|
One thing that must be said about the YIMBY movement in its current form is that it is predominately leftist at its core, not libertarian. By empowering both public and private interests to construct more new homes where they're most needed, the housing crisis is diminished. By empowering renters against scummy landlords and taxing vacant homes at a higher rate, the housing crisis is diminished. Both construction and protection are necessary. Urban NIMBYs (almost always home owning Boomers and GenXers who self-label as liberal or progressive) appropriate the language of affordability to rail against profit seeking developers, but never seem to get around to fight for affordability in their neighborhood once the latest multifamily menace is defeated and quickly shift into racial dog whistles ("just think of the neighborhood character!") if confronted on it. An old guard of genuine leftists also embrace NIMBYism on the maximalist premise that no new housing must be built that isn't affordable and I'm not sure how to get through to them that we can walk and chew gum at the same time... To be fair to the older generations, I suspect many currently comfortable, "non-political" Millennials are going to exhibit the same status quo bias as they age. Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 2, 2018 |
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I just don't see how you go from building a business in the middle of a busy urban center, then steadily replacing all the urban stuff with more businesses and car parks until you've shoved everyone who would have gone to the first business out of reach of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:But yeah, no one is talking about banning the construction of private housing or attached subsidized affordable housing, but as long as public housing is neglected, this issue is going to only get worse. The left-leaning NIMBY alliance with rich property owners is bizarre as the latter 100% isn't going to support affordable housing at the scale and density our cities need. I don't know where your characterization of YIMBYs as anti-transit comes from... today's YIMBYs are almost all solidly on the left and are fighting to make our cities work for all of us.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
 "drat this new-fangled late-stage capitalist architecture... excuse me while I masturbate furiously to enormous old Victorian houses originally built for the most well-off in our society!" —my neighborhood NIMBYsJust because you don't like the aesthetic of something doesn't mean it's any less a home. If architects can offer more, better units at a lower cost by ditching the ornate superficials of the past, I'm all for it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, public housing is being built in the US regardless of what is happening. That said, there are other reasons to stop private developments, such as considering gentrification itself as a destructive force.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:A lot of people were probably either from local wealthy suburbs or from out of town in the first place. It is very possible they stay put. vyelkin posted:You're not wrong, but what we see in gentrified cities is not necessarily people moving back to the city and densifying and everything being great, but wealthier people moving back to the city driving up prices and pushing out poor people. Edit: I'm just at a loss for where you all are coming from. You cite consequences to poor residents that are unfolding today, where our cities make it prohibitively difficult to build multi-family units where people most want to live, leaving some of the people would would take those homes and apartments to instead either gentrify poorer neighborhoods or move to the sticks. And then throw up your hands and say "Better off doing nothing"? By building more homes in smarter spots, we partially alleviate the forces of displacement, benefit the environment, and, if we fight like hell for it, mandate some measure of affordability in new buildings. Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Aug 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
donoteat posted:i made a thing At least in my area, the Twin Cities, YIMBYs tend strongly to agree with most of the solutions in the decommodification section, perceiving NIMBYs to be a bulwark to any change to the status quo. The most vocal local anti-gentrification activists also seem more interested in preserving the status quo than in working together toward a better future for all. My main quibble with the video is 1m30s in which you state that the reason for the gentrification occurring in the neighborhood doesn't matter, as it overlooks why the gentrification is possibly occurring in this specific neighborhood, as opposed to the swathes of highly-valued single family homes in the neighborhood a few blocks away with equal potential transit access and distance from economic opportunity: exclusionary zoning and rabid opposition from monied house owners. One of the most import tenants of YIMBYism, to me, is putting an end to the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners. For example, a local neighborhood of rich shits that has been actively fighting to keep anyone but other rich shits from living close to "their" lake. The latest victim is a proposed 21-unit assisted living building. It has been decried for potentially: bringing in people dependent on Medicare, bringing in noisy ambulances to disturb the neighborhood's tranquility, and, of course, dozens of potential grandchildren taking up the neighborhood's street parking. Thread: https://twitter.com/WedgeLIVE/status/1031700909347282946 Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Aug 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
