|
Squalid posted:Now as MickeyFinn has said (perhaps unnecessarily), there might be some specific circumstances where reducing minimums won't necessarily lead to increased density. Nobody thinks this one piece of policy is a magic bullet. But generally speaking, there are many places that would benefit. There are also less dramatic changes that could also be beneficial, like allowing more parking to be offsite, or just reducing how much has to be provided. So mainstreet can just be a nice, friendly, dense row of businesses without any open lots, but parking can still be available on the backstreets. I don't think it is "unnecessary" to point out that the discussion on minimum parking is, in my opinion, overblown and places where parking is already tight aren't going to see much benefit to eliminating parking minimums. I guess the importance of this point depends on where most people live. Since a majority of the US lives in suburbs, maybe none of this matters. Of note: the two articles posted on elimination of parking minimums were both in places where there was otherwise lots of parking, and the Manville article literally said it was insufficient for driving development of new apartments. It also seems like cherry-picking success stories, especially the Strongtowns article. But, by all means, eliminate the minimums, I simply don't expect much to happen as a result.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:TLDR: NIMBYS in rich, exclusive, white neighborhood full of mcmanshions near DC are freaking the gently caress out over a small number of townhouses for seniors Basically, raze all mansions is what I'm getting at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
i say its unnecessary since i doubt there is anyone, anywhere thinks changing parking regulation is the one quick fix that's going to give us walk-able, public transit oriented cities. I don't really know why you think this subject is over-emphasized, it barely even comes up in this thread, I can't remember the last time I even heard it discussed outside of extremely niche publications that cater specifically to urban planning people. You need to keep in mind that LA is in no way representative of the rest of America, and you should also be careful not to extrapolate too much from your own personal experience. Unfortunately if you are going to a priori hand wave away all economic theory and modelling on the subject, there isn't going to be much to talk about except case studies, and all the problems with cherry picking that entails. excessive parking requirements are a major problem in suburbs though, where parking is often overbuilt. There are factors that play into this besides government regulation, but it is also likely a component: Are Suburban TODs Over-Parked? quote:This study posed the question: “Are TODs (transit-oriented developments) over-parked?” From a design standard perspective, our response is “probably so.” For the 31 surveyed multi-family projects combined, there were 1.57 spaces per dwelling unit, nearly one third higher than ITE’s suburban standard of 1.2 spaces per unit. From a supply-demand standpoint, transit-oriented housing also seems over-parked: the weighted-average supply of 1.57 spaces per unit was 37 percent higher than the weighted-average peak demand of 1.15 parked cars per unit. From our national survey responses, there is evidence of over-parking: the estimated average minimum parking requirement for multi-family housing near rail transit was 1.48 spaces per unit, also well above the ITE standard. From a pure demand standpoint, however, it appears that peak parking demand for transit-oriented housing aligns fairly closely with the ITE standard. Experiences in the East Bay and Metro Portland suggest that TODs are only slightly over-parked, if at all. In sum, we believe parking supplies are over-inflated, not due to bloated ITE design standards but other factors, such as developers’ fears of insufficient parking to attract prospective tenants or local officials’ fears of spillover on-street parking problems in surrounding neighborhoods. It is because of such concerns that municipal parking standards for TOD housing appear on the high side, which probably further induces car ownership and usage—i.e., the classical vicious cycle of supply and demand feeding off each other. Will Reducing Parking Standards Lead to Reductions in Parking Supply?: Results of Extensive Commercial Parking Survey in Toronto, Canada quote:To promote land-efficient development that supports nonautomobile modes of transportation, many municipalities are trying to implement parking policies that minimize parking oversupply and use existing parking supply more effectively. A commonly proposed strategy is for municipalities to lower their minimum parking standards. However, parking supply decisions are based on many factors, and experience shows that reducing parking standards does not always lead to corresponding reductions in parking supply. Using the results of an extensive commercial parking survey conducted across the City of Toronto, Canada, this study develops an empirical approach to determine whether reductions in parking standards are likely to lead to reductions in the amount of parking supplied by new development. It is proposed that the proportion of existing sites supplying less parking than existing standards require can be used as an indicator of the likelihood of developers to respond to reductions in parking standards by providing less parking. This assumes that the development characteristics of surveyed sites can be considered representative of current development practices. Applying such an analysis to Toronto, it is expected that reducing the parking standards for general office, medical office, and general retail uses will be a successful strategy in encouraging new development to provide fewer parking spaces on average. Such a strategy will be less successful for bank and large grocery uses, which tend to provide more parking and are less sensitive to minimum parking standards. THE HIGH COST OF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS quote:Purpose: This chapter estimates how minimum parking requirements increase the cost of constructing housing, office buildings, and shopping centers. It also explains proposed legislation to limit how much parking cities can require in transit-rich districts. