|
Kill Bristol posted:If housing shortage, why crane? Owned YIMBY. I'll let the NIMBy's down at the housing groups know about this, if they have any spare time to read after fighting evictions. Thanks for your academic support.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Seph posted:- The broken CEQA process that allows basically anyone to file a frivolous lawsuit to tie a project down for a few years how much inroads have they made with reforming the challenges to green projects on "environmental" grounds? i remember that was supposed to be a coming change after the wealthy shitlords in atherton kept trying to stop the caltrain electrification via what they claimed to be adverse environmental impact (they didn't like how the proposed catenaries would look) because that would be p funny if they started protecting residential infill projects that way, since sprawl is most definitely a huge problem for climate and emissions goals
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'll let the NIMBy's down at the housing groups know about this, if they have any spare time to read after fighting evictions. wow drat you’re hardcore, clearly A Better Leftist than us spineless liberals with our stupid facts and figures, my apologies. H.P. Hovercraft posted:how much inroads have they made with reforming the challenges to green projects on "environmental" grounds? i remember that was supposed to be a coming change after the wealthy shitlords in atherton kept trying to stop the caltrain electrification via what they claimed to be adverse environmental impact (they didn't like how the proposed catenaries would look) This happens all the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if CEQA resulted in net higher emissions at this point honestly. I’ve personally seen it stop public transit projects. It’s another effective veto for boomer homeowners. There are efforts to reform it in Sacramento but I don’t know how much progress they’ve made. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:wow drat you’re hardcore, clearly A Better Leftist than us spineless liberals with our stupid facts and figures, my apologies. No man, I get it, people who do this for a living just need access to your reading list. Housing advocates have been loving single family housing in Beverly Hills this entire time, good thing you came into the thread to explain that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:wow drat you’re hardcore, clearly A Better Leftist than us spineless liberals with our stupid facts and figures, my apologies. you're arguing with someone that keeps claiming that all housing groups were monolithically against sb50 as some sort of moral highground not only is that quite untrue but at this point it just sounds like they're trolling
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:you're arguing with someone that keeps claiming that all housing groups were monolithically against sb50 as some sort of moral highground LOL never did that and in fact made a post saying exactly that the housing groups were split but yeah I'm the one trolling and not the guy who isn't even reading posts and posting the same strawmen over and over
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
You’re studying this from the comfort of a book, I’m in the loving STREETS, working with the people (Michael Weinstein mainly) to stop fourplexes from getting built!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You really don't understand what a strawman is, huh? Just keep whacking it, I guess. again, it's understandable that people would be upset at a perceived political setback of an incredibly important issue. the only reason i wouldn't be railing online if i were in their shoes is my cowardice and ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how much inroads have they made with reforming the challenges to green projects on "environmental" grounds? i remember that was supposed to be a coming change after the wealthy shitlords in atherton kept trying to stop the caltrain electrification via what they claimed to be adverse environmental impact (they didn't like how the proposed catenaries would look) The problem is that basically every project is bad to the environment in some way. Even if the building is carbon neutral, maybe it has some minute impact on the local bird population or whatever. So you end up in a situation where anyone who opposes the project can say "hey, this impacts the environment, I'm going to sue to stop!" and the development is tied up until a judge can throw out the lawsuit. Even if the environmental impact is minimal it can still get tied up for years. It's a tough situation because obviously environmental review is important, but as the system currently stands it's ripe for abuse. I think a better system would be a panel of independent environmental experts who can review projects without being personally impacted by the project. Seph fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:You’re studying this from the comfort of a book, I’m in the loving STREETS, working with the people (Michael Weinstein mainly) to stop fourplexes from getting built! "Housing groups that work with the poor but don't agree with the exact policy solutions I learned about last week are the real ivory tower" is certainly a hell of a take, I should definitely keep responding to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:You’re studying this from the comfort of a book, I’m in the loving STREETS, working with the people (Michael Weinstein mainly) to stop fourplexes from getting built! everyone who disagrees with you agrees with each another, their claimed humanitarian motives either lies or idiocy. if it ever stops feeling like that, find tenant's rights groups and homeless advocates in your area and tell them how frustrated you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