fermun posted:In my experience, the most important tenant of YIMBYism in practice, has been fighting against the rights of tenants and enshrining the exclusionary practices of wealthy property owners and developers to build more housing for those like them, the wealthy urbanist. Why not work together toward the better future instead of getting in fights that result in the perpetuation of the current unsustainable status quo? Get out there and talk with left-wing YIMBYs and see how you can move forward?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is also, why I think either mixed-income public housing or heavily subsidized affordable housing is the only way to cut the Gordian knot. It probably isn't going to be viable to keep out high-income earners forever, but the solution is simply to increase the cost of entry and use that to "spread the wealth" to the rest of the neighbor.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I guess this thread is perhaps dead but I wasn�t sure where else to post this article: https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2018/10/prop-j-initiative-exposes-rift-among-austin-environmentalists/ And that's generously assuming that they aren't arguing in bad faith. In Minneapolis, citizen journalists have uncovered that, far from being the heroes of the downtrodden they make themselves out to be, the leaders of local NIMBY efforts are rich, privileged, and conservative. The city council gave in to a lot of their demands, severely scaling back proposals for 4-plexes and carving out a massive area of downzoning in the richest neighborhoods of the city. Unrelated, but here's a thoughtful article on why "YIMBY" isn't a perfect slogan to rally behind and why "Neighbors for More Neighbors" is catching on in the Twin Cities (and yes, I've picked up one of their signs for my apartment window!). N4MN doesn't roll nearly so well off the tongue, so I think I'll stand behind both labels. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:Urban living in the truest sense DOES suck in between the filth, the noise, and the congestion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
From a month ago, but I was too lazy to post it: Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoningquote:In a bold move to address its affordable-housing crisis and confront a history of racist housing practices, Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation. It's not the answer to the problem of affordability, but it's an important piece of the puzzle. Unmentioned in the article are the less contentious portions of the plan that outline direct investment in affordable housing, modes of transportation beyond just cars, and more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I don't feel like the YIMBY crew are peddling useful solutions, even though they're en vogue with local politicians, but the tenant advocacy and poverty law folks I've talked to seem like they're only delaying the liquidation of the urban poor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Honestly, ugly brutalist housing projects are a step up from what a lot of cities have housing-wise. * Yes, and access to economic opportunity and cultural enrichment; I'm just trying to make a pithy quote here, jeeze. The NIMBY deriding of new homes not fitting some aesthetic standard from the 1890s is just incredibly grating. A new building may provide homes to several dozen new families, but if it does have enough loving faux-brick in its facade then it's an affront to all that is holy, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Doesn't everyone deserve a nice built environment, though? However, the imposition of one very narrow idea of what is aesthetically sufficient is problematic--particularly when it used by groups that are very comfortable in their current housing situation to scale back or even block the construction of new homes for those who are insecure in theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
The topic of San Francisco home prices and hours-long commutes came up in the company-wide general chat channel a bit ago (Midwestern company, for reference). Everyone talking about how ridiculous it all was without really addressing solutions, until one guy pops in and says "wow, wouldn't it be nice if more multi-family buildings were built closer to where the jobs are and on major transit lines? It's a shame wealthy single-family house owners are actively blocking them there!" Immediate response from otherwise very intelligent coworkers: "excuse me? I wouldn't want someone to replace MY house, either!" and "pffft, there are too many high-rise office buildings as it is--we should just distribute companies' offices better throughout the region!" People have a tough time looking at a problem from outside the frame of reference they're comfortable with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
Insanite posted:I guess I wouldn't call "resisting capital turning every inch of my little city into a smart investment vehicle" a bad decision. I also agree with others in the thread that I've never heard urbanist circles really push skyscrapers—there's instead a massive focus on the "missing middle" (duplexes, rowhouses, 5-story apartment buildings). Some even go further and fetishize a city like Paris, without accounting for it actually being an example of the poor being priced out of the city proper by strict height and aesthetic restrictions (and an unhealthy dose of anti-African and anti-Arab racism). We need to enable and provide construction for what the population needs to have easy, environmentally-friendly access to employment and culture, not hold it to an arbitrary standard. And, again as mentioned above, we need governments to act on a city-wide or even metro-wide basis to ensure the rich and influential living in homogeneous neighborhoods don't have the ability to carve out an enclave for themselves at the expense of others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:paris is beautiful as hell. problem is, you need a literal dictator to hand over absolute control of site planning and eminent domain to an aesthetics obsessed architect-tyrant That's just my glancing impression from living in the country for two years, at least. Definitely welcome any actual français ou