4 ms·

Another recourse would be not to build stuff in other people's backyards. There's plenty of space in the US.

by AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

Larrikin 6y ago
The NIMBYs could move to those places and not have to worry anymore
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Yes, with some effort you can make NIMBY people move out. As a result, jobs and money also tend to move out. Somehow the low-income people, who now have all the space and jobs to themselves happen to be uncapable of running the place.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I don't see how this would become real in practice. The YIMBYs don't want to drive out NIMBYs they just want denser housing. If you replace a single family home with a 4 story apartment building you get 4 times the density. Most of the people who want to move in aren't actually low income people. They are migrants who are about to double their salary but can't find a place without displacing low income people. There are lots of cities in California that want to stay "small" which also means that they throw away growth opportunities. The low income people that are being displaced are actually the californians.
  - Waterfall 6y ago
    The idea of low income housing is itself ridiculous. Why are there no low income Porsches? There's plenty of places that don't need affordable housing because housing is affordable without the government tearing the fabric of the free market. Lots of places that didn't have affordable housing didn't overinvest in houses like Texas where the houses remained stable compared to the heavily populated areas with high density.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > Why are there no low income Porsches? There were - the Volkswagen Beetle. You could even bolt a Porsche engine directly onto the bug's transaxle. The same fellow (Ferdinand Porsche) designed both cars. Many car lines have high and low ends, where the manufacturer tries to appeal to high and low spenders.
      - Waterfall 6y ago
        But that's not a Porsche then. It's a cheaper car from the same manufacturer you have to buy, not subsidized by the gov or other car buyers. I do find it hilarious that the Porsche cayanne is the same as the Volkswagen version but worst interior.
    - sqrt17 6y ago
      Why is it ridiculous to you that people want and need both shelter and access to a way of sustaining themselves? The comparison between a Porsche (essentially a status symbol that you buy so that people around you see that you have money - given traffic regulations it isn't really a way of making your daily commute shorter) and housing (which is a necessity) shows that you don't have a good grip on reality. And you don't want all bus drivers, garbage men, supermarket cashiers etc. to move to Texas and bring your garbage to the landfill by yourself.
      - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
        > And you don't want all bus drivers, garbage men, supermarket cashiers etc. to move to Texas and bring your garbage to the landfill by yourself. Correct. I want a supermarket to pay cashier a decent salary, so that he could afford a shelter at market price. Otherwise it looks like I'm subsidizing the aforementioned business from my taxes.
        failuser 6y ago
        They’ll never have the bargaining power to do that. No unions, no unique skills, no money. They have either to commute for 5 hours a day, share a room with 20 people or live in an RV.
herbstein 6y ago
Ah yes. Rural Montana. The best place for California to fix their housing issues. Anywhere that truly, desperately requires more low-income housing isn't a place where it's not in someone's back yard. And if you move low-income housing projects so far away from the population center that no one will have their backyard disturbed you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Well, rural Montana is not the only place in the US. But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. > you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved. Why's that?
  - angelocire 6y ago
    Because remote work isn't low-income work, and companies aren't setting up in small towns.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      In this case it probably would be better to put more effort into attracting businesses to the US in general and to the smaller towns in particular.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    > But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand, so why do low income people not live there? Conversely if it's so much more expensive for a low income person to live and work in SF, why is there so much supply that wages can be low?
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand Not if you live in heavily subsidized housing.
bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
> simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. > when the housing crisis becomes so acute And why is there a housing crisis, exactly? You're presumably a technical person — apply some systems thinking.
- oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
  What do you mean by systems thinking? I looked it up but I'm not sure which definition you had in mind.
- hansvm 6y ago
  > simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level > Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. Home ownership is about 50/50 in the Bay. If CA acts against NIMBY short-term interests that isn't in and of itself anti-democratic. It could make sense to question whether that's a power that should reside with the state, one might attack some of the common anti-NIMBY arguments (e.g., that people without homes are disproportionately unable to participate in local politics), and any individual state-level solution could be undesirable on its own merits, but going straight for the jugular and asserting the state is being undemocratic by not protecting NIMBYs seems overly inflammatory.

Another recourse would be not to build stuff in other people's backyards. There's plenty of space in the US.

