5 ms·

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

bendbro 6y ago
I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.
grandmczeb 6y ago
This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
- bendbro 6y ago
  It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
  - grandmczeb 6y ago
    I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
    - bendbro 6y ago
      Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning." 1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ 2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
      - grandmczeb 6y ago
        That's not what it says. Here's the actual text: > As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl. Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them. Here's the actual text of the HOMES act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808... It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it. Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
        bendbro 6y ago
        I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs. I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.

bendbro 6y ago

I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.

grandmczeb 6y ago

This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.

bendbro 6y ago
It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
- grandmczeb 6y ago
  I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
  - bendbro 6y ago
    Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning." 1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ 2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
    - grandmczeb 6y ago
      That's not what it says. Here's the actual text: > As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl. Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them. Here's the actual text of the HOMES act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4808... It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it. Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
      - bendbro 6y ago
        I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs. I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.