françaises pointing out holes in my understanding of the Parisian banlieues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I say rent control fine as a stopgap so long as supply and demand are completely out of whack. Which they are just about everywhere semi-desirable. I feel like one of the biggest reasons people on the left on the east coast are less likely to be outright YIMBY is because urban areas are already denser and the average person more likely to be a renter—when you see new developments replacing existing apartments and displacing the disadvantaged, it's hard to get behind. Here in the Twin Cities, so much more of the fight is focused on neighborhoods zoned exclusively for single family homes in the early 20th century with the clear intent to enforce racial and economic segregation. Enabling construction of a duplexes, triplexes, or larger multi-family buildings is being fought for as an alternative to the replacement of expensive single family homes from the 1950s and earlier with ridiculous McMansions. There is less direct displacement going on from new developments, though some newly trendy neighborhoods are seeing rents increasing well over the already excessive baseline increases.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
In St. Paul, the city council is well on the way to gutting the originally ambitious plan for medium-density, mixed-use development on the site of a former Ford auto factory, all at the behest of the developer. One small, but infinitely frustrating part is eliminating the minimum unit requirements in what's regarded as the most desirable part of the site along the river. It was previously merely requiring at least duplexes, but now will welcome what will undoubtedly be a segregated zone of extreme wealth as they set up mansions. All the opponents of the initial plan who so exploited the rhetoric of affordability when railing against multi-family buildings are inexplicably* supportive of the change. *Actually 100% explicable: it's racism and classism
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Kill all golf courses plz and thank you (for the record, whenever that time comes, I hope to have my loved ones spend as close to nothing as possible disposing of my corpse) In other news, guess the three unifying characteristics of the neighborhoods with the most appeals against my city's appraisal of their property values: https://twitter.com/scttdvd/status/1137002352811094016 They're the wealthiest, whitest, and the likeliest to oppose multi-family homes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:"Luxury" is a marketing term in housing development. It's about as meaningful as "artisanal" in food. Bonus points when the 70-year-old, self-described Progressive arguing against new market-rate development shows up at a different City Council meeting to rage that their neighborhood just isn't the type for affordable housing to be built in because it would damage the neighborhood's well-off white character. But hey, they have an "All Are Welcome Here" sign in their yard, at least! Cicero posted:19% profit margin being 108,000 means the cost of building each apartment is $570,000. Jesus Christ. Actually, I'd really love to see a serious look at the accusation often bandied about that all modern building materials are destined to fall apart in twenty years. Sure, construction is often using newer, cheaper materials different than those used in 1920, but a poorly-constructed/maintained building is going to fall apart regardless. I also often (but not always) see the argument made without an alternative being offered and alongside other bad-faith, anti-renter arguments, so it's hard to take seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Its really not that building materials are inherently more prone to premature aging nowadays. Its the complete lack of care from developers who just want it built as quick and cheap as possible. My team was hanging fire protection pipe in the attic of a 4 story “luxury condo” building over the last few weeks, and the number of half- nailed or not-loving-nailed-at-all truss braces was staggering. If that roof doesn’t blow over in the next hurricane it will be cause our pipe hangers kept it together more than the braces did. Can you confidently assign blame for the encountered issue to the developer vs. the constructor? Presumably you notified the developer—did they decline to correct the issue? Don't get me wrong: developers are largely rich shitheels skimming profit off the back of a basic human necessity and would in a perfect world be replaced by a public entity operating expressly for the betterment of the community. I just often see rage against developers for issues that pop up that may be just as easily explained by mistake or negligence from parties the developer is relying on to perform adequately. Plus, as others have already added, it is hard to picture the current state of affairs being uniquely different from past eras. Building codes exist because developers and construction companies built poo poo buildings because they were cheapskates and/or incompetent and public outcry brought about change. Massive swathes of buildings from earlier eras have been torn down because they became unsafe or simply no longer met contemporaneous expectations. Massive swathes of still extant buildings from previous eras exist only because someone along the way was able to throw oodles of money at major problems that arose (or were smart/lucky enough to catch and correct them before they cost so much). We can and should expect more from all involved, but acting from the questionable premise that things are now uniquely bad may damage our ability to make meaningful advances. I'm also kind of okay with expecting buildings to have an end-of-life date that doesn't greatly exceed a human lifespan. The needs of the denizens and would-be denizens of an urban area can change wildly in the intervening period. New construction can also, done right, offer a better platform for modern living. The desire to preserve all old structures places a wicked bottleneck on a city's ability to adapt and results in harm to disadvantaged residents when more people want to live in an area than there are homes available to them. (And yes, wild, unmanaged development can acutely harm those same residents if cities and developers are not forced to take them into account) Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:residential land != "most cities".