5 ms·

By environment I mean the location - shops, parks, houses, lakes, garbage dumps. According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location,

By environment I mean the location - shops, parks, houses, lakes, garbage dumps. According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. From that I conclude that you don't care about preserving the value of the location, so you should have no issues with building a garbage dump next to the affordable housing unit. I said build the unit next to the dump, but if it feels better, you can do it the other way round. Build the affordable housing, then build the garbage dump next to it. After all, nobody is entitled to a nice environment to live in, and you wouldn't want to enrich the people living there. And I am pretty sure the "promises" are not imagination. At the very least, it seems the residents have a say in what gets build, or they couldn't prevent the building of new houses. So "move there, and you'll have a say in the further development of the area" seems to be a promise.

wbsss4412 5y ago
> According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. NIMBYs will often cite property values directly as a reason for their opposition. This isn’t some inference on my part, these are their own words. It’s one thing to say you don’t want a literal garbage dump next door, it’s another to say you don’t want more houses around because you want to secure the value of your own speculative investments.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  "Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    >"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      "Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Like Not In My Backyard?
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      You don't need that many teachers if you limit how many families can live in an area. In any case, if it doesn't matter that the neighborhood is nice, surely you can find some crappy part of town to build a skyscraper.
    - stryker7001 5y ago
      Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.

wbsss4412 5y ago

> According to you, if you want to preserve the attractiveness of the location, you are an