NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[fskimospy]

Like do people seriously not get how this works? Developers build fancy new houses for rich people. Those rich people buy them and then move out of their current, less fancy house. Then someone not quite as rich moves into their old place, rinse, repeat.

 

[IronWing]

Read your second paragraph first, then go back and read your first paragraph to understand why your idea won’t solve the housing crisis.

There is nothing stopping the mass building of houses right now. You just want to put them in specific locations and the people who happen to live in these locations don’t want them. People living in San Francisco don’t owe me or you cheap housing and stripping that city of zoning wouldn’t create cheaper housing anyway.

 

[Moonbeam]

So now your fellow humans are a harmful pollutant to be controlled and removed. Gross, but also not super surprising.


You’re projecting again. My entire position is that everyone should be free to determine what is good for them. YOUR position, as you’ve freely admitted in the past, is that you know what is best for everyone and that it’s appropriate for you to force everyone to live the way you think is best because, and again, these are your own words, anyone who doesn’t want to live the way you do is insane.

So yeah, who is the fascist - the guy who says everyone should be able to live in any kind of house they want or the guy who says anyone who doesn’t live like him is insane and must be forced to conform by the government?

Clearly in describing me you have described yourself and in describing yourself you have taken my position. Your position is that you know what the good is and any you imagine disagree don’t know what it is.

I know that words like love harmony and beauty describe deep human longings and that besides these things you may ask what there is. Desires things like these there is nothing. To know these longings is not to think but to feel. Your claim is that it is thought, untethered imagination, nor feeling that is real. Wake up. You will create a world that is empty of being joy.

I already said I would love to create a larger home to accommodate more people but can’t afford both the cost of construction and the increased property tax. If I sold my house to a homeless poor person for a dollar, they would not be able to afford the utilities and the property tax. The tax next door is 1000 a month.

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly in describing me you have described yourself and in describing yourself you have taken my position. Your position is that you know what the good is and any you imagine disagree don’t know what it is.

I know that words like love harmony and beauty describe deep human longings and that besides these things you may ask what there is. Desires things like these there is nothing. To know these longings is not to think but to feel. Your claim is that it is thought, untethered imagination, nor feeling that is real. Wake up. You will create a world that is empty of being joy.

I already said I would love to create a larger home to accommodate more people but can’t afford both the cost of construction and the increased property tax. If I sold my house to a homeless poor person for a dollar, they would not be able to afford the utilities and the property tax. The tax next door is 1000 a month.

If by saying that people should be free to live however they want is me ‘knowing what is good’ then sure, as to me letting people decide what is good for themselves is an intrinsically good thing.

The best part is you don’t have to build anything to help out, you can help out just by voting only for people who will repeal the housing bans around where you live.

 

[fskimospy]

Read your second paragraph first, then go back and read your first paragraph to understand why your idea won’t solve the housing crisis.

My first paragraph very clearly explains how my idea will solve the housing crisis and the second paragraph shows that speculators think we won’t do what is necessary to solve it.

This is not rocket science - more supply = lower prices. Econ 101.

There is nothing stopping the mass building of houses right now. You just want to put them in specific locations and the people who happen to live in these locations don’t want them. People living in San Francisco don’t owe me or you cheap housing and stripping that city of zoning wouldn’t create cheaper housing anyway.

You’re right, they don’t owe us anything! We don’t owe them anything either though. I don’t want to build them anywhere in particular, I want the market to be free to build them where people want. San Francisco has no right to exclusionary zoning and since they have abused the privilege of having control of their zoning the state should take it away. The good news is California is steadily moving towards doing just that because they understand more supply means lower prices.

Yes though, stripping the city of housing would create cheaper housing without a doubt. That is unless you think economics no longer applies?

 

[fskimospy]

I would love someone to try and explain to me why increasing supply will not lower prices.

 

[K1052]

I would love someone to try and explain to me why increasing supply will not lower prices.

I think the decades long under building in the US is at fault here for this perception. People see what they think is a "lot of construction" especially if they are apartments but the rents don't seem to fall. Reality is that with zoned capacity so low you can't actually put enough supply on the market to make it happen so they think why build anything at all.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the decades long under building in the US is at fault here for this perception. People see what they think is a "lot of construction" especially if they are apartments but the rents don't seem to fall. Reality is that with zoned capacity so low you can't actually put enough supply on the market to make it happen so they think why build anything at all.

I think this is a good part of it, yes. It still amazes me how often I hear the idea that building more houses will cause prices to INCREASE overall though. I have never heard someone explain the theory of action behind that without sounding completely stupid or insane though.

