NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[pauldun170]

When people ask questions like this it makes me wonder how they think our towns and cities were built to begin with.

These are just some of the questions that are supposed to be asked. Especially when it comes to infrastructure and planning out development.
If you object for me bringing up infrastructure and capacity then I guess I have to ask, what is your personal situation where you are objecting to me bringing up common legitimate issues when zoning or development comes up?
Are you homeless? Do you have a family with kids in school? It's one thing to bring up housing, it's another to approach the subject in the way you approach it.
Where did the zoning board touch you?
Show us on the doll.

 

[Zorba]

When people ask questions like this it makes me wonder how they think our towns and cities were built to begin with.

It's how it works, but taxes and infrastructure development are always well behind the development itself. Generally development is slow enough that it's fine, though. But with rapid development you can create growing pains until taxes and construction can catch up.

The east side of my city has pretty rapid growth (mostly low density, though). It has created a lot of issues with school capacity over there. Property tax revenue doesn't go up until a year after something is built, then you have to plan a new school or addition and get it on a bond issue, then construction is a couple years. And hopefully they got the projections right so there is enough capacity for the foreseeable future. But we've opened two new schools in the last two years, both were over capacity day one and this year's bond will expand them.

Highway access is also at least 8 years away from improving (nothing on ODOT's long term plans).

I'm not saying we should block development because of this issue, but we should recognize it's an issue and figure out how to have infrastructure grow with density as opposed to years behind it. It'd be easier to get people to accept more density if the schools and transportation systems were ready for it when it happened.

As it stands today, city planning makes sure other utilities are in line before approving. But if you through out design approval, who knows.

 

[fskimospy]

These are just some of the questions that are supposed to be asked. Especially when it comes to infrastructure and planning out development.
If you object for me bringing up infrastructure and capacity then I guess I have to ask, what is your personal situation where you are objecting to me bringing up common legitimate issues when zoning or development comes up?
Are you homeless? Do you have a family with kids in school? It's one thing to bring up housing, it's another to approach the subject in the way you approach it.
Where did the zoning board touch you?
Show us on the doll.

Yes, new development needs new infrastructure but as K1052 mentioned we already have well established processes for doing that. So when you ask how we will deal with these things the answer is 'the same way we have always dealt with them'.

 

[fskimospy]

It's how it works, but taxes and infrastructure development are always well behind the development itself. Generally development is slow enough that it's fine, though. But with rapid development you can create growing pains until taxes and construction can catch up.

The east side of my city has pretty rapid growth (mostly low density, though). It has created a lot of issues with school capacity over there. Property tax revenue doesn't go up until a year after something is built, then you have to plan a new school or addition and get it on a bond issue, then construction is a couple years. And hopefully they got the projections right so there is enough capacity for the foreseeable future. But we've opened two new schools in the last two years, both were over capacity day one and this year's bond will expand them.

Highway access is also at least 8 years away from improving (nothing on ODOT's long term plans).

I'm not saying we should block development because of this issue, but we should recognize it's an issue and figure out how to have infrastructure grow with density as opposed to years behind it. It'd be easier to get people to accept more density of the schools and transportation systems were ready for it when it happened.

As it stands today, city planning makes sure other utilities are in line before approving. But if you through out design approval, who knows.

I agree that rapid development can inflict growing pains on the community, particularly through the slow adoption of improved infrastructure as you mention. Sadly, infrastructure improvements are often attacked and delayed by the same NIMBYs that oppose additional housing, often through abuse of environmental review laws.

 

[IronWing]

So now fskimospy is all about invalidating contracts he isn't party to in order to enforce his will on people who didn't ask for his opinion. Yet, he claims this is all for the the cause of freedom and not because he seeks to impose his vision of high density hell in places he doesn't happen to live.


More buildings could go up where those trees are; a bunch of selfish assholes never thinking of the homeless.

 

[IronWing]

I agree that rapid development can inflict growing pains on the community, particularly through the slow adoption of improved infrastructure as you mention. Sadly, infrastructure improvements are often attacked and delayed by the same NIMBYs that oppose additional housing, often through abuse of environmental review laws.