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Feb 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Heh, Minneapolis had something similar in 2018 where a small senior living facility was shot down by the very wealthy neighborhood's mansion owners. There were demands there be at least two parking spots per resident so that visitors don't take up street parking (nevermind that every house within 5 blocks had at least a two-car garage). There were also complaints that the flashing lights and noise of ambulances caring away grandma when she fell and broke her hip would disrupt the neighborhood. Eh, that isn't limited to rich people mansion neighborhoods. I had relatives growing up that were involved in various emergency services and they'd have various bits of technology that would let them know what was going on among emergency services. This was not a wealthy area at all but you have no idea how many people would demand "no lights and sirens in the neighborhood" even when people were literally dying. Maybe I'm a crazy person but hearing sirens I find reassuring; like hey yes the emergency services are working, that's nice to know. If I ever need them they'll get here and aren't far away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Squalid posted:i say its unnecessary since i doubt there is anyone, anywhere thinks changing parking regulation is the one quick fix that's going to give us walk-able, public transit oriented cities. And yet, since the start of this conversation the only people who have suggested any changes that should go hand-in-hand with the elimination of parking minimums is me (public transport) and one person who wanted to see walking emphasized more. We're here talking about how to make parking less of a problem both for transit and housing costs and the vast majority of responses involve hand waving away what those other policies even might be, just that they must be good. quote:I don't really know why you think this subject is over-emphasized, it barely even comes up in this thread, I can't remember the last time I even heard it discussed outside of extremely niche publications that cater specifically to urban planning people. The conversation in this thread is evidence of the problem I am talking about "parking minimums and some other things, housing crisis/traffic denied." I barely see or have a discussion about those subjects that isn't this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:The conversation in this thread is evidence of the problem I am talking about "parking minimums and some other things, housing crisis/traffic denied." I barely see or have a discussion about those subjects that isn't this. Well just be glad you haven’t had to endure the excruciating conversation about rent control then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
So about a week ago I attended a Bernie rally in Downtown Denver. I figured the event would be swamped, so I got there two hours early to get a good spot in the line. While waiting, I got approached by a few different people: vendors hawking Bernie merch, left-leaning politicians trying to garner support for their local races, and finally a group of canvassers trying to get signatures for their affordable housing initiative. I politely declined to give my signature. I was a fan of affordable housing, but as a matter of principle I don't like signing petitions without doing research on them first. Boy was I glad I didn't sign that garbage. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Limits_on_Housing_Growth_Initiative_(2020) When I was briefly skimming I saw the words "Denver", "Boulder", and "Affordable Housing" so figured it was a mandatory up-zoning measure akin to SB 50. Why else would they be pushing it at a Bernie rally? In fact, it is the opposite. Following the sterling example set by Lakeland, it limits the growth of every single county on the Front Range to only 1% a year. That part about affordable housing? A paltry 0.15% allowance on top of that 1% for affordable housing. The measure provides no incentives or requirements for said affordable housing. It would basically kill all future growth in the largest metro area of one of the fastest growing states in the country. It was started by a man named Daniel Hayes, who was the architect of a similar proposal that got passed in Golden. He has only the noblest of intentions when crafting these policies: Daniel Hayes posted:I'm called a racist every time I say this, but a lot of homes are built by undocumented workers. Their kids are in our schools. If you slow housing growth, maybe they'll go somewhere else. One of the clearest examples i can think of when it comes to the phrase, "Saying the quiet part loud." Also, completely coincidentally he happens to be owner of several rental properties in Golden, Colorado. That something like this is being proposed doesn't surprise me. You've got NIMBYs everywhere in Colorado. What gets me is that he was able to get several signatures at a Bernie rally by just slapping an "affordable housing" sticker on top of it. A friend of mine actually signed it after being approached outside of a grocery store. They were horrified when I told them what they had inadvertently supported.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
quote:The Palo Alto, Cupertino, and San Carlos groups prefer to say they advocate for “sensible” development. Others borrow from prodensity and environmental groups and call themselves “smart growth” advocates or “preservationists.” In the spirit of neutrality, I call them anti-density advocates. https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development We just want smart growth....to smartly prevent “those types” from living here! Smart! gently caress NIMBYS Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Feb 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Affordable housing is extremely good and cool, but what you increasingly get when you say "affordable housing or nothing" in any large city in America is "nothing", and a lot of NIMBYs have realized that and have used it as a way to both preserve their precious property values while still sounding woke. Solaris 2.0 posted:https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development Every NIMBY is two glasses of wine away from calling for some kind of hukou system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
'affordable housing' via local government cutting deals with developers through variances, or mandating some portion of units set aside before a permit is issued, is a really worthless and piss ineffective method of producing affordable housing anyway it should still absolutely be pursued as aggressively as possible, but folks set their sights pretty low there in the absence of any strong state/federal combined program to build and administer true public housing
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
I think the idea is the govt (probably federal due to the scale of spending required) directly building housing (jobs for contractors/construction workers), then selling it to the ‘free market’ once the policy goal of lowering prices is achieved. Eminent domain with compensation could get around local zoning laws.
