4 ms·

As a Bay area home owner, I will stop being NIMBY when I see housing advocates accept that schools, parks, roads and retail must see consistent investment also.

by junkscience2017 9y ago

As a Bay area home owner, I will stop being NIMBY when I see housing advocates accept that schools, parks, roads and retail must see consistent investment also. So far I see a lot of advocacy for housing density but no concerns for quality of life. More units will just mean more new residents...developers have no obligation to build to serve existing residents. If we build 100k new units now, that is just another 100k new residents who will suffer abysmal traffic.

santaclaus 9y ago
> So far I see a lot of advocacy for housing density but no concerns for quality of life. I see density as correlated with quality of life. I want to be able to live near work (so no car needed), with easy access to restaurants, bars, music venues, easy access to cultural opportunities, farmers markets, grocery stores, etc. Neighborhoods with these things are an absolute joy to live in.
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  What you want are frankly the typical goals of those derided as NIMBYs. They tend to want amenities balanced with housing.
  - santaclaus 9y ago
    Without density you can't have these in a walkable neighborhood. It takes X number of customers to support a grocery store (or a bodega, or a restaurant, etc). If you want one nearby, you need more people in a smaller geographic area. Besides, it is not one or the other. Ground level retail, upper level residential, and you get both.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The amenities he wants stem from “more neighbors, closer to me” and the amenities NIMBYs want are the opposite. One is cooperative (cities get better as they grow, new residents and businesses and buildings add to the energy) and the other is exclusionary (once too many people live somewhere, it’s ruined).
conanbatt 9y ago
New residents are suffering today that they cant move in. I think that affects them a lot more than poorer traffic.
adrianmonk 9y ago
I don't know what to tell you except that more residents equals more property taxes equals more available money to make those investments in infrastructure. And thanks to California's famous Proposition 13, those new residents are paying property taxes at a MUCH higher rate than old-timers, so it's hard to argue they aren't shouldering their fair share of the burden.
cobookman 9y ago
Well most our schools already suck. So put the new buildings in the worst school districts. Maybe the new tenants can move the school up a few rankings. However I’m with you that building a bunch of high rises in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino is not a good idea. However in East Palo Alto, redwood city, San Mateo....the schools are pretty bad and you could place them near Caltrain.
closeparen 9y ago
Increasing density both requires and enables building out excellent public transit. You’re right, it’s not compatible with mass car usage. But it’s the car usage which will have to go.

santaclaus 9y ago

> So far I see a lot of advocacy for housing density but no concerns for quality of life. I see density as correlated with quality of life. I want to be able to live near work (so no car needed), with easy access to restaurants, bars, music venues, easy access to cultural opportunities, farmers markets, grocery stores, etc. Neighborhoods with these things are an absolute joy to live in.

junkscience2017 9y ago
What you want are frankly the typical goals of those derided as NIMBYs. They tend to want amenities balanced with housing.
- santaclaus 9y ago
  Without density you can't have these in a walkable neighborhood. It takes X number of customers to support a grocery store (or a bodega, or a restaurant, etc). If you want one nearby, you need more people in a smaller geographic area. Besides, it is not one or the other. Ground level retail, upper level residential, and you get both.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The amenities he wants stem from “more neighbors, closer to me” and the amenities NIMBYs want are the opposite. One is cooperative (cities get better as they grow, new residents and businesses and buildings add to the energy) and the other is exclusionary (once too many people live somewhere, it’s ruined).

conanbatt 9y ago

New residents are suffering today that they cant move in. I think that affects them a lot more than poorer traffic.

adrianmonk 9y ago

I don't know what to tell you except that more residents equals more property taxes equals more available money to make those investments in infrastructure. And thanks to California's famous Proposition 13, those new residents are paying property taxes at a MUCH higher rate than old-timers, so it's hard to argue they aren't shouldering their fair share of the burden.

cobookman 9y ago

Well most our schools already suck. So put the new buildings in the worst school districts. Maybe the new tenants can move the school up a few rankings. However I’m with you that building a bunch of high rises in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino is not a good idea. However in East Palo Alto, redwood city, San Mateo....the schools are pretty bad and you could place them near Caltrain.

closeparen 9y ago

Increasing density both requires and enables building out excellent public transit. You’re right, it’s not compatible with mass car usage. But it’s the car usage which will have to go.