3 ms·

It's terrible everywhere but seems especially bad in California. We're hardly immune. Our boro president was celebrating a lawsuit blocking a new 5000(!) unit d

It's terrible everywhere but seems especially bad in California. We're hardly immune. Our boro president was celebrating a lawsuit blocking a new 5000(!) unit development as if it was a victory for housing justice. That said, the YIMBY message seems to be making headway. I hear a lot more pro-housing chatter than I did ten years ago, so at least that's something.

api 7y ago
What logic could that person possibly be following? It's just mind boggling. In any case, that's why I want to see local planning just abolished. These people are so clueless or self-serving (not sure which, don't care) that I don't see any reasoning with them or even talking to them. Just fire them all and abolish their offices.
- sethammons 7y ago
  Easy: people require infrastructure and many land developers ignore it. More lanes on roads being a big one. In my former neck of the woods, a developer is putting in 1 or 2 thousands homes. They will connect right onto the two lane highway, miles from the freeway that already has too much traffic causing chaos in the rush hours. The developers will make a bundle if they don't go bankrupt first, and the community will be worse off.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    The proposed 5000 unit development which has just been killed by NIMBYs is within blocks of two different subway stations. Few if any any of the residents would have owned cars. Roads are not an issue here. It's pure against-all-change conservatism. It's fine to have that personality type, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the country is filled with landscapes that change slowly if at all. Can't the small island of Manhattan be set aside for change and growth?
    - api 7y ago
      My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers. We changed and grew in every way until they took over and everything stopped. I think it will restart when they retire.
      - klyrs 7y ago
        > My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers... Not to double down on cynicism but what makes you think that oligarchs of the following generations will be any less self serving?
        bradleyjg 7y ago
        I don't think the people leading the charge down in the LES are disproportionately rich, at least unless you count the implicit value of a rent regulated apartment, what they are is disproportionately older. And I get it--change can be disorienting, construction is noisy, and so on. But this is literally Manhattan we are talking about. If not here, where?
        api 7y ago
        The NIMBYs in California are mostly older and middle class. The oligarchs happen to mostly be on the right side at least on this particular issue. I really think a big elephant in the room on this issue is racism. Restricting housing supply to hold prices high to exclude all but the already economically established is how liberals implement red lining without admitting their real motives even to themselves. They can pretend its about community, the environment (despite the fact that NIMBY policies encourage sprawl), etc.
  - api 7y ago
    That's a failure of urban planning too. Either better infrastructure is needed or density needs to be located closer to good infrastructure. NIMBY planners in California are opposed to both. They block construction near high capacity transportation and they oppose the extension of that transportation to new places. The whole state seems to be run as a giant housing supply restriction cartel for the purpose of enriching existing property owners and speculators at the expense of newcomers, the young, the working class, and the poor. It's common to a lot of "blue states" but California has the worst case. It's rank hypocrisy and everyone involved should be ashamed. I came up with a way to show the hypocrisy: point out that "red" states like Texas and Arizona are more liberal than California because in those states a working class person can afford a place to live. Seriously... what kind of brain damage allows someone to advocate us being a "sanctuary state" for immigrants while simultaneously opposing any housing or infrastructure expansion? Where are these people supposed to live? Are they utterly incapable of rational thought?

api 7y ago

What logic could that person possibly be following? It's just mind boggling. In any case, that's why I want to see local planning just abolished. These people are so clueless or self-serving (not sure which, don't care) that I don't see any reasoning with them or even talking to them. Just fire them all and abolish their offices.

sethammons 7y ago
Easy: people require infrastructure and many land developers ignore it. More lanes on roads being a big one. In my former neck of the woods, a developer is putting in 1 or 2 thousands homes. They will connect right onto the two lane highway, miles from the freeway that already has too much traffic causing chaos in the rush hours. The developers will make a bundle if they don't go bankrupt first, and the community will be worse off.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  The proposed 5000 unit development which has just been killed by NIMBYs is within blocks of two different subway stations. Few if any any of the residents would have owned cars. Roads are not an issue here. It's pure against-all-change conservatism. It's fine to have that personality type, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the country is filled with landscapes that change slowly if at all. Can't the small island of Manhattan be set aside for change and growth?
  - api 7y ago
    My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers. We changed and grew in every way until they took over and everything stopped. I think it will restart when they retire.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      > My cynical take is that we just have to wait out the boomers... Not to double down on cynicism but what makes you think that oligarchs of the following generations will be any less self serving?
      - bradleyjg 7y ago
        I don't think the people leading the charge down in the LES are disproportionately rich, at least unless you count the implicit value of a rent regulated apartment, what they are is disproportionately older. And I get it--change can be disorienting, construction is noisy, and so on. But this is literally Manhattan we are talking about. If not here, where?
      - api 7y ago
        The NIMBYs in California are mostly older and middle class. The oligarchs happen to mostly be on the right side at least on this particular issue. I really think a big elephant in the room on this issue is racism. Restricting housing supply to hold prices high to exclude all but the already economically established is how liberals implement red lining without admitting their real motives even to themselves. They can pretend its about community, the environment (despite the fact that NIMBY policies encourage sprawl), etc.
- api 7y ago
  That's a failure of urban planning too. Either better infrastructure is needed or density needs to be located closer to good infrastructure. NIMBY planners in California are opposed to both. They block construction near high capacity transportation and they oppose the extension of that transportation to new places. The whole state seems to be run as a giant housing supply restriction cartel for the purpose of enriching existing property owners and speculators at the expense of newcomers, the young, the working class, and the poor. It's common to a lot of "blue states" but California has the worst case. It's rank hypocrisy and everyone involved should be ashamed. I came up with a way to show the hypocrisy: point out that "red" states like Texas and Arizona are more liberal than California because in those states a working class person can afford a place to live. Seriously... what kind of brain damage allows someone to advocate us being a "sanctuary state" for immigrants while simultaneously opposing any housing or infrastructure expansion? Where are these people supposed to live? Are they utterly incapable of rational thought?