Killmaster fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Feb 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
If you're going to spend the money to build that much housing anyway (which would have to be federal deficit spending megabillions to really move the needle) why not just build public housing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
It more or less sounds what happened to Eastern bloc countries. Most of the time, the government still owns the structure but the actual units were privatized and owners pay fees to local government for upkeep (or at least theoretically). It isn't necessarily ideal in many cases, but mileage may vary. ---------------- The issue with the way affordable housing is built now is usually the amount of affordable units is usually way way too low for the demand and the cost. In Portland at least (but it is also the case in other cities), urban renewal districts often pump millions into developments result in a relative small number of units (and usually are the worse units in the building). It just isn't efficient. ' Btw, I think there was a discussion about "just building" market priced housing would solve the issue and so far at best rent prices have stabilized but haven't seriously declined and the city is as much in a housing crisis as it was years ago despite a surge of construction (which is starting to peter out). Also, there is almost certainly a higher number of people on the street or living in their cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, I think there was a discussion about "just building" market priced housing would solve the issue and so far at best rent prices have stabilized but haven't seriously declined and the city is as much in a housing crisis as it was years ago despite a surge of construction (which is starting to peter out). Also, there is almost certainly a higher number of people on the street or living in their cars. FWIW here is an article (thanks Femtosecond!) about how developers in Vancouver cut back building as demand began to drop and they weren't sure they could sell enough pre-sale units to get funding. So far I've seen the following housing issues with bank/finance involvement: the 2008 bubble/bust, the subsequent property buy-up, minimum parking requirements and now this presales thing. I'm beginning to wonder if the fundamental problem in housing is banking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Killmaster posted:Rather than only focus on public housing, have any governments tried flooding the market with a mass housing plan, as a way to control prices? i dont see any functional difference in paying the market to construct shitloads of housing vs hiring contractors to build housing for a government agency, except that the first case is a less efficient use of public funds. and local governments are highly sensitive to effective use of public funds, no city or state govt can just summon cash from the aether like the feds can also how does eminent domain work in this scenario. what are you acquiring through ED? you know that ED is not just a "government takes your property" button, they have to compensate the property holder, right? MickeyFinn posted:I'm beginning to wonder if the fundamental problem in housing is banking. the fundamental problem is that free market provision of housing is a god awful way to provide housing and banking is an integral component of this mechanism Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Feb 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i dont see any functional difference in paying the market to construct shitloads of housing vs hiring contractors to build housing for a government agency, except that the first case is a less efficient use of public funds. and local governments are highly sensitive to effective use of public funds, no city or state govt can just summon cash from the aether like the feds can There's a spectrum here, between government administering the entire build process via government employees to signing a single contract for x new homes to just subsidizing unit construction (the UK government sort of does this, it's a very bad idea). I suspect that the best option is highly dependent on the strengths of the agency administering as the range of competency and degree of capture by private sector actors at this moment in time is quite wide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
Fair enough. Let’s say Federal plan due to the scale of spending required. HUD/new agency hires contractors directly and uses eminent domain (with compensation) to override local zoning laws. For some properties the US government is the landlord; for others they sell the properties (with favorable terms) to those interested in home ownership. Either way the market adjusts downward and the policy goal is achieved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
Killmaster posted:Fair enough. Let’s say Federal plan due to the scale of spending required. HUD/new agency hires contractors directly and uses eminent domain (with compensation) to override local zoning laws. this is wildly illegal, unconstitutionally so
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
I present to you Geelong City Council Geelong is the largest city in the state of Victoria outside the capital. Theyve also got a bit of a detroit vibe to them because they were always very focused around heavy industry, particularly Ford, and that all went away. Theres been a huge amount of State government funding poured in to help transform the city. One of the initiatives was to modernise the CBD by implementing a “green spine” of protected cycling lanes next to linear gardens and outdoor dining areas. Again, they received a fuckton of State money to do this, and its only partway through but some pieces have been implemented. The absolute brain genius elected councillors have now decided to rip up a big section of the green spine to reinstate on street parking and turning lanes. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-26/geelong-council-votes-to-rip-up-malop-st-green-spine-bike-lane/12002544 In doing so they have managed to piss off the liberal (currently governing), conservative, and green parties; cyclists; traders; current and former staff; pretty much everyone except the SUV drivers who think a CBD should be only something you drive through to get to the other side. The section theyre ripping up only completed two years ago, so local traders say they can’t absorb another hit to their business from new construction blocking access. The State government has threatened to do any or all of the following: remove planning control of the CBD from council; freeze funding for any infrastructure projects with council; declare the street a state road so council can’t modify it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Killmaster posted:I think the idea is the govt (probably federal due to the scale of spending required) directly building housing (jobs for contractors/construction workers), then selling it to the ‘free market’ once the policy goal of lowering prices is achieved. Eminent domain with compensation could get around local zoning laws. Again, I would look to the Massachusetts 40B law on ways to get around zoning restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
