|
Cugel the Clever posted:My radicalizing moment was attending a neighborhood meeting about a proposed new four-story apartment building that brought out the well-off, white Boomers in the neighborhood to scream about how renters are dirty, noisy, and just don't fit the character of the neighborhood. They proceeded to levy a series of costly lawsuits against the developer and the city and nearly succeeded in getting their transit corridor zoned down to allow only single-family homes. This is why "zoning for X type of housing exists and few have taken advantage of it so far" is often a disingenuous argument. Not always; sometimes there really isn't the market for it, this is often true in areas that are poorer for example. But if an area is booming and yet developers still aren't building up to the max allowed density, often the real reason is that if they tried, they'd get instantly bogged down in lawsuits and community outrage from boomers for whom apartments are basically Satan. As an example of that, you'll see people in SF complaining about how new developments are luxury housing, and if only they were more affordable nobody would object. But then somebody actually tries to build something more affordable and wouldn't you know it: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affordable-housing-opposition quote:On paper, 1296 Shotwell Street is the perfect Mission housing development: It’s 100 percent affordable units, it’s aimed at sheltering seniors, and it’s the product of not one but two non-profit developers, including the Mission’s own Mission Economic Development Association.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Vancouver BC doesn't have Row Houses effectively due to history and weird legal reasons. Developer and City lawyers weren't really convinced that the Province's various laws allowed for shared party wall agreements and so they shied away from risking building any row houses. Later on in the 60s the province created the Strata Property Act, which simplified condo and townhouse development and development of multi-unit property went in that direction. Recently I believe the province finally got around to clarifying some of the rules and Row Houses should be totally viable, but at this point, developers and buyers are more experienced and comfortable with townhouses using the strata concept, so those dominate in places where row houses could also be an option (that they're cheaper to build probably helps).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
By the way the Boston City Council passed a transfter tax on properties over $1 million dollars to generate revenue for affordable housing. Also hopefully it slows down the ridiculous speculation in this city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HenryKraemer/status/1211718232198893572?s=20 Why stop there? Let's put those Hong Kong sleeping cages on the table. Great for single people!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
You’re a filthy NIMBY unless you support giving families the choice of an endless series of twopenny hangovers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yup. There's the zoning codes as they are on paper, and then the ones that exist in the locals' minds. You think the latter isn't relevant, until someone tries to actually build something that's not a SFH and then suddenly there's community meetings where it's very relevant. Yea having attended a few of these community meetings myself, it’s disheartening. Old white boomers with time, money, and lots of complaints loving suck. Even when the orgs I volunteer for work with the developers and address said complaints (parking, environmental issues, ect, ect) they always fine a new reason to bitch and try to kill a project. If you talk to these people they will just tell you “I want affordable housing just not in my neighborhood”
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Insanite posted:You’re a filthy NIMBY unless you support giving families the choice of an endless series of twopenny hangovers. poors should have to commute 3+ hours a day or live in derelict vans by the river like god intended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Yes. These are the two sets of options that we should be satisfied with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Yes. These are the two sets of options that we should be satisfied with. in a lot of places that have banned ultra small and communal living spaces those are the only options for the working class! Out of sight out of mind, that's my motto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
You can get a lot of mileage out of a multi-level warehouse with cots in it. Privacy isn't much of an issue, too, if residents are willing to provide their own sheets and clotheslines. Dense _and_ agile!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Insanite posted:You can get a lot of mileage out of a multi-level warehouse with cots in it. Privacy isn't much of an issue, too, if residents are willing to provide their own sheets and clotheslines. Dense _and_ agile! Worked great for Ghost Ship. For anyone not following along, the leaseholder is facing a retrial after the last jury deadlocked. His assistant was acquitted of all charges. The owner of the building was never charged with anything at all, which absolutely isn’t due to local corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/andershartmann/status/1212598277385981952?s=20 cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
But where does everyone park!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Uh sorry, but there's nothing we can learn from Norway because, uh,
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
norwegian roads are real pieces of poo poo most places but traffic safety is mostly taken seriously+people generally don't break the rules. norwegian driver's training is also very slow and thorough, but of course our racist party loves driving irresponsibly and are in government atm so lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:norwegian roads are real pieces of poo poo most places but traffic safety is mostly taken seriously+people generally don't break the rules. norwegian driver's training is also very slow and thorough, but of course our racist party loves driving irresponsibly and are in government atm so lol As a swede I can also attest that road policing is simply more numerous. It's always uncanny how when you cross the border people suddenly start following the speed limits on highways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Imagine if SB50 was currently law and instead the vote was on repealing, would people be coming out and saying "vote to repeal, this will help reduce homelessness"? (I realise most opposition is homeowners and stuff but it's the arguments coming from the left which are most annoying)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
