4 ms·

OK, where should those people live instead?

michaelt 6y ago
When you're a NIMBY, depending on your political persuasion they might say: * I don't care, just not here * One of the housing developments in other towns, which I don't oppose * Working from home is the future, why do people need to move here anyway? * Further out, served by improved public transport infrastructure. * Homelessness is really more of a mental health services problem. So the real solution here is healthcare reform. * The problem is billion-dollar corporations all centralising in one place for no good reason. We should spread the jobs out. * Who says the population has to grow at all? Capitalism is the problem, the endless growth it demands isn't possible. * The solution is a bay-area-wide master plan to deliver an integrated response, addressing our current and future needs for jobs, homes, schools, equality, desegregation, mass transit, homeless and mental health services, and a response to the climate crisis. Needless to say, these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. But the NIMBY's alternative is only to assuage their conscience, so realism isn't important.
- CalRobert 6y ago
  If only these meetings included the kids who don't know their parents because mom and dad have commutes where they leave at 6 AM and get home at 8 PM. But the problem with "consulting with the community" is it doesn't give a voice to the people who might _like_ to live in Berkeley, but are stuck commuting from Stockton because they're not millionaires.
  - throwaway20148 6y ago
    Yep won’t some please think of the children.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  There's also a whole range of possibilities between "people don't have a place to live" and "oh, let's build sixteen 8-storey buildings". > these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. Unfortunately, as I see it in trends around the world, this is what's happening in almost every country. Why create a "master plan to deliver an integrated response" when you can plop down a few apartment buildings and be don with it.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. The reason we have gotten to this point is building out instead of up, sprawl instead of vertical expansion. Surely the solution is not more sprawl.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      There's definitely a sweet spot in between.
  - MarkSweep 6y ago
    It’s a chicken and egg problem: why build infrastructure that is not currently needed. And if try to attach the infrastructure construction to the housing construction, it complicates the process. This reduces supply. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > And if try to attach the infrastructure construction to the housing construction, it complicates the process. That's how you end up with public transport overwhelmed, electric grid strained, local schools and kindergartens overflown. Because instead of "attaching infrastructure construction to the housing construction" you just build housing. Lots of it.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        And then there will be a unified voice to fix those issues, versus the reality today where all those things already happen, just only to the poorest and least-represented.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > And then there will be a unified voice to fix those issues By then it will already be too late, and you would have to tear down half or more of what has been built just to fix the issues.
dmitriid 6y ago
There's a whole range between "sixteen 8-storey buildings" and "people don't have where to live"

When you're a NIMBY, depending on your political persuasion they might say: * I don't care, just not here * One of the housing developments in other towns, which I don't oppose * Working from home is the future, why do people need to move here anyway? * Further out, served by improved public transport infrastructure. * Homelessness is really more of a mental health services problem. So the real solution here is healthcare reform. * The problem is billion-dollar corporations all centralising in one place for no good reason. We should spread the jobs out. * Who says the population has to grow at all? Capitalism is the problem, the endless growth it demands isn't possible. * The solution is a bay-area-wide master plan to deliver an integrated response, addressing our current and future needs for jobs, homes, schools, equality, desegregation, mass transit, homeless and mental health services, and a response to the climate crisis. Needless to say, these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. But the NIMBY's alternative is only to assuage their conscience, so realism isn't important.

CalRobert 6y ago
If only these meetings included the kids who don't know their parents because mom and dad have commutes where they leave at 6 AM and get home at 8 PM. But the problem with "consulting with the community" is it doesn't give a voice to the people who might _like_ to live in Berkeley, but are stuck commuting from Stockton because they're not millionaires.
- throwaway20148 6y ago
  Yep won’t some please think of the children.
dmitriid 6y ago
There's also a whole range of possibilities between "people don't have a place to live" and "oh, let's build sixteen 8-storey buildings". > these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. Unfortunately, as I see it in trends around the world, this is what's happening in almost every country. Why create a "master plan to deliver an integrated response" when you can plop down a few apartment buildings and be don with it.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. The reason we have gotten to this point is building out instead of up, sprawl instead of vertical expansion. Surely the solution is not more sprawl.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    There's definitely a sweet spot in between.
- MarkSweep 6y ago
  It’s a chicken and egg problem: why build infrastructure that is not currently needed. And if try to attach the infrastructure construction to the housing construction, it complicates the process. This reduces supply. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > And if try to attach the infrastructure construction to the housing construction, it complicates the process. That's how you end up with public transport overwhelmed, electric grid strained, local schools and kindergartens overflown. Because instead of "attaching infrastructure construction to the housing construction" you just build housing. Lots of it.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      And then there will be a unified voice to fix those issues, versus the reality today where all those things already happen, just only to the poorest and least-represented.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > And then there will be a unified voice to fix those issues By then it will already be too late, and you would have to tear down half or more of what has been built just to fix the issues.

dmitriid 6y ago

There's a whole range between "sixteen 8-storey buildings" and "people don't have where to live"