Bullshit. NIMBYs, as you like to call them, have been demanding infrastructure first, as part of managed growth. The wealthy developers always push back and governments usually cave to the interests of the wealthy developers, sticking existing residents with the cost of developer profits. Again, you are 100% supporting the rape of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

 

[fskimospy]

So now fskimospy is all about invalidating contracts he isn't party to in order to enforce his will on people who didn't ask for his opinion. Yet, he claims this is all for the the cause of freedom and not because he seeks to impose his vision of high density hell in places he doesn't happen to live.

View attachment 58297
More buildings could go up where those trees are; a bunch of selfish assholes never thinking of the homeless.

If you don't like people enforcing their will on those who didn't ask for their opinion you're really going to hate zoning ordinances, haha.

Also it's funny how consistently NIMBYs use pictures of the Soviet Union to try and decry density instead of say, pictures of the United States. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[IronWing]

If you don't like people enforcing their will on those who didn't ask for their opinion you're really going to hate zoning ordinances, haha.

The people who live in those communities voted for those ordinances. Yet, you know better how others should live.

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit. NIMBYs, as you like to call them, have been demanding infrastructure first, as part of managed growth. The wealthy developers always push back and governments usually cave to the interests of the wealthy developers, sticking existing residents with the cost of developer profits. Again, you are 100% supporting the rape of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

It's funny how you don't see how you're a useful idiot for wealthy real estate speculators. You seem to realize that real estate speculation is becoming more of a thing and is bad but for some reason cannot grasp that the entire reason they are speculating is they are betting prices will continue to rise due to supply restrictions. ie: your policies.

 

[IronWing]

Also it's funny how consistently NIMBYs use pictures of the Soviet Union to try and decry density instead of say, pictures of the United States. Gee, I wonder why.

You're right, Americans got rid of the pesky trees. Voters are the only thing that keeps Central Park intact. In fskimospy's world, that land would be put to higher use, making money for wealthy real estate speculators.

 

[IronWing]

It's funny how you don't see how you're a useful idiot for wealthy real estate speculators. You seem to realize that real estate speculation is becoming more of a thing and is bad but for some reason cannot grasp that the entire reason they are speculating is they are betting prices will continue to rise due to supply restrictions. ie: your policies.

Again, bullshit. Speculators are consistently the monied interests pushing for higher densities.

 

[Brainonska511]

People have this weird idea that if SFH-zoning was abolished, that a midrise apartment would pop up next door. I highly doubt that scenario would happen. What you would likely see is many areas stay as SFH, but in some areas where it makes sense or demand is high enough, you'd start to see more missing middle housing: duplexes, townhouses, triplexes, etc... And near transit, you could encourage midrise buildings. Those that want a SFH can still have a SFH, and those that want higher density living and walkable communities can have that.

The bias to SFH has been baked in by decisions made 2-3 generations ago - it's not necessarily people's default preference. We've had years and years of a one-way ratchet that has restricted housing and baked in suburban sprawl. And now the landowners have a vested interest to keep it that way, since we've baked so much of family wealth into owning a home as a nest egg, instead of seeing a home first and foremost as a place to live.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, bullshit. Speculators are consistently the monied interests pushing for higher densities.

So I want to be absolutely clear on what you're arguing here - you're saying that people speculating on the housing market are pushing to increase the supply of the speculative investment they own?

Let's put it another way - say you own 10,000 bushels of soybeans and are speculating on the price. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for your investment if 1,000,000 new bushels of soybeans come onto the market?

 

[IronWing]

So I want to be absolutely clear on what you're arguing here - you're saying that people speculating on the housing market are pushing to increase the supply of the speculative investment they own?

Let's put it another way - say you own 10,000 bushels of soybeans and are speculating on the price. Is it a good thing or a bad thing for your investment if 1,000,000 new bushels of soybeans come onto the market?

Real estate isn't soybeans. And, yes, speculators push for higher density. Do you ever read the newspaper? Seriously, the speculators want to push higher densities on the real estate they hold. It's been this way since zoning existed.

 

[Brainonska511]

View attachment 58298
You're right, Americans got rid of the pesky trees. Voters are the only thing that keeps Central Park intact. In fskimospy's world, that land would be put to higher use, making money for wealthy real estate speculators.

You can have density and green space. It's not one or the other. NYC could also take back lots of space literally given away to automobiles for free storage and creating traffic to create more spaces for people, trees, and other green spaces, but moneyed interests and auto-centric viewpoints keep that from becoming a reality.