No let’s talk more about how a handful of nonprofits agreeing with you means that you are not only right in the merits but also morally superior, a dynamic that for some reason does not apply to say, the United Farm Workers Union.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:everyone who disagrees with you agrees with each another, their claimed humanitarian motives either lies or idiocy. i've done a decent amount of work for Habitat (i used to live in new orleans) and the idea of trying to shut down policy they support seems bizarre to me, or that the groups working against something like that aren't actually the kind that advocate for the poor
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:No let’s talk more about how a handful of nonprofits agreeing with you means that you are not only right in the merits but also morally superior, a dynamic that for some reason does not apply to say, the United Farm Workers Union. i don't think i'm morally your superior, but we aren't talking about a handful. i'm sure you defer to the consensus of experts on other questions, so i hope you can face what's making that difficult for you this time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
I agree with that analysis mostly, although I’d quibble about the affordability and how most people already in state would benefit. I disagree that way forward is being “non threatening” to group A. Any bill watered down enough to not be opposed by them wouldn’t do anything. This is a fight worth having and spending political capital on.H.P. Hovercraft posted:i've done a decent amount of work for Habitat (i used to live in new orleans) and the idea of trying to shut down policy they support seems bizarre to me, or that the groups working against something like that aren't actually the kind that advocate for the poor There’s this weird double standard where the non profits against SB50 are the ultimate subject matter experts and also lend a patina of righteousness to opposing the bill, but UFW, habitat for humanity and NRDC are evidently just wrong. It also totally ignores the actual reason the bill failed, which wasn’t due to “housing advocates” but wealthy homeowners who opposed it pretty much as a bloc. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:i don't think i'm morally your superior, but we aren't talking about a handful. i'm sure you defer to the consensus of experts on other questions, so i hope you can face what's making that difficult for you this time. As I've stated previously, housing advocacy groups are kind of split. Some think that SB50 is better than nothing and that we're unlikely to get another chance soon to do anything soon. Some believe that the protections for vulnerable communities are not enough and SB50 is unlikely to do enough good to offset the damage it does. Nobody's super happy with it except the people who it mostly won't affect who seem to think it's going to make a big difference. Housing advocates are all for getting rid of single family homes and density density density and getting development going. As I posted before, the densest part of LA are already some of the poorest, because we already have apartments there. All of the single family home areas are either rich as gently caress, or actively being gentrified by people. If you don't protect vulnerable people and just upzone and streamline some permiting, your'e going to just get more gentrifcation that makes the people who would utilize public transit unable to utilize public transit, without affecting density enough to cut down on rents and homelessness. That's already what's happening since LA already changed zoning near transit, streamlined some permuting and started offering incentives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
I'm starting to suspect that SB50 is somehow serving as a proxy for regional (northern vs southern) location in this thread, though I don't really know why that would be. Anyone have any idea? e: My best theory is "YIMBYism is popular with nerds, and there are more nerds in the bay area" but I'm not exactly confident in it
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There literally aren't enough private developers to build 500k units in LA. Save us, President Xi!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
nrook posted:I'm starting to suspect that SB50 is somehow serving as a proxy for regional (northern vs southern) location in this thread, though I don't really know why that would be. Anyone have any idea? It might just be a coincidence based on specific posters ITT. I live in LA and find people's support of it pretty mixed. It doesn't really follow any clear demographic splits as far as I can tell based on my anecdotal observations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:I agree with that analysis mostly, although I’d quibble about the affordability and how most people already in state would benefit. I disagree that way forward is being “non threatening” to group A. The thing about Group A is that they're mostly a bother if they're living in metropolitan surroundings. Like, for example, that one aerial picture of San Francisco that was posted on the previous page. Target them specifically, and the people who live in ag-dairy towns because they want a detached single family home and and not because it's more affordable than the city will not feel endangered. Us hayseeds would support cities doing what they need to do to accommodate higher populations. The consequence if they don't is that everyone moves out to our neck of the woods "because it's cheaper" and then the highway needs to be expanded and the eventual endgame is a sprawling, Houston/Phoenix looking mess. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