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The tweet that was the basis for this convo begins with the categorical "Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread". The rejoinder from Cicero is about "most residential land", with a bunch of other qualifiers. "!=" is shorthand for "does not equal". Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:We definitely have #5 in Minneapolis; I guess we are an outlier (?). 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. It's important to note that Minneapolis and cities like it often have a number of duplexes, triplexes, and even fourplexes sprinkled throughout the city, grandfathered in before the application of zoning codes that effectively replaced racially-restrictive covenants. Streets.mn does some great work on housing and transportation policy in the Cities. I'd much prefer city and regional governments directly investing in, owning, and managing new housing than loving landlords, but the social and climate imperative of building up our cities is great enough that I'll accept the latter so long as we fight for inclusive zoning, rent control, and elimination of parking minimums along with it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:As long as there is no alternative to driving, people will own cars and find a place to put them. Your point here is a kind of accelerationism where if we just start making car driving miserable, then public transport will all of a sudden get funded. But driving is already miserable if you can't afford to live close to work. 1) The actual developments that go up with minimal or zero parking are often those that are already transit adjacent 2) Broadening the constituency for public transport, bike lanes, and straight up walkability is worth it, especially if proponents can also push policies that ensure broader affordability near areas of opportunity. Yeah, this is because many policymakers are unfortunately more likely to listen to the well-off who choose transit than the disadvantaged who need it, but the change still benefits all. I had a similar reaction as you to congestion pricing when I first heard about it, because you're right that it incurs a disproportionately high cost on the poor who've been forced into car-dependence by prohibitive housing costs in the denser areas. What matters is both what policies you institute alongside that address affordability and what you do with the money from the congestion pricing: do you just finance further highway construction and continue the never-ending sprawl or do you invest in alternative modes of transportation? Eliminating parking minimums should be (and often are) a single facet of a broader policy shift.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Parking minimums only kinda make sense in dense urban environments where public transit and lots of street parking is available and the developer can free ride off of a public good. Street parking, much less so, but parking minimums are even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 03:38
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I don't think the last two words in the bolded sentence are true, but that might be because we are using different definitions of "more viable." Elimination of parking minimums without funding more public transport will not make the buses run more frequently. With the right policy and non-brain-dead developers, the space that might have been reserved for parking can instead be filled with space that is full of people. To take an extreme example, think about plopping down a cafe in downtown Seattle. My friend from the burbs might recommended it be a single-story building with a sizeable parking lot and drive-thru so that folks like him can stop in when they're traveling through downtown without risking exposure to "the city". After all, how are they going to make any money without drivers‽ He didn't quite grasp the idea that said cafe being just one portion of a larger building full of potential customers who could walk in might easily supplant the audience willing only to drive in. Great guy, but firmly blinkered by the car-dependent environment in which he'd been raised in. Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Feb 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Insanite posted:If I weren't a gross STEMlord living in a market-rate condo, I don't think I'd give a drat if building lots of new housing for biotech engineers and software developers might possibly make things slightly less bad for me down the line. I was housing insecure a lot growing up, and it sucks tremendously. The specific project with a better-than-most ratio of market-rate to affordable homes seems like the best achievable solution in the current moment and was, I assume, only achieved after extensive fighting from affordability advocates. I'm 100% behind also fighting for widespread federal public housing programs, but that cause is not furthered by completely rejecting the project in question.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2020 09:58
|
|
|
Appeals to history are too often thinly-veiled defenses of a status quo that is untenable for the majority of people. A reporter in Denver had a pretty good on-air editorial on the folks fighting bike lines even after multiple cyclists were murdered by drivers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