 

[fskimospy]

View attachment 58298
You're right, Americans got rid of the pesky trees. Voters are the only thing that keeps Central Park intact. In fskimospy's world, that land would be put to higher use, making money for wealthy real estate speculators.

Uhm, Manhattan is one of the most desirable places in the world to live and is considered a beloved and iconic landmark around the world. If you're trying to show how terrible density is you would probably be better off choosing something less universally loved. (of course you knew this, which is why your first attempt was a Soviet era building)

As for voters keeping Central Park intact, of course that's the case. It's public land so who else other than the voters would have a say?

 

[IronWing]

As for voters keeping Central Park intact, of course that's the case. It's public land so who else other than the voters would have a say?

In your world, money talks much more loudly than mere voters.

 

[fskimospy]

Real estate isn't soybeans. And, yes, speculators push for higher density. Do you ever read the newspaper? Seriously, the speculators want to push higher densities on the real estate they hold. It's been this way since zoning existed.

There can be cases where someone speculates by buying land and then trying to get it upzoned to make it more valuable but that's only effective PRECISELY BECAUSE OF YOUR POLICIES - their property would be upzoned but nowhere else would be so supply restrictions would continue to drive up the price of their speculative investment. If everywhere were upzoned this tactic would not work and speculators would be ruined.

This is precisely because real estate is like soybeans. The more houses there are out there the less each house is worth, all else being equal. Want to ruin the speculators? Abolish zoning.

 

[Brainonska511]

There can be cases where someone speculates by buying land and then trying to get it upzoned to make it more valuable but that's only effective PRECISELY BECAUSE OF YOUR POLICIES - their property would be upzoned but nowhere else would be so supply restrictions would continue to drive up the price of their speculative investment. If everywhere were upzoned this tactic would not work and speculators would be ruined.

This is precisely because real estate is like soybeans. The more houses there are out there the less each house is worth, all else being equal. Want to ruin the speculators? Abolish zoning.

Blackrock specifically says in their disclosure reports that because of restrictive supply and zoning restrictions, they expect little risk for their real estate investments.

We could throw those speculators under the bus by loosening the rules around zoning and allowing for greater housing supply.

 

[IronWing]

There can be cases where someone speculates by buying land and then trying to get it upzoned to make it more valuable but that's only effective PRECISELY BECAUSE OF YOUR POLICIES - their property would be upzoned but nowhere else would be so supply restrictions would continue to drive up the price of their speculative investment. If everywhere were upzoned this tactic would not work and speculators would be ruined.

This is precisely because real estate is like soybeans. The more houses there are out there the less each house is worth, all else being equal. Want to ruin the speculators? Abolish zoning.

"If you would just totally cave in to the interests of the ultra-wealthy, we would all live in a earthly paradise", as envisioned by you.

 

[fskimospy]

Blackrock specifically says in their disclosure reports that because of restrictive supply and zoning restrictions, they expect little risk for their real estate investments.

We could throw those speculators under the bus by loosening the rules around zoning and allowing for greater housing supply.

Exactly - this is what's so weird about @IronWing's argument - the speculators are entirely up front about what they are doing and what their calculus is. Restricted supply = money for them. He somehow thinks restricting supply will hurt the wallets of the people who own the existing assets.

 

[IronWing]

Exactly - this is what's so weird about @IronWing's argument - the speculators are entirely up front about what they are doing and what their calculus is. Restricted supply = money for them. He somehow thinks restricting supply will hurt the wallets of the people who own the existing assets.

No where did I say to restrict the supply of housing, period.

 

[fskimospy]

"If you would just totally cave in to the interests of the ultra-wealthy, we would all live in a earthly paradise", as envisioned by you.

You can keep repeating this all you want but I feel like in order to do so you should come up with a coherent explanation as to why increasing the supply of housing is good financial news for those speculating on housing price increases.

 

[fskimospy]

No where did I say to restrict the supply of housing, period.

Doesn't matter if that's what you said, that's the outcome of your preferred policies.

 

[IronWing]

Doesn't matter if that's what you said, that's the outcome of your preferred policies.

Nonsense. Building new housing is a fine thing. Imposing your will on communities that, through a democratic process, have rejected your ideas of what their communities should be is not.