|
I'll talk about the housing situation in NYC a little, as it's the one I'm the most familiar with. I'm not going to talk about transit for now, as NJ Transit makes me want to punch a wall.
If you ask YIMBYs to diagnose the situation, fundamentally there's a housing shortage, and the only way to solve that is more market rate development. YIMBYs aren't against public housing, nor are they against inclusionary zoning when it's reasonable, just they see both of those as putting bandaids on the problem, when what you really need is WW2-style mobilization, assembly line type solutions. That dovetails with the notion of displacement. What tends to happen in NYC politics is those afore-mentioned rich, white areas have a lot of political power, so no one's touching their single family zoning. (Jane Jacobs infamously fought against upzoning GV to allow for more modest, 5-story apartment complexes.) Therefore, the only places that actually get rezoned are former industrial places who don't really have much in the way of advocates - see part of Flushing in 1998, which has turned into a massive success for the Chinese community. Or Williamsburg over the past 20 years, or Long Island City now. With both of those examples, they were these former industrial areas that had really good access via the subway to Manhattan. Not many people are going to advocate for empty warehouses that have long since decamped for the suburbs. What happened in Williamsburg after though is all the yuppies moving in started bleeding east, into other neighborhoods like East Williamsburg and Bushwick, that were largely poor and minority, and that's exacerbated displacement. Due to this political power dynamic, most of the neighborhoods on the table for rezoning [url]https://citylimits.org/2018/08/01/bushwick-plans-unveiling-nears-among-some-tension-over-possible-rezoning]tend to be on the poorer, darker side.[/url] This explains the dynamic in practice where YIMBYism tends to be a very diverse, less affluent movement, with a very vocal minority *ahem* of white, affluent men as its most vocal cheerleaders. But there's wide agreement though that the rezonings need to start in NY's richest, most privileged neighborhoods. You really think that crunchy couple wants to rehab a brownstone in Bushwick or Bed-Stuy if they could find a cheaper place in Park Slope with other members of their tribe?
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Transit inner ring suburbs are fine, and way better than rural life, which are heavily subsidized economically and environmentally.Spacewolf posted:Consolidating municipalities will never happen, at least in the NJ case, because of school districts. School district consolidation happens only after the greatest screaming, because it is absolutely true (my mom was in real estate for 30+ years) that people decide where they want to live based upon which schools their kids will go to. If your schools suck, you are doomed, it's that simple. This example is different from Canada as they already had a lot more regional consolidation. I think the schools are less of a problem in NJ than other municipal services, schools already do have a lot of regionalization. Doing this is REALLY hard in NJ even in cases where the towns are very similar. They've been trying the very light incentives approach for 30 years, and I can only think of one case (Princeton) where it worked. The state government needs to get real and withhold funds from towns below a certain population threshold to force the issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
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. How on earth can you ignore SB 827, which was specifically designed to upzone Richmond and Sunset? That and London Breed's election are basically the two hottest YIMBY topics of the past year. The YIMBY project has proven in every single conceivable way to be 100% against exclusionary zoning and has focused entirely on upzoning rich neighborhoods. You can't comment on YIMBYism if you don't know what they actually believe, say, and want to do. Troy Queef posted:Any thoughts on this? YIMBYs aren't against public housing, they're against public housing being an excuse to not do development period. The solution is lots of infill and market rate middle class housing and anything else is a bandaid, and the way to do that is massive upzoning and deregulation of land use. Otherwise, it's only profitable to build luxury. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Aug 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
fermun posted:As originally written, SB 827 was nothing but a gentrification engine which immediately upzoned all areas with decent public transit and would have displaced the poor in areas with low property values but decent transit. It also allowed for outlying areas to continue to be NIMBYs by just cutting back on bus line service. Wiener never claimed that the first draft of it was meant to be final. quote:It was later amended to be better and include some amendments to help with displacement and gentrification, but from the start it was written without any consulting with any advocacy groups. Who gives a gently caress. That's like the carbon tax bill in Washington state that the far left defeated because it wasn't perfect. Well it's years later, and there's still no carbon tax. Policy is either good or bad in a vacuum, and the idea that you have to do endless stakeholdering is both silly and a massive waste of time given that this is usually a trojan horse for groups that will never support you. Why should we care that a bunch of rich NIMBYs are pissed that it'll destroy their property values? Those are precisely the people we should be trying to run roughshod over. The bill was defeated for now, which means that the rich win and the poor and homeless lose. quote:YIMBYism as I've seen it expressed, is a fundamentally libertarian capitalist ideology, it starts from a compromised position of doing what the large developers and landlords would like to have changed and doesn't have an answer for what happens when the developers build enough high end that they see a luxury housing demand decline so move on to where it's more profitable to build in another city, another state, another country, or hell, their investors just move on to another non-construction investment. You're ignoring local YIMBY groups are largely poor and minority, and again display your complete ignorance of the topic. To use the example I'm most familiar with, the YIMBY ideal is Fred Trump pumping out massive housing complexes for the middle class, which is currently illegal in New York due to zoning laws. The zoning code since the 60s forbids tall buildings outside of Midtown and the Upper East Side. Developers build for the super rich when that's the only possible way for them to make a profit. We saw what happened in the 40s and 50s before zoning codes expanded. The only way to actually stop displacement is to build enough housing in rich neighborhoods that the displacement never happens. No one cared about Mission until everywhere else was filled up, and it just happened to be because of zoning, Mission and SOMA were the only places left where you could build at all. Spacewolf posted:Does anyone have anything on planning/housing *outside* of SF/the Bay Area/California....? I'm in NJ and posted about metro NY a few pages back.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol that you claim a racist landlord as the YIMBY ideal as if it is a good thing. Thanks for ignoring the substance of the point. But overturning zoning laws and building lots of housing would be a great thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There's similar stuff going on here. The only stuff being built is high end apartments asking downright stupid rent for the area. Surprise surprise, most people can't afford to live there so they're desperate to get occupants. They advertise heavily and simultaneously price most people out. Meanwhile businesses either next door or even in litetally the same building advertise jobs that pay less than the rent on those places. Sounds like you need an upzoning or three. We need to make it more profitable to build giant complexes then a handful of ultraluxury housing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 00:04
|
|