]

People living in tents can't afford anything. Is your plan to build so many homes that the purchase price will drop by 90%? Then hand out loans to people that will never repay a dime of it? This is pipe dream stuff. Everyone can't live in California. Everyone isn't entitled to to a certain location.

 

[dank69]

I'm never sure if it's ignorance or some sort of straw man but nobody can ever explain to me why in this no zoning world people are suddenly throwing up skyscrapers in the suburbs. Like, what's the economic case for that?

I think it's more that these people are homeowners and like the current situation because it puts money in their pocket and so when confronted with the mass suffering it's causing they conjure up extreme scenarios to justify something they know is pretty awful.

I don't think ignorance has any bearing on whether or not something qualifies as a straw man. A straw man is a straw man whether the person doing it knows it or not.

 

[fskimospy]

People living in tents can't afford anything. Is your plan to build so many homes that the purchase price will drop by 90%? Then hand out loans to people that will never repay a dime of it? This is pipe dream stuff. Everyone can't live in California. Everyone isn't entitled to to a certain location.

This post really shows how little NIMBYs understand the problem.

A lot of people living in their cars and in tents HAVE JOBS. They can afford things, many of them could afford housing until recently when prices got so far out of hand! Again, why do you think homelessness in California skyrocketed in the last decade or so? Did everyone get addicted to drugs and/or go crazy? No. The price of housing just got so bad that more and more people can't afford it.

This is just a further attempt at denial of the real human costs of your NIMBYism. You're doing this to them.

 

[dank69]

This post really shows how little NIMBYs understand the problem.

A lot of people living in their cars and in tents HAVE JOBS. They can afford things, many of them could afford housing until recently when prices got so far out of hand! Again, why do you think homelessness in California skyrocketed in the last decade or so? Did everyone get addicted to drugs and/or go crazy? No. The price of housing just got so bad that more and more people can't afford it.

This is just a further attempt at denial of the real human costs of your NIMBYism. You're doing this to them.

Bro, all those people are there because they are dirty and lazy, and I didn't come to this conclusion because it makes me feel better about myself.

 

[MrSquished]

It's not just homeless. It's essentially working poor who have housing but they can never move upward economically anywhere because it's so expensive. And they have jobs that need to be done where people can afford homes live.

 

[K1052]

This post really shows how little NIMBYs understand the problem.

A lot of people living in their cars and in tents HAVE JOBS. They can afford things, many of them could afford housing until recently when prices got so far out of hand! Again, why do you think homelessness in California skyrocketed in the last decade or so? Did everyone get addicted to drugs and/or go crazy? No. The price of housing just got so bad that more and more people can't afford it.

This is just a further attempt at denial of the real human costs of your NIMBYism. You're doing this to them.

Related to this the argument that building a lot more market rate units somehow precludes building more affordable and public housing is a false one. In fact doing more of the former funds the latter through increased tax revenues.

 

[mect]

While Americans may not like dense living spaces, they are the spaces that continue to subsidize the rest of us. Not Just Bikes recently did a great video on this.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not just homeless. It's essentially working poor who have housing but they can never move upward economically anywhere because it's so expensive. And they have jobs that need to be done where people can afford homes live.

Yup, and as I mentioned earlier, in the Bay Area, working class people, like teachers, firefighters and police, tend to live across the bay where housing is cheaper, then commute to their jobs here. Creating tremendous traffic and pollution. We need not only more housing, but more affordable housing everywhere.

 

[MrSquished]

While Americans may not like dense living spaces, they are the spaces that continue to subsidize the rest of us. Not Just Bikes recently did a great video on this.

I like that guys channel, he does some good pieces.

Plenty of Americans do like living in denser areas though. That's where more things to do happen, and far more variety of things to do. It does skew by age a bit a lot of younger folks really don't want to be out in the burbs. Frankly, it's terribly boring for a lot of them. As people make families then they often leave cities for more suburban living. But again, there is no set rule - there are people who are young and just want the quiet of suburbia, and there are people who raise families and get older that still prefer the hustle and bustle and amenities of a denser city.

