4 ms·

some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increa

some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increasing the supply of housing increases prices, etc - there's an enormous amount of misinformation out there). It's like back in the 60s when people were told Smoking was healthy. many changed their opinion about smoking when they found out it wasn't actually healthy. this is why, the opinions need "fixing"

timr 8y ago
"some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increasing the supply of housing increases prices, etc - there's an enormous amount of misinformation out there)." So basically, you have opinions that differ from them, and you think you're right, and they're wrong. But you offer no evidence beyond your own assertions. Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman), but there's a lot of evidence that, for example, "fixing housing" leads to traffic problems if you don't deal with transit before you build (cf. the highway situation in Seattle). There are also lots of examples where gentrification displaces poor and vulnerable populations. These are real problems with development, and it does no good to simply assert that they're not real.
- Decade 8y ago
  > Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman) That is not a strawman. That is literally what the old-school tenant activists in San Francisco say, providing political cover for NIMBY homeowners to also reject housing supply. It’s not reasonable, but politics is not won on reason. See this hit piece: http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affordability-transparency-proposed-housing-development/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affo... > There are also lots of examples where gentrification displaces poor and vulnerable populations. These are real problems with development, and it does no good to simply assert that they're not real. That is confusing cause and effect. It’s not the new development that is causing gentrification. It is the lack of building elsewhere, especially in rich neighborhoods, that is causing gentrification in poor neighborhoods. And then gentrification allows expensive new housing to become economically feasible, allowing development. The regulations that cause all new housing to be expensive are also a problem.
  - timr 8y ago
    "That is not a strawman. That is literally what the old-school tenant activists in San Francisco say" The strawman is that you're mischaracterizing the argument and it's commonality. Nobody is arguing that "supply increases prices". They're arguing that gentrification increases prices. And they aren't wrong. Are there goofballs who argue obviously counterfactual things? I'm sure you can find them. But the serious people have a different argument that you're mischaracterizing here.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      If you're disavowing the "more luxury condos make the city more expensive" crowd, there aren't a lot of people left to be called "serious" on the anti-growth side of the house.
underwater 8y ago
Smoking is not a good comparison. There’s not an objective truth that is the “right” policy for housing. Different groups are trying to optimise for different things. Saying “not in my backyard” is acknowledging that a problem is real, but hoping that solutions can be achieved in a way that doesn’t affect their lifestyle.
- closeparen 8y ago
  >Different groups are trying to optimise for different things. While this is true, there is an objective truth about the directionality and magnitude of the cause-and-effect relationships involved, and contradictory statements about these relationships (some of which are necessarily false) dominate the discourse.

timr 8y ago

"some of Their opinions are based on mis-information (for example: that fixing housing would increase traffic, when actually the opposite is true, or that increasing the supply of housing increases prices, etc - there's an enormous amount of misinformation out there)." So basically, you have opinions that differ from them, and you think you're right, and they're wrong. But you offer no evidence beyond your own assertions. Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman), but there's a lot of evidence that, for example, "fixing housing" leads to traffic problems if you don't deal with transit before you build (cf. the highway situation in Seattle). There are also lots of examples where gentrification displaces poor and vulnerable populations. These are real problems with development, and it does no good to simply assert that they're not real.

Decade 8y ago
> Nobody reasonable is arguing that "increasing the supply of housing increases prices" (that's a strawman) That is not a strawman. That is literally what the old-school tenant activists in San Francisco say, providing political cover for NIMBY homeowners to also reject housing supply. It’s not reasonable, but politics is not won on reason. See this hit piece: http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affordability-transparency-proposed-housing-development/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/excelsior-community-concerned-affo... > There are also lots of examples where gentrification displaces poor and vulnerable populations. These are real problems with development, and it does no good to simply assert that they're not real. That is confusing cause and effect. It’s not the new development that is causing gentrification. It is the lack of building elsewhere, especially in rich neighborhoods, that is causing gentrification in poor neighborhoods. And then gentrification allows expensive new housing to become economically feasible, allowing development. The regulations that cause all new housing to be expensive are also a problem.
- timr 8y ago
  "That is not a strawman. That is literally what the old-school tenant activists in San Francisco say" The strawman is that you're mischaracterizing the argument and it's commonality. Nobody is arguing that "supply increases prices". They're arguing that gentrification increases prices. And they aren't wrong. Are there goofballs who argue obviously counterfactual things? I'm sure you can find them. But the serious people have a different argument that you're mischaracterizing here.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    If you're disavowing the "more luxury condos make the city more expensive" crowd, there aren't a lot of people left to be called "serious" on the anti-growth side of the house.

underwater 8y ago

Smoking is not a good comparison. There’s not an objective truth that is the “right” policy for housing. Different groups are trying to optimise for different things. Saying “not in my backyard” is acknowledging that a problem is real, but hoping that solutions can be achieved in a way that doesn’t affect their lifestyle.

closeparen 8y ago
>Different groups are trying to optimise for different things. While this is true, there is an objective truth about the directionality and magnitude of the cause-and-effect relationships involved, and contradictory statements about these relationships (some of which are necessarily false) dominate the discourse.