Larrikin 6y ago

The NIMBYs could move to those places and not have to worry anymore

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Yes, with some effort you can make NIMBY people move out. As a result, jobs and money also tend to move out. Somehow the low-income people, who now have all the space and jobs to themselves happen to be uncapable of running the place.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I don't see how this would become real in practice. The YIMBYs don't want to drive out NIMBYs they just want denser housing. If you replace a single family home with a 4 story apartment building you get 4 times the density. Most of the people who want to move in aren't actually low income people. They are migrants who are about to double their salary but can't find a place without displacing low income people. There are lots of cities in California that want to stay "small" which also means that they throw away growth opportunities. The low income people that are being displaced are actually the californians.
- Waterfall 6y ago
  The idea of low income housing is itself ridiculous. Why are there no low income Porsches? There's plenty of places that don't need affordable housing because housing is affordable without the government tearing the fabric of the free market. Lots of places that didn't have affordable housing didn't overinvest in houses like Texas where the houses remained stable compared to the heavily populated areas with high density.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Why are there no low income Porsches? There were - the Volkswagen Beetle. You could even bolt a Porsche engine directly onto the bug's transaxle. The same fellow (Ferdinand Porsche) designed both cars. Many car lines have high and low ends, where the manufacturer tries to appeal to high and low spenders.
    - Waterfall 6y ago
      But that's not a Porsche then. It's a cheaper car from the same manufacturer you have to buy, not subsidized by the gov or other car buyers. I do find it hilarious that the Porsche cayanne is the same as the Volkswagen version but worst interior.
  - sqrt17 6y ago
    Why is it ridiculous to you that people want and need both shelter and access to a way of sustaining themselves? The comparison between a Porsche (essentially a status symbol that you buy so that people around you see that you have money - given traffic regulations it isn't really a way of making your daily commute shorter) and housing (which is a necessity) shows that you don't have a good grip on reality. And you don't want all bus drivers, garbage men, supermarket cashiers etc. to move to Texas and bring your garbage to the landfill by yourself.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > And you don't want all bus drivers, garbage men, supermarket cashiers etc. to move to Texas and bring your garbage to the landfill by yourself. Correct. I want a supermarket to pay cashier a decent salary, so that he could afford a shelter at market price. Otherwise it looks like I'm subsidizing the aforementioned business from my taxes.
      - failuser 6y ago
        They’ll never have the bargaining power to do that. No unions, no unique skills, no money. They have either to commute for 5 hours a day, share a room with 20 people or live in an RV.

herbstein 6y ago

Ah yes. Rural Montana. The best place for California to fix their housing issues. Anywhere that truly, desperately requires more low-income housing isn't a place where it's not in someone's back yard. And if you move low-income housing projects so far away from the population center that no one will have their backyard disturbed you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Well, rural Montana is not the only place in the US. But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. > you're making the housing non-viable before the first mound of dirt has been moved. Why's that?
- angelocire 6y ago
  Because remote work isn't low-income work, and companies aren't setting up in small towns.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    In this case it probably would be better to put more effort into attracting businesses to the US in general and to the smaller towns in particular.
- iso1631 6y ago
  > But yes. I believe the plan should be not to squeeze more people into already overpopulated areas, but how to attract people to other places. It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand, so why do low income people not live there? Conversely if it's so much more expensive for a low income person to live and work in SF, why is there so much supply that wages can be low?
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > It's far cheaper to live in places with low demand Not if you live in heavily subsidized housing.

bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago

> simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. > when the housing crisis becomes so acute And why is there a housing crisis, exactly? You're presumably a technical person — apply some systems thinking.

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
What do you mean by systems thinking? I looked it up but I'm not sure which definition you had in mind.
hansvm 6y ago
> simply overriding NIMBYs at the state level > Yes, because we love democracy, don't we folks. Home ownership is about 50/50 in the Bay. If CA acts against NIMBY short-term interests that isn't in and of itself anti-democratic. It could make sense to question whether that's a power that should reside with the state, one might attack some of the common anti-NIMBY arguments (e.g., that people without homes are disproportionately unable to participate in local politics), and any individual state-level solution could be undesirable on its own merits, but going straight for the jugular and asserting the state is being undemocratic by not protecting NIMBYs seems overly inflammatory.