I think this might be in contention for the dumbest thing ever said at a planning meeting (although I'm sure there are many other contenders out there!). https://twitter.com/davigoli/status/1232916908367736832?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
gret posted:I think this might be in contention for the dumbest thing ever said at a planning meeting (although I'm sure there are many other contenders out there!). The battery or the bullet
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Bernie needs to STFU about city politics. https://twitter.com/NeverSassyLaura/status/1233226130313732096?s=20 https://twitter.com/jessekb/status/1233223151397605377?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
Bernie's lending his voice to activism on the ground. It's kind of his thing. https://twitter.com/PUEBLO_Eastie/status/1233232325670064128 https://twitter.com/CityLife_Clvu/status/1233208178264940547 TBH, I'd rather there be less of this going around, particularly on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rcmoya84/status/1233120045758173184 Insanite fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
Phew well I’m glad all the rich people who want to move to Boston and outbid people for existing housing won’t do that after we stop building anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
this is a frustrating subject because 'affordable housing' initiatives on the local level are all completely ineffective dogshit. local governments are incapable of dealing with the housing crisis through zoning variance and tax allocation schemes. the local planning authorities use these tools because they are the best available to the planning agency in the uncertain presence of local political support, and because something is better than nothing. but it's still a pathetic dribble of results because of the failure of every single higher level of government to do anything useful about the problem so of course, when people discuss highly local thus personal issues with unclear outcomes that serve as proxy symbols of ideology, folks online are able to discuss the pros and cons of these projects in a dispassionate and rational manner which is respectful to all participants, as online discourse usually is e: i was listening to NPR the other day on my way home (shut up, i know already) and some lady was complaining about how none of the candidates discuss housing in debates or have it as part of their platforms. i'm like, both warren and sanders have significant discussion of housing policy on their platforms? and it doesn't matter anyway because the president and federal government are generally incapable and specifically in this political climate barred from doing anything useful about the housing crisis on the federal level. i guess it would be nice to have them say the feel good words together in front of a camera even if nothing changes afterwards
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
I agree that it's fundamentally stupid and frustrating, and in all likelihood capital interests are going to keep on keepin' on determining urban demographics and morphology. I just really can't wrap my head around getting upset over Bernie Sanders siding with poor, marginalized people stuck in a lovely, losing battle. It is, again, kind of his thing. Badger of Basra posted:Phew well I’m glad all the rich people who want to move to Boston and outbid people for existing housing won’t do that after we stop building anything What's cool is that this will happen no matter what. No one is prepared or able to provide housing in anything approaching significant amounts for poor people. The best that can happen is a bit more market-rate housing for STEMlords and finance freaks (market urbanism's core constituency), along with an insulting % of 'affordable' housing. Insanite fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I just really can't wrap my head around getting upset over Bernie Sanders siding with poor, marginalized people stuck in a lovely, losing battle. It is, again, kind of his thing. it's the same endless argument about whether short term practical goals are worth holding out for long term theoretical goals which may never materialize. this argument is the driving force between most people calling each other liberals on the internet
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:
It's also just not as important as some other stuff the president does. I'd much rather see an hour of foreign policy debate than any amount of discussion of federal housing policy. I mean, Bernie's been endorsed by Matthew Yglesias. This federal housing stuff is not a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:it's the same endless argument about whether short term practical goals are worth holding out for long term theoretical goals which may never materialize. this argument is the driving force between most people calling each other liberals on the internet I'll always want to throw down with one side of it because that's where my sympathies lie, but it's just exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I just really can't wrap my head around getting upset over Bernie Sanders siding with poor, marginalized people stuck in a lovely, losing battle. It is, again, kind of his thing. He's throwing his weight around in a way that's not helpful, and it's completely justifiable to give him poo poo for it. When big housing projects get delayed, it's more likely for the percentage of