5 ms·

Why were the young liberals against an apartment building? That sounds way out of character, unless what they really wanted was an even taller (and more afford

Why were the young liberals against an apartment building? That sounds way out of character, unless what they really wanted was an even taller (and more affordable) apartment building.

fossuser 6y ago
See this: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-left-nimby-canon https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-left-nimby-canon There’s a new form of NIMBYism that’s pretty extreme and comes from the left. The only group interested in building housing seems to be the neoliberals/moderates/center - people that believe in markets/supply and demand? The politics around this stuff is a mess. I wish there was just a way to incentivize building.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Thanks! I wasn't thinking of opposition to gentrification/displacement. We hear similar arguments in DC, but they tend to come from current residents, who are often Black or other PoC, and not traditional (young, white) liberals. Related anecdote: After gentrification, DC gets some interesting side-effects... there are several "neighborhood" churches where most of the congregants live 30+ minutes away in the suburbs, due to being priced out of the local rental market. And these church-goers do everything in their power to block bicycle lanes downtown, because they need the street-side parking for the church.
  - EricE 6y ago
    "gentrification" is just a way for people to be NIMBY while feeling noble at the same time. It would be pretty freaking hilarious if it didn't harm so many people - especially those at the lower end of the housing spectrum. It's the ultimate in selfishness "I'm secure with my affordable housing - screw everyone else" :p Two things can be true at the same time - you can be economically disadvantaged and also be a selfish asshole too. I'm so sick of people giving groups a total pass on not being toxic, selfish assholes because they also are also part of a "protected" class.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      I didn't give anybody a pass. :shrug:
    - dang 6y ago
      Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for a different sort of conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I don’t think it’s the building that creates gentrification - it’s the lack of supply. Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. Not building to keep housing crappy enough to reduce demand doesn’t work (and doesn’t everyone prefer to live in a nicer place?). If that fails they fall back on generic environment arguments, “taking down any building is bad for the environment”. I think it’s all just status quo bias and resistance to change, resistance to building. All of the arguments that come after that are driven entirely by motivated reasoning. If you lean left it’s the left nimby canon, if you lean right it’s the right version of that. I just want more housing supply.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. That is the argument and the desire. Have any cities ever proven that it's true? My experience has universally been that prices go up indefinitely, until the local economy dies and there is no money left to pay the rent.
      - fossuser 6y ago
        Tokyo and Singapore come to mind - it requires proper incentives to be in place. The US is a mess given the incentives towards home ownership as an investment. The Bay Area and California make this incentive worse with Prop 13.
      - seryoiupfurds 6y ago
        I don't have a link to hand but I remember reading that rents in Seattle dropped after they started approving more rental buildings. If 10,000 yuppies move to town and 1000 apartments' worth of old buildings are torn down to build new apartments for them, then 1000 people are displaced. But consider the alternative: if 10,000 yuppies move in and no new housing is built, they'll bid up the price of run down old buildings until nobody else can afford them, and 10,000 people are displaced.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      I don’t think it’s the building that creates gentrification - it’s the lack of supply. Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. Over long enough time-spans and large enough areas of a city, I agree. But, that doesn't change the impact on individuals who get priced out of their specific apartment (where that apartment was rented below market because it was run-down, and was replaced with a market-rate apartment). Which isn't to say its right/correct that the individual can potentially block development to the detriment of the city as a whole. We would all be much better off with a different approach to zoning/development.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > neoliberals/moderates/center The only groups interested in building extremely dense housing in medium-density residential neighborhoods are large property investors and people who believe that the price of housing is due to a lack of supply rather than property being used as a place to park money in a low-interest rate environment.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The reason that property is a good place to park money is precisely because of the restricted supply and reliable demand.
nerdponx 6y ago
For what it's worth, they'd chafe at the term "liberal". I think their idea is that development inevitably means gentrification, so they are opposed to development in order to stop the advance of gentrification.

Why were the young liberals against an apartment building? That sounds way out of character, unless what they really wanted was an even taller (and more affordable) apartment building.

fossuser 6y ago

See this: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-left-nimby-canon https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-left-nimby-canon There’s a new form of NIMBYism that’s pretty extreme and comes from the left. The only group interested in building housing seems to be the neoliberals/moderates/center - people that believe in markets/supply and demand? The politics around this stuff is a mess. I wish there was just a way to incentivize building.

alistairSH 6y ago
Thanks! I wasn't thinking of opposition to gentrification/displacement. We hear similar arguments in DC, but they tend to come from current residents, who are often Black or other PoC, and not traditional (young, white) liberals. Related anecdote: After gentrification, DC gets some interesting side-effects... there are several "neighborhood" churches where most of the congregants live 30+ minutes away in the suburbs, due to being priced out of the local rental market. And these church-goers do everything in their power to block bicycle lanes downtown, because they need the street-side parking for the church.
- EricE 6y ago
  "gentrification" is just a way for people to be NIMBY while feeling noble at the same time. It would be pretty freaking hilarious if it didn't harm so many people - especially those at the lower end of the housing spectrum. It's the ultimate in selfishness "I'm secure with my affordable housing - screw everyone else" :p Two things can be true at the same time - you can be economically disadvantaged and also be a selfish asshole too. I'm so sick of people giving groups a total pass on not being toxic, selfish assholes because they also are also part of a "protected" class.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    I didn't give anybody a pass. :shrug:
  - dang 6y ago
    Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're trying for a different sort of conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fossuser 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s the building that creates gentrification - it’s the lack of supply. Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. Not building to keep housing crappy enough to reduce demand doesn’t work (and doesn’t everyone prefer to live in a nicer place?). If that fails they fall back on generic environment arguments, “taking down any building is bad for the environment”. I think it’s all just status quo bias and resistance to change, resistance to building. All of the arguments that come after that are driven entirely by motivated reasoning. If you lean left it’s the left nimby canon, if you lean right it’s the right version of that. I just want more housing supply.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. That is the argument and the desire. Have any cities ever proven that it's true? My experience has universally been that prices go up indefinitely, until the local economy dies and there is no money left to pay the rent.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Tokyo and Singapore come to mind - it requires proper incentives to be in place. The US is a mess given the incentives towards home ownership as an investment. The Bay Area and California make this incentive worse with Prop 13.
    - seryoiupfurds 6y ago
      I don't have a link to hand but I remember reading that rents in Seattle dropped after they started approving more rental buildings. If 10,000 yuppies move to town and 1000 apartments' worth of old buildings are torn down to build new apartments for them, then 1000 people are displaced. But consider the alternative: if 10,000 yuppies move in and no new housing is built, they'll bid up the price of run down old buildings until nobody else can afford them, and 10,000 people are displaced.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    I don’t think it’s the building that creates gentrification - it’s the lack of supply. Increasing supply to meet demand should reduce prices. Over long enough time-spans and large enough areas of a city, I agree. But, that doesn't change the impact on individuals who get priced out of their specific apartment (where that apartment was rented below market because it was run-down, and was replaced with a market-rate apartment). Which isn't to say its right/correct that the individual can potentially block development to the detriment of the city as a whole. We would all be much better off with a different approach to zoning/development.
pessimizer 6y ago
> neoliberals/moderates/center The only groups interested in building extremely dense housing in medium-density residential neighborhoods are large property investors and people who believe that the price of housing is due to a lack of supply rather than property being used as a place to park money in a low-interest rate environment.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The reason that property is a good place to park money is precisely because of the restricted supply and reliable demand.

nerdponx 6y ago

For what it's worth, they'd chafe at the term "liberal". I think their idea is that development inevitably means gentrification, so they are opposed to development in order to stop the advance of gentrification.