I know plenty of people in their thirties, forties and fifties that have zero interest in moving to the burbs and want to stay in denser areas nearer to NYC because it's just much more lively to them. You could not pay me to move to a less dense area. There are a lot of people willing to pay big bucks to not move out of denser areas and into the suburbs.

 

[fskimospy]

I like that guys channel, he does some good pieces.

Plenty of Americans do like living in denser areas though. That's where more things to do happen, and far more variety of things to do. It does skew by age a bit a lot of younger folks really don't want to be out in the burbs. Frankly, it's terribly boring for a lot of them. As people make families then they often leave cities for more suburban living. But again, there is no set rule - there are people who are young and just want the quiet of suburbia, and there are people who raise families and get older that still prefer the hustle and bustle and amenities of a denser city.

I know plenty of people in their thirties, forties and fifties that have zero interest in moving to the burbs and want to stay in denser areas nearer to NYC because it's just much more lively to them. You could not pay me to move to a less dense area. There are a lot of people willing to pay big bucks to not move out of denser areas and into the suburbs.

I always find the disconnect funny. ‘Nobody wants to live in a dense place, therefore we must use the government to ban density because if we let people do what they want they would make this a dense place.’

Like…what?

 

[MrSquished]

I always find the disconnect funny. ‘Nobody wants to live in a dense place, therefore we must use the government to ban density because if we let people do what they want they would make this a dense place.’

Like…what?

Well greenman is conservative and is typical of conservatives they can never put themselves in another person's shoes and they only care about themselves. He's been on the record multiple times saying nobody wants to live in cities it's like living in the ghettos and everybody wants to be in a single family suburban setting. The guy literally has no clue about how the world works.

 

[Brainonska511]

I like that guys channel, he does some good pieces.

Plenty of Americans do like living in denser areas though. That's where more things to do happen, and far more variety of things to do. It does skew by age a bit a lot of younger folks really don't want to be out in the burbs. Frankly, it's terribly boring for a lot of them. As people make families then they often leave cities for more suburban living. But again, there is no set rule - there are people who are young and just want the quiet of suburbia, and there are people who raise families and get older that still prefer the hustle and bustle and amenities of a denser city.

I know plenty of people in their thirties, forties and fifties that have zero interest in moving to the burbs and want to stay in denser areas nearer to NYC because it's just much more lively to them. You could not pay me to move to a less dense area. There are a lot of people willing to pay big bucks to not move out of denser areas and into the suburbs.

Also: how many people are moving out to less-dense areas as housing becomes more unaffordable in cities due to a lack of construction and people willing to pool resources to crowd into 3/4-bedroom places that used to go to families?

 

[fskimospy]

Well greenman is conservative and is typical of conservatives they can never put themselves in another person's shoes and they only care about themselves. He's been on the record multiple times saying nobody wants to live in cities it's like living in the ghettos and everybody wants to be in a single family suburban setting. The guy literally has no clue about how the world works.

It's not just conservatives - listen to Moonbeam, who I doubt anyone would describe as conservative. He's literally said that anyone who doesn't want to live in single family housing like him should be forced to by the government because they are insane.

Still I think in both cases the real cause is people searching for a value neutral way to excuse their own selfishness. They like the current situation because they get all the profit and pay none of the costs, and so they want it to continue. They don't like mass human suffering any more than we do though so they have to come up with an excuse as to why skyrocketing housing costs are due to something other than a restriction in supply. They have apparently chosen the excuse that nobody wants to live in dense housing anyway so they are saving people from themselves, although recently I've seen movement towards 'it is impossible to lower housing costs anyway so there's no point in trying', which as I mentioned is a similar argument that climate change denialists adopted when they had definitively lost the scientific argument.