While we're still in the throes of the pandemic, the usual suspects and more than a few useful idiots have taken the opportunity to decry density as a catalyst for disease and promote further sprawl and dependency on personal car ownership. There's fortunately been some pushback, but I fear there's far too many people who will accept the argument at face value as it's easily intuited and the (correct) counter-argument requires diving a bit deeper. A nice article on the subject: quote:When a pandemic comes, cities scare the hell out of people. The crush and bustle of the sidewalks and subways feels like a big petri dish. One instinct is to run... This choice rarely turns out well. Don't read the comments.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Those property taxes are probably also making gentrification worse in America directly too. I was pretty shocked when I learned my relatives in NJ were paying over 10 grand a year in property taxes. That's nuts and I can see how increasing property prices can drive out someone who otherwise would be able to afford living there. In contrast I got the annual property tax bill a couple of weeks back and it was less than $100. I'm not sure how best to address that beyond being sure that freezing property taxes in any way is a terrible idea that only produces a bunch of old fucks who bought in when things were 50x cheaper and are intolerant of any change in their neighborhoods. Abolish all private land ownership, imho?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
There also would need to be some alternative mechanism to encourage the adaptation of whatever structure exists on the land to the needs of the broader community. As much as it would be cute that my great grandmother continue to reside in the ranch house she bought 80 years ago, there are real societal costs to her doing so if the number of people who would benefit from living in the area outstrips the number of available homes. Forcing our cities to evolve in a way that treats current residence as absolutely sacrosanct would inflict terrible consequences on everyone, even assuming an enlightened approach to public transit that would allow newcomers easy mobility no matter how far out they're shunted. Removing the property tax would also eliminate one of the huge incentives to replace any existing structure with more units: where the purchaser might have previously decided to bring on more residents to offset the high tax rate on the high value land (assuming the neighborhood doesn't already ban multi-family homes), there's suddenly even less reason for the rich not to build themselves ridiculous mansions in areas people are clamoring to get into. But you're right that rising property taxes are likely to first hurt those least able to adapt to the change and I don't know what to do about that beyond ensuring folks have the means to make a change without discomfort and maybe somehow requiring that the property be redeveloped into more units that will be affordable to those that were displaced.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2020 15:30
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I just don’t get this attitude that people are just expected to abandon their families, friends and communities on a regular basis to move to the new “middle of nowhere” and start all over again because someone richer moved in. There’s a cost to having a longer commute or worse just having to find a new job. There’s a cost to getting settled in a new place. There are massive costs if you happen to be a minority and the cheap state’s laws suddenly deny you access to healthcare, worker protections based on who you marry, or the right to vote. Instead we're stuck in a FYGM vicious cycle where those that have some security are constantly punching down because they fear their own position is precarious and have developed unhealthy neuroses about any and all change. Many even think they're punching up by blocking the development of denser housing, even as the well-off gobble up the scarce and overpriced lots that come available and replace them with McMansions.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And gently caress apartment living, I've been fortunate enough in my lifetime of renting to have had nothing but mildly positive experiences with various buildings' management. Apartment living in a walkable, transit-accessible area can be great, if not outright empowering for those who can't or don't want to put up with the burden of ownership.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
lol a golf course in Seattle is valued at 97% less per square foot than the average single family home in the city. I'm going to put this down as another point for the importance of accurate land value assessments and levying appropriate property taxes to block wild misuses of scarce urban land. https://twitter.com/pushtheneedle/status/1257030176132628480?s=19 Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 16:09 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
Usually house-owners use coded racist/classist language to object to affordable housing proposals in their neighborhood ("this isn't the kind of neighborhood for affordable housing!" and "this would disrupt the neighborhood character!"), but this lady clearly missed the memo https://twitter.com/_Almaqah/status/1311516809582063616?s=19 Once you get the bile out of your mouth, check out this actually good rundown of six lovely city charter provisions that desperately need to be changed: https://streets.mn/2020/10/01/addition-by-subtraction-six-anti-equity-items-to-remove-from-the-saint-paul-city-code/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Kalit posted:The whole "caring about the neighborhood" aspect is a pretty funny defense. When Minneapolis was passing their 2040 plan to upzone the city to allow triplexes, this was a common defense (e.g. "they'll bulldoze our neighborhood"). My response was to say if they and their neighbors truly care about their neighborhood, they could just not sell to the highest bidder if it's a developer. Problem solved. Turns out the anti-bulldozing folk don't give a gently caress if the person is wealthy and white.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 17:21
|
|