3 ms·

Personally I'd say the problem is if someone is telling you that you are not allowed to build additional housing units on your property. Zoning should allow fo

Personally I'd say the problem is if someone is telling you that you are not allowed to build additional housing units on your property. Zoning should allow for variety and growth. Japan, for example, does a much better job of this than the U.S. Basic residential zoning allows for multi-unit and mixed use buildings. This is more flexible over time. Cities evolve as the decades pass, they need room to breathe. Single family single use zoning doesn't allow this. It's a major fail when a society can't provide housing for its people. Seems that a lot of Millennials are concerned about this.

rank0 5y ago
This is the best response I’ve gotten so far. It does seem a bit silly to me that I couldn’t build a duplex on my own property. But then I wonder again if this is an issue that the state government should fix instead of the municipalities.
- mikem170 5y ago
  I like the idea of the states doing something. Like the article mentions! Maybe that's what it takes to get past the local NIMBYs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 5y ago
  The problem is that the municipalities are beholden only to the people who live in them, and the people who live in them tend to be pretty selfish when it comes to housing policy. The state can take a bit of a broader view. If it were left up to the municipalities to fix, it wouldn't get fixed. One could certainly argue that that's fine, and that property owners should get to decide every detail of housing policy for their municipality. I don't personally agree with that, but I can understand the argument.
tcmart14 5y ago
Its something that sucks it has to be done a state level. I mean, that is how most decisions are. It sucks any decision sometimes has to be made at the national level. But NIMBYism has a strong influence in municipalities. I would argue, the people who have the time and resources to go to city council meetings and voice their opinions, are the people who are NIMYBYs. Kind of hard to go to city council meetings or have influence if you don't live in the city (think of an outlying town/city of San Fran), or you have to commute 2-4 hours a day to and from work, or your holding down two jobs to keep your head above water.

rank0 5y ago

This is the best response I’ve gotten so far. It does seem a bit silly to me that I couldn’t build a duplex on my own property. But then I wonder again if this is an issue that the state government should fix instead of the municipalities.

mikem170 5y ago
I like the idea of the states doing something. Like the article mentions! Maybe that's what it takes to get past the local NIMBYs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 5y ago
The problem is that the municipalities are beholden only to the people who live in them, and the people who live in them tend to be pretty selfish when it comes to housing policy. The state can take a bit of a broader view. If it were left up to the municipalities to fix, it wouldn't get fixed. One could certainly argue that that's fine, and that property owners should get to decide every detail of housing policy for their municipality. I don't personally agree with that, but I can understand the argument.

tcmart14 5y ago

Its something that sucks it has to be done a state level. I mean, that is how most decisions are. It sucks any decision sometimes has to be made at the national level. But NIMBYism has a strong influence in municipalities. I would argue, the people who have the time and resources to go to city council meetings and voice their opinions, are the people who are NIMYBYs. Kind of hard to go to city council meetings or have influence if you don't live in the city (think of an outlying town/city of San Fran), or you have to commute 2-4 hours a day to and from work, or your holding down two jobs to keep your head above water.