|
Lead out in cuffs posted:
That's pretty much what it looks like, minus the nationbuilder subscription. Like, as far as I can tell, it's basically just: the yimby people themselves, their name/brand, a website and a slack group, the occassional shwag. That's it. quote:That said, there isn't much to distinguish them from the CTF at this stage. quote:I'll be happy to start listening to them once they open up membership, get a constitution and start holding elections. I'm pretty sure you can just hit them up on Twitter and get into their slack and that's pretty much the extent of "membership". WTF would they have elections on? Who gets to update the website?
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Look fellas, I'm not saying there isn't a reason to be suspicious of their motives - there is. For all I know there are actual developer shills within the group - I dunno, I'm not part of it. But I don't see them acting like it. Why would they come against the Metrotown area densification if they were? Like, if you take a look at what kind of poo poo groups like the CTF put out, it is not at all subtle. Having interests that are aligned with developers is a valid reason to be suspicious, but you need to actually follow up that suspicion with an actual instance of the group acting in a way that would benefit developers at the expense of people. If you can point me to such instances, I will change my mind. As for having more units / density not being part of the solution at all - I just disagree. I do agree it's not the primary driver of the affordability crisis, but that doesn't mean I don't still want density and more units. There are plenty of people I know, and I'm sure plenty of people you know, that already GTFO this awful city long ago, because they aren't morons like us. It would be nice if there was plenty enough housing that they could come back. It would be nice if my parents wouldn't need to leave town (and probably country) the moment they retire since they don't own property here. The "empty investment property" count is still at most around 8%. Even if we nationalize all housing now and guillotine all the rich, there are still more people that want to live and work here than there actually are units. Again, I don't think that's the main cause of the affordability crisis, just part of it. What I really don't get is that the alternatives to the things AHV is for are clearly awful. Like YIMBYs might be deluded - but NIMBYs are just FYGM assholes. If not density, is it not urban sprawl? Or are we saying we actually don't want people moving into the city? Like - what exactly is the thing you want in lieu of more and denser housing? No new housing at all? I'm not asking anyone to start supporting this group. Your volunteer time is better spent with the VTU. But I really truly don't see why they can't be an ally. Very open to change my mind about this if I'm missing anything, I just don't see what right now. As far as I can tell, AHV's image problem is primarily because the label has that same vibe as "mens rights activism" or "all lives matter" - in that, the surface offering seems reasonable enough, but it seems willfully ignorant of context. But those initially gained legitimacy specifically because on the surface, there is nothing wrong with these sort of broad calls to action - they gained their reputation only after having demonstrated in no uncertain terms that "men's rights" is to mean "at the expense of women's rights" and "all lives matter" is to mean "but black people's lives matter less". AHV hasn't made any such motions that I could see. It's not "abundant housing, but only nice luxury housing" or "except for poor people". I am also, by the way, not saying "wah wah, why is the AHV so shat upon". I absolutely get why. Looking at label and general mission only, I was suspicious too. I do think they need to come out as more actively and aggressively aligned with people fighting for affordability if they want to shake this stink (and probably change their name too). It's their own responsibility to clearly signal what they are all about. But we're looking at the actual details of their org ITT, beyond just name and mission - so why the opposition? I don't get it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Majuju posted:their opposition to the metrotown plan isn't anywhere on either their blog, or their list of letter-writing campaigns. they have a few tweets from 2017, I guess that's what you're referring to? quote:again: AHV is saying the system is working correctly, we just need to increase the Housing Number and it'll fix affordability quote:but starts and completions have been at record highs for the past several years and affordability has only worsened. quote:I'm gonna wrap all these together and succinctly say: build social housing. build public rentals managed by the city. quote:stop handing over sweetheart deals for oakridge and false creek and the RCMP lands to for-profit developers and build public housing there instead. start expropriating illegal airbnbs. use eminent domain to take control of the shaughnessy parcels that have Mysterious House Fires and build public housing there. decommodify housing as much as possible. quote:again, and once more, it's because they offer no more complicated policy position than "build more housing", which means "do what we're doing now, only more of it". they're *abundant* housing vancouver, not *affordable* housing vancouver. It is, however, an image problem, and not a problem with their fundamental policy - at least given available evidence I've seen so far.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
THC posted:you can still be a useful idiot for developers, even if you're not cashing cheques from Bob Rennie himself lol Just, at your leisure, if you could point me to an instance where they supported anything that would benefit only, or even disproportionately, developers, vs residents - I'm still interested. Even literally just one, so we have something to talk about that isn't just drive-by ice burns.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
THC posted:that lady Femtosecond posted literally said that she was out stanning for market rentals, and attacked critics for not taking the time out of their day to do the same. I've already established my position that if you support any market proposals you're Part of the Problem Your position is that purpose-built rentals disproportionally favor developers? Also do you consider social housing units that are built as a condition of an upzoning license a market proposal?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
THC posted:The private sector has been getting its way for decades, and this catastrophe is the result. Getting them to promise to set aside some tiny percentage of units for social housing, all of which end up being means-tested and waitlisted, is still giving them what they want. You're still giving oxygen to private sector rent-seekers. You're still capitulating to the neoliberal market ideology. Oppose all market projects or GTFO You know, I wanted to disagree with you and say that maybe it just means we need the social housing conditions to have more teeth, and that market solutions are going to be needed as harm reduction, at least temporarily, lest we become accelerationists. But, you know what, yeah, I think you're right. You have to weight the benefit of supporting density up-zoning for projects that create only a small net improvement in affordability, against how much that support ends up enabling the very groups creating the problem. AHV aren't intentional shills though, and I still don't think they deserve all the vitriol they get from the left.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 19:31
|
|