 

[MrSquished]

It's not just conservatives - listen to Moonbeam, who I doubt anyone would describe as conservative. He's literally said that anyone who doesn't want to live in single family housing like him should be forced to by the government because they are insane.

Still I think in both cases the real cause is people searching for a value neutral way to excuse their own selfishness. They like the current situation because they get all the profit and pay none of the costs, and so they want it to continue. They don't like mass human suffering any more than we do though so they have to come up with an excuse as to why skyrocketing housing costs are due to something other than a restriction in supply. They have apparently chosen the excuse that nobody wants to live in dense housing anyway so they are saving people from themselves, although recently I've seen movement towards 'it is impossible to lower housing costs anyway so there's no point in trying', which as I mentioned is a similar argument that climate change denialists adopted when they had definitively lost the scientific argument.

I agree moonbeams position is also nimby but I don't think he is ignorant of the fact that many people in the world really do prefer living in cities whether are far more things to do, he just doesn't want to make it easier to build where he is so he can keep his lifestyle

 

[dank69]

It's not just conservatives - listen to Moonbeam, who I doubt anyone would describe as conservative. ...

The more I see him post lately the more I am convinced he is a conservative who reached an epiphany in some areas but hasn't yet realized it applies to all areas. It is difficult to break those old patterns.

I agree moonbeams position is also nimby but I don't think he is ignorant of the fact that many people in the world really do prefer living in cities whether are far more things to do, he just doesn't want to make it easier to build where he is so he can keep his lifestyle

No I definitely remember seeing him post something about people who like living in dense areas as not knowing any better.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree moonbeams position is also nimby but I don't think he is ignorant of the fact that many people in the world really do prefer living in cities whether are far more things to do, he just doesn't want to make it easier to build where he is so he can keep his lifestyle

There is a post in the past where he says it explicitly but for reasons I imagine you understand searching his post history is difficult. In this post in this thread he's at implicitly acknowledging it:

Page 11 - NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

He says that his support of zoning restrictions that prevent people from building dense housing is like a law that prevents people from committing suicide - saving people from their own bad impulses. I agree that his actual reasoning is selfishness but he has definitely attempted to excuse that by saying he's saving the world from mental illness because otherwise he might have to come to grips with the consequences of his actions.

 

[MrSquished]

There is a post in the past where he says it explicitly but for reasons I imagine you understand searching his post history is difficult. In this post in this thread he's at implicitly acknowledging it:

Page 11 - NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

He says that his support of zoning restrictions that prevent people from building dense housing is like a law that prevents people from committing suicide - saving people from their own bad impulses. I agree that his actual reasoning is selfishness but he has definitely attempted to excuse that by saying he's saving the world from mental illness because otherwise he might have to come to grips with the consequences of his actions.

I stand corrected. Those are extremely ignorant things to say.

Like I said, I can understand if some people prefer a more quiet life, low key, or more immersed in nature. That's fine.

To me and millions like me, when humans get together and create things, from food to live music to art to just generally expressing themselves, these are the things that make me happy. And to get enough variety and diversity of those things and more, you need density.

Living in cities can be tough if you don't have an insane amount of money. People do it because they like the pluses. I understand if people wouldn't want to live in the city as well and prefer more space. To me, the suburbs are a place where my soul would die, bored and starved.

 

[fskimospy]

I stand corrected. Those are extremely ignorant things to say.

Like I said, I can understand if some people prefer a more quiet life, low key, or more immersed in nature. That's fine.

To me and millions like me, when humans get together and create things, from food to live music to art to just generally expressing themselves, these are the things that make me happy. And to get enough variety and diversity of those things and more, you need density.

Living in cities can be tough if you don't have an insane amount of money. People do it because they like the pluses. I understand if people wouldn't want to live in the city as well and prefer more space. To me, the suburbs are a place where my soul would die, bored and starved.

Exactly! Everyone should live where they want.