The California thread is full of “SB50 doesn’t destroy developers/capitalism therefore it must be defeated and any progress on housing halted” Meanwhile the California homeless crises worsens and rents continue to skyrocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Imagine if SB50 was currently law and instead the vote was on repealing, would people be coming out and saying "vote to repeal, this will help reduce homelessness"? it's a lever for displacement and gentrification Solaris 2.0 posted:The California thread is full of “SB50 doesn’t destroy developers/capitalism therefore it must be defeated and any progress on housing halted” "we have to do something, and this is something"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:it's a lever for displacement and gentrification any process to increase housing stock can be called a lever for displacement and gentrification though. this is not a very useful criticism
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:it's a lever for displacement and gentrification “Better to let poor people go homeless because we didn’t get everything we want”
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:it's a lever for displacement and gentrification you do in fact, have to do something though. probably you have to do a lot of individually small somethings. Hopefully when you add them all up, it will amount to a real substantial change. also i'm the high density housing these people think can be magicked into existence without effecting anyone's lives or demolishing existing stock
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
looking at the specifics of SB50 both the pro- and anti- positions could be feasibly portrayed as being bad for the poor and in the pocket of developers, so it's pretty much a recursive game over as far as left-oriented debate goes
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
While I'm as frustrated by anyone else about the failures of California to deal with its housing crisis, I'm not convinced the path to success is helldumping the California politics thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:it's a lever for displacement and gentrification If it was already law, would you support repealing it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:“Better to let poor people go homeless because we didn’t get everything we want” the housing it would have enabled would not have housed the homeless. i am glad to have you as an ally when the time comes to defend better bills. nrook posted:While I'm as frustrated by anyone else about the failures of California to deal with its housing crisis, I'm not convinced the path to success is helldumping the California politics thread it's not unhealthy to vent after a political setback. pointsofdata posted:If it was already law, would you support repealing it? "support" is vague. If it were somehow my decision, I would repeal it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Whose lives would be made better by repealing it, saying only single family homes (or the current rule as may be appropriate) can be built in these areas, no appartements? It's not as though the housing near public transport is affordable at the moment. It obviously doesn't solve many of the housing problems facing California but if this doesn't pass it seems unlikely that an actual social housing in existing neighborhoods bill would pass. I'm 100% behind seizing the golf courses and turning them into public housing and parks but the politics are such a long long way away from that that pursuing incremental steps towards more housing seems like the right thing to do for anyone other than an accelerationist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:
the question is if some policy which would cause a short term loss of housing units for probable long term gain could have sufficient amelioration attached to it to lessen the burden on current residents relative to the gain for future residents this nuanced policy debate based in complex value judgements and requiring a high degree of familiarity with housing policy and land use controls is, of course, perfectly suitable for even keeled discussion on-line
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:the housing it would have enabled would not have housed the homeless. I wouldn’t be voting down bills that would actually try to address some of my areas housing crises because of some near-sighted ideology. I would support this bill, pass it, then immediately work to get more legislation to take the next step. Its nice to know you can say to people struggling to find housing “sorry chaps! This Bill didn’t address my ideological needs so no change is better than any change! Better luck next time “ Go big or go home is fine for sports but when you’re dealing with human beings and getting a roof over their head it’s a real dumb position to take. Tell me, how you plan on getting legislation that will help the housing crises? Because people spent countless hours, sweat, time and energy just to try to get this passed and were shot down because people, such as yourself, decided the proposed first steps were not good enough. Meanwhile, people are unable to find homes, climate change accelerates, and homelessness increases while we dither around Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
yeah solaris is making a good point. In a world where even this little, incremental piece of legislation cannot pass, what kind of fantastical circumstances do posters like Doc Hawkins imaging occurring in which Californians vote for the government to eminent domain the suburbs and replace it all with housing projects? Like, here you are cheering all the insane policies that have led to massive, spiraling housing shortages. Tell me, once all of the state's renters have been exiled by spiraling prices and all that's left are the sons of millionaires who have inherited houses bought in the seventies, who do you think is going to vote for tax increases to pay for mixed use housing? What exactly is the brilliant political plan that's actually going to get you the policies you want? Because right now you look like a bunch of useful idiots for all the rich right-wing assholes who can't wait for all of California's undesirables and working class to be driven from the state entirely edit: lol looking at the California thread these are the people Doc Hawkins has chosen to ally theirself with: https://twitter.com/aceckhouse/status/1222749067635130368?s=21 california saddens me because i think there really are a bunch of people who sincerely want to help deal with rising housing costs, but unfortunately they are idiots who are just fundamentally wrong about the nature of the problem and the way politics work. Squalid fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
On the other hand, maybe letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is the way to go here?? It's not like increasing development has been shown to reduce metro-level displacement or anything, no sir
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's not like increasing development has been shown to reduce metro-level displacement or anything, no sir how are you going to add more housing units without increasing development?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:how are you going to add more housing units without increasing development? i think he's saying that you would, and that this would decrease displacement from the city people live in. That is even if people have to change apartments, they are better able to stay in the same general area long term than if development is broadly discouraged. I think that makes intuitive sense, although I haven't seen the supporting research.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
ah, i misread
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
Squalid posted:yeah solaris is making a good point. In a world where even this little, incremental piece of legislation cannot pass, what kind of fantastical circumstances do posters like Doc Hawkins imaging occurring in which Californians vote for the government to eminent domain the suburbs and replace it all with housing projects? I don't think I'm especially useful, but the people who I trust on housing policy are not idiots. The answer was and remains public housing, and there are bills, and organizations, and candidates behind which you can put the force of your justifiable anger. I choose to believe we can build power beyond allying with one bourgeois faction against another, and I think one of the general political lessons we can take from the century so far is that it's not smart to tell people to vote for something that sucks because not having it is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
I agree; the right move in 2016 was to stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton. e: there are two kinds of posters. Those who will agree with me that an argument like this is obviously ridiculous on its face, and those who will see this and think I am obviously ridiculous. I’m still right though. nrook fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I don't think I'm especially useful, but the people who I trust on housing policy are not idiots. The answer was and remains public housing, and there are bills, and organizations, and candidates behind which you can put the force of your justifiable anger. I choose to believe we can build power beyond allying with one bourgeois faction against another, and I think one of the general political lessons we can take from the century so far is that it's not smart to tell people to vote for something that sucks because not having it is even worse. I don't know why you'd think history supports any of this. You sound like you'd have opposed the new deal because Roosevelt was seizing private businesses, or Medicare because it wasn't universal. Like I can think of literally nothing about modern california politics that would make me think you can get anywhere at all without allying with bourgeois factions like individual home owners. Like what kind of timeline do you think you're going to overcome these people on? Ten years? Fifty? That the morons opposing SB50 did in fact have to work together with those exact bourgeois interest groups to kill the bill is pretty strong evidence that there is no choice. Choose to believe something that's more than just a fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
any kind of viable public housing scheme is going to require federal funding. without that on the horizon, the only way to reconcile opposition to local upzoning in favor of a theoretical public housing agenda is as painful accelerationism that's probably just going to sputter out as economic masochism
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, states trying out policies is a classic way to show they can work on the federal level. Like Obamacare was heavily inspired by Romneycare, right? California is rich, they could fund public housing. It’s when this train of thought goes into “therefore we must oppose all other reform” that it loses me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
nrook posted:I don’t think that’s necessarily true, states trying out policies is a classic way to show they can work on the federal level. Like Obamacare was heavily inspired by Romneycare, right? California is rich, they could fund public housing. It’s when this train of thought goes into “therefore we must oppose all other reform” that it loses me. historically public housing only got kicked off with the housing acts of 1934 and 1937 (formalized in '37 but with some pilot programs preceding) and before that, municipal attempts to provide housing or 'poor relief' was generally scattered and ineffective. then in the mid 70's the federal support for public housing got watered down by converting to the section 8 voucher system and welp you need a stable source of grants to underwrite public housing to work, and the feds can do deficit spending in lean years where that's not really an option for state or local governments. one big reason most cities got rid of their public housing agencies after federal funds started drying up was that it was an unbearable fiscal liability states/localities can and do operate public housing but with the resources they can devote it is universally inadequate to meet demand Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 02:17
|
|