nrook posted:I'm starting to suspect that SB50 is somehow serving as a proxy for regional (northern vs southern) location in this thread, though I don't really know why that would be. Anyone have any idea? I don’t get that vibe. I am in SoCal, from NorCal fwiw. We are kind of shadow boxing here though, I will admit. Aside from the one guy who thinks that new apartments will cause us to become Hong Kong, there aren’t really vanilla NIMBYs ITT, just the left variant (who in the interests of de-escalating a little I’ll say I don’t think are ill-intentioned the way reactionary suburbanites are, just misguided), but those are the people that killed the bill. The debate taking place ITT is very different from the one actually taking place in the state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Seph posted:It might just be a coincidence based on specific posters ITT. I live in LA and find people's support of it pretty mixed. It doesn't really follow any clear demographic splits as far as I can tell based on my anecdotal observations. It's a coinflip among the left leaning people I know here in San Diego. Conversations about housing policy here tend to end up exactly like this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
Seph posted:It might just be a coincidence based on specific posters ITT. I live in LA and find people's support of it pretty mixed. It doesn't really follow any clear demographic splits as far as I can tell based on my anecdotal observations. I'm in central LA. You can look at where is being built now: - Along Expo line - Along Purple/Future Purple on Wilshire - Along Crenshaw Line - Downtown, Little Tokyo All of those places were already upzoned or got upzoned before development started, and all of them are completely unaffordable to 80% of people. Go south of Downtown, it's a poo poo-ton of apartment buildings...not quite medium density, but a lot of 2 story and bungalow courtyards. You could already go and build a big apartment building there and make it even more dense(this is some of the densest areas of LA proper), but nobody's doing it, because they want the sweet luxury apartment money. People are getting kicked of aparments they've lived in for years so that a slightly larger apartment can move in and charge double. You can do, and should do, lots more density in LA(you could add a million people along Wilshire) but without proper protections you're just going to see a couple new developments that cause grandma to lose her rental so a Google employee can live somewhere with good food and rent continuing to go up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Like, for example, that one aerial picture of San Francisco that was posted on the previous page. I don't get up to SF very much and holy poo poo that picture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Did everybody see that Gavin Newsom said PG&E, exact quote, "no longer exists"? Thread purpose accomplished, can be locked.quote:“There’s going to be a new company or the state of California will take it over,” Newsom said at an event with the Public Policy Institute of California in Sacramento about the future of the state’s energy Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:The serious, good faith argument that I am apparently refusing to engage with appears to be that LA loosened some zoning laws a few years ago and there are some places in the 25% of the city where you can build apartments that do not have apartments in them. Therefore, upzoning will not help with the housing crisis and spur construction of new housing, and 75% of the city being SFZ doesn’t mean anything. This is not a good faith engagement with the people you are arguing with. Hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm in central LA. Developers make those decisions based on what profit they feel that they can make. Blocking SB 50 has no effect on that. You could snap your fingers and destroy every subway and rail line in LA County and developers would still be chasing people off cheap land to build new units. BLocking it added no protections. It made it no more likely that protections will be added in the future. The only thing accomplished by blocking it was making it harder to build near train stations. That my biggest problem with your take. Nothing you're doing actually is helping anyone, you're just making it more difficult for people pursuing other facets urban developement to get their projects in motion. And, frankly, when you set yourself up as an obstacle to everyone else's interests, you're turning away people who otherwise agree with you and harming your own project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:This is not a good faith engagement with the people you are arguing with. Hope this helps Literally three posts above yours someone is making that argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:Literally three posts above yours someone is making that argument. No, they didn't. Here's the post you're referring to, which is only part of that user's argument: Jaxyon posted:Aw poo poo, looks like the "only speak in strawmen" poo poo triggered again. Please feel better! What you've described is merely the opposite of your own argument. Hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