 

[IronWing]

San Francisco has no right to exclusionary zoning and since they have abused the privilege of having control of their zoning the state should take it away.

Um, yes they do. This is why your claim of promoting freedom falls flat. You don't like the local result of freedom so you appeal to a higher authority to strip away freedom from folks for having the audacity to exercise it in a fashion you don't like.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Um, yes they do. This is why your claim of promoting freedom falls flat. You don't like the local result of freedom so you appeal to a higher authority to strip away freedom from folks for having the audacity to exercise it in a fashion you don't like.

Wealthy people leveraging their political power to distort markets and maximize their profits is freedom now?

Interesting perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, yes they do. This is why your claim of promoting freedom falls flat. You don't like the local result of freedom so you appeal to a higher authority to strip away freedom from folks for having the audacity to exercise it in a fashion you don't like.

‘taking away my ability to force others to live how I want is an attack on my freedom’. Lol.

San Francisco has no sovereignty independent of the state, it only has zoning because the state has decided to let them have it. They could just as easily take it away.

 

[fskimospy]

Wealthy people leveraging their political power to distort markets and maximize their profits is freedom now?

Interesting perspective.

Banning people from constructing disfavored houses on land they own is freedom - attempting to make it so people can build whatever they want is tyranny.

Also, increasing the supply of something doesn’t decrease the price. We live in the upside down now I guess.

 

[IronWing]

Wealthy people leveraging their political power to distort markets and maximize their profits is freedom now?

Interesting perspective.

No, middle class people are banding together to keep the wealthy from hosing their communites.

 

[IronWing]

‘taking away my ability to force others to live how I want is an attack on my freedom’. Lol.

San Francisco has no sovereignty independent of the state, it only has zoning because the state has decided to let them have it. They could just as easily take it away.

Like I said, on this issue you go full authoritarian. It makes no sense but I guess you want what you want, others be damned.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, on this issue you go full authoritarian. It makes no sense but I guess you want what you want, others be damned.

So to be clear the ‘authoritarian’ position is people should be able to do what they want with their land so long as it’s safe and the ‘freedom’ position is that the government should forcibly prevent people from doing that.

Interesting.

 

[Brainonska511]

No, middle class people are banding together to keep the wealthy from hosing their communites.

Those aren't middle class people buying and living in multi-million dollar single family homes in San Francisco or Berkley.

 

[Greenman]

So to be clear if someone wanted to build an apartment building next door to you that would be legal?

Hell no, and I'd sue everyone involved if they tried it. There are two areas within three miles of me that are zoned and designed for high density housing, and that's what's being built there. The infrastructure is "in place" except for the main road into the area. That's already well beyond capacity and there are no plans to upgrade. The water supply is inadequate at this point, sewage treatment is near capacity, and the power grid is overtaxed and we have rolling blackouts all summer. Rent's are absurd and crime is way up, but at least everyone has the opportunity to live in a marginally desirable area, as long as they have an income around $70k a year.

 

[fskimospy]

Hell no, and I'd sue everyone involved if they tried it. There are two areas within three miles of me that are zoned and designed for high density housing, and that's what's being built there. The infrastructure is "in place" except for the main road into the area. That's already well beyond capacity and there are no plans to upgrade. The water supply is inadequate at this point, sewage treatment is near capacity, and the power grid is overtaxed and we have rolling blackouts all summer. Rent's are absurd and crime is way up, but at least everyone has the opportunity to live in a marginally desirable area, as long as they have an income around $70k a year.

Right, so that’s a housing ban.

You should have no right to tell your neighbors what sort of house they can build on their own property. If you want to control what gets built there then you can buy it yourself.

 

[Brainonska511]

Hell no, and I'd sue everyone involved if they tried it. There are two areas within three miles of me that are zoned and designed for high density housing, and that's what's being built there. The infrastructure is "in place" except for the main road into the area. That's already well beyond capacity and there are no plans to upgrade. The water supply is inadequate at this point, sewage treatment is near capacity, and the power grid is overtaxed and we have rolling blackouts all summer. Rent's are absurd and crime is way up, but at least everyone has the opportunity to live in a marginally desirable area, as long as they have an income around $70k a year.

Rents are absurd because there isn't enough housing. You know, supply and demand.

As for infrastructure - a government should be investing in the needed infrastructure as the tax base and population grows. It's not like hundreds of people move in overnight. It's possible to plan for growth. And denser living is easier to accommodate from an infrastructure standpoint. You don't need to lay as many lines, multifamily homes use fewer energy resources per capita.