affordable units to go down, not up. Zero people are getting displaced by the project, so the opposition is really shooting themselves in the feet over this one. Bubbacub fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:He's throwing his weight around in a way that's not helpful, and it's completely justifiable to give him poo poo for it. When big housing projects get delayed, it's more likely for the percentage of affordable units to go down, not up. Zero people are getting displaced by the project, so the opposition is really shooting themselves in the feet over this one. You, he, and CLVU probably have very different definitions of "helpful." You likely also have different definitions of "affordable." You can see that in the tweet I quoted a few posts up. You can even go and argue with them about it, if you like! Maybe you'll come to an understanding. Insanite fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I just really can't wrap my head around getting upset over Bernie Sanders siding with poor, marginalized people stuck in a lovely, losing battle. It is, again, kind of his thing. the problem is they are wrong. Some fool peddling vaccine denialism deserves sympathy, but there's no reason to indulge them. Just because they have real fears doesn't mean they are right or reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Vaccine denialism is very much like differing opinions about the political economy of housing, yes. If there is some slam-dunk case of markets and municipalities providing ample, affordable housing to desperately poor people in urban America, share it with these wrongheaded activists. Maybe you can work together on solving the problems that they're worried about. Insanite fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Squalid posted:the problem is they are wrong. Some fool peddling vaccine denialism deserves sympathy, but there's no reason to indulge them. Just because they have real fears doesn't mean they are right or reasonable. No, those folks are loving monsters who hound the parents of recently deceased children.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Vaccine denialism is very much like differing opinions about the political economy of housing, yes. they arent working on solving that problem though. they're just making it worse. Regarding the effect of markets on housing affordability, i will simply refer to my post history itt, which includes several scholarly sources to help catch you up to the modern academic consensus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I just really can't wrap my head around getting upset over Bernie Sanders siding with poor, marginalized people stuck in a lovely, losing battle. It is, again, kind of his thing. Insanite posted:Vaccine denialism is very much like differing opinions about the political economy of housing, yes. http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/suffolk-downs Jethro fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:they arent working on solving that problem though. they're just making it worse. Regarding the effect of markets on housing affordability, i will simply refer to my post history itt, which includes several scholarly sources to help catch you up to the modern academic consensus. I don't know. I think that resisting gentrification on the hope that a Leftist president with "Housing for All" as part of his platform does something better than the status quo is a rational way to go about this. I'm not combing your post history for something I know doesn't exist--again, "some slam-dunk case of markets and municipalities providing ample, affordable housing to desperately poor people in urban America." Jethro posted:This is new construction in a currently unused, never residential area. No one is getting displaced by the new construction itself. So in this case, he's siding with the poor, marginalized people who might eventually get forced out of nearby neighborhoods if the influx of residents to the new development makes those neighborhoods so desirable as to induce gentrification over the poor, marginalized people who won't have the nearly 2000 affordable units available to live in and the poor, marginalized people who will get forced out when gentrification happens faster because there isn't enough housing stock in the area. And the gentrification is already there. You don't have gentrification without state or municipal involvement, and the signals + incentives that you need to set if off are already implemented. These people are really just throwing their bodies into the machinery of commodified urban space. Capital interests always win. e: And to zoom out about this vvvvvv Cynically: This is to get Bernie a boost from people who aren't likely to be Warren voters on Tuesday. Optimistically: This is to continue building a national Leftist movement that must outlive an old man. Insanite fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Feb 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
tbh bernie probably hasn't heard of this development before and doesn't know anything about it, but is just +1ing grassroots organizations as a token show of support - and those grassroots organizations could have any particular incentive. the messy thing about local politics is that everyone is NIMBY for different reasons. if you support growth and a little side handout of affordable housing then you're pro-gentrification, if you oppose growth for changing neighborhood character - whether that's to preserve property values or oppose displacement - then you're also pro-gentrification. there's no clear winners here, all urban planning is a negotiation among stakeholders with unequal access to power!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Insanite posted:I'm not combing your post history for something I know doesn't exist--again, "some slam-dunk case of markets and municipalities providing ample, affordable housing to desperately poor people in urban America." perhaps you shouldn't ask for literally impossible things then. There are no "hot quick fixes to provide ample affordable housing to the desperately poor. Landlords HATE it!!!." There is no single solution, and we don't know how to make the world perfect. To the extent that we understand the problem though, the people fighting this development are only hurting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2020 19:00
|
|