What element, exactly, have I mischaracterized with this summation: Kill Bristol posted:The serious, good faith argument that I am apparently refusing to engage with appears to be that LA loosened some zoning laws a few years ago and there are some places in the 25% of the city where you can build apartments that do not have apartments in them. Therefore, upzoning will not help with the housing crisis and spur construction of new housing, and 75% of the city being SFZ doesn’t mean anything. of this arguement: quote:All of those places were already upzoned or got upzoned before development started, and all of them are completely unaffordable to 80% of people. Go south of Downtown, it's a poo poo-ton of apartment buildings...not quite medium density, but a lot of 2 story and bungalow courtyards. You could already go and build a big apartment building there and make it even more dense(this is some of the densest areas of LA proper), but nobody's doing it, because they want the sweet luxury apartment money. Because it seems pretty accurate to me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
It's good to be passionate but let's remember that we're broadly on the same side re: the status quo and CA's awful housing situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's good to be passionate but let's remember that we're broadly on the same side re: the status quo and CA's awful housing situation. Agreed. Now let's talk about #CalExit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:What element, exactly, have I mischaracterized with this summation: Probably this part: "All of those places were already upzoned or got upzoned before development started," Hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
There are absolute ideological differences here and I'm not debating that but when things get contentious what I start doing is just posting my own experiences and how I got to my opinions. Hopefully it's illustrative and there have been times where people "farther down the road" shared a similar journey and helped me out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Agreed. Now let's talk about #CalExit. Or the ultimate controversy - Rice in a burrito: Threat or menace?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's good to be passionate but let's remember that we're broadly on the same side re: the status quo and CA's awful housing situation. Like I said earlier, I do not think the anti SB50 posters ITT are ill intenioned, just misguided on an important but complicated issue. And the real villains here are unquestionably the Orinda, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, etc. types who killed the bill, not the DSA people that landed on the wrong side of the issue, whose effect was honestly probably marginal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
For reference, here's my stance on the issue:Cup Runneth Over posted:"Should we kill single family zoning?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Probably this part: "All of those places were already upzoned or got upzoned before development started," Kill Bristol posted:The serious, good faith argument that I am apparently refusing to engage with appears to be that LA loosened some zoning laws a few years ago and there are some places in the 25% of the city where you can build apartments that do not have apartments in them. Therefore, upzoning will not help with the housing crisis and spur construction of new housing, and 75% of the city being SFZ doesn’t mean anything. This is a stupid tangent though. If you feel that's an unfair characterization of what they said, then whatever, to each their own. Bernie and Warren both have very cool and good housing platforms. If I had to pick I would say I like Warren's more but they're both excellent and a massive improvement over current policy, they both hit a lot of the things this thread has been talking about. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Weembles posted:That my biggest problem with your take. Nothing you're doing actually is helping anyone, you're just making it more difficult for people pursuing other facets urban developement to get their projects in motion. I think you need to read any of my takes again, because you're being turned away by your inability to read my argument in a way that doesn't oppose yours. Someone yelling "I bet you love Michael Weinstein, single-unit NIMBY lover"about people who hate that guy and actually work with the homeless and near-homeless is not helping. When you ignore the actual vulnerable people in favor of "get out of our way we're fixing this you'll thank us later", you're making classic leftist mistake. Work with the community, not as if you know better. And again, I'm not saying that the community in LA is a monolith, it's not. Some people think that SB50 is better than nothing and should have passed even with problems. Some don't. It's not a very simple issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:46
|
|