 

[Moonbeam]

If by saying that people should be free to live however they want is me ‘knowing what is good’ then sure, as to me letting people decide what is good for themselves is an intrinsically good thing.

The best part is you don’t have to build anything to help out, you can help out just by voting only for people who will repeal the housing bans around where you live.

I have said two things. I feel it is wrong to yank prop 13 from people who have it and have chosen to keep their homes because they chose that for emotional reasons over cashing out with some possibly large profit in equity, forcing them to make that decision due to an inability to pay. Secondly, I believe that while a cubical off the street no matter how densely packed with similar cubicles is better than living on the street, that density is a bad solution to the housing and that the creation of widespread economic opportunities throughout the US is better than forcing people into cities.

NIMBYism is nothing more than people deciding what is good for them. It happens that what is good for them prevents massive increases in housing density. And most of that density will be in the form of rents that make the wealthy even richer. Construction costs and infrastructure costs are far beyond the means of the poor in high demand areas. NYC and SF have lots of high density housing and hardly anybody can afford it.

The suburbs grew up around cities because people want to escape high density causing enough traffic to cause many to want to move back again.

The only time I can remember when I could vote in any matter involving housing was my vote against prop 13. I simply politically am of the opinion that density isn't the healthy answer to people flooding into areas that happen to become desirable for economic reasons. People flood into areas for economic reasons mainly and wouldn't need to if they had a guaranteed income. We used to homestead people with 40 free acres and left them to their own devices. 40 acres could support a community owned farm. Corporations are buying up and destroying our farm land. Same thing could go for small industrial parks with housing on premise. And a million other things, like university multidisciplinary design of new cities and tearing down and rebuilding old ones better. Housing costs of employees can also be partially or wholy shifted to corporations. So many things. None of them will win any politician the next election.

 

[Greenman]

Right, developers build luxury housing generally and that’s fine. Poor and middle class people usually can’t afford to live in brand new houses similar to how they usually can’t afford brand new cars. Odd how people understand this basic fact when it comes to the car market but struggle to grasp the exact same dynamic for housing.

As for speculation in the housing market goes they are speculating PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THE PRICE OF HOUSING WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. Want to screw those rich speculators over? Build a shit load of houses so that prices drop.

Developers build what they can make a profit on. You don't build luxury homes in depressed areas, that's a ticket to bankruptcy. You build to the local market, the rule of thumb is that the improved lot should be 30% of the selling price. As an area becomes more desirable, the cost of each lot goes up, to maintain that 30% ratio you have to build homes that are more desirable.

We can mandate whatever we want, but if the mandate doesn't fit the market nothing will get built.

 

[Moonbeam]

‘taking away my ability to force others to live how I want is an attack on my freedom’. Lol.

San Francisco has no sovereignty independent of the state, it only has zoning because the state has decided to let them have it. They could just as easily take it away.

Sadly one has to live in the real world. You are a dreamer, but a myopic one. I hope for dreams that remember we do not live by bread alone. Even apes make nests, but they do it in the beauty of trees.

 

[Moonbeam]

Developers build what they can make a profit on. You don't build luxury homes in depressed areas, that's a ticket to bankruptcy. You build to the local market, the rule of thumb is that the improved lot should be 30% of the selling price. As an area becomes more desirable, the cost of each lot goes up, to maintain that 30% ratio you have to build homes that are more desirable.

We can mandate whatever we want, but if the mandate doesn't fit the market nothing will get built.

A luxury property is one you can live on that is stocked with everything you need to survive a life time. Once that was all communally owned by groups of 30 or so people. Now only their genetic material remembers.

 

[fskimospy]

Sadly one has to live in the real world. You are a dreamer, but a myopic one. I hope for dreams that remember we do not live by bread alone. Even apes make nests, but they do it in the beauty of trees.

It’s already happening - California is moving to preempt local zoning more and more because of the catastrophe it caused. You are right though, we have to live in the real world. NIMBYs have been living a fantasy for decades and now the chickens have come home to roost.

 

[fskimospy]

Developers build what they can make a profit on. You don't build luxury homes in depressed areas, that's a ticket to bankruptcy. You build to the local market, the rule of thumb is that the improved lot should be 30% of the selling price. As an area becomes more desirable, the cost of each lot goes up, to maintain that 30% ratio you have to build homes that are more desirable.

We can mandate whatever we want, but if the mandate doesn't fit the market nothing will get built.

But that’s the whole thing, I don’t want to mandate anything. I want to end the single family zoning mandate and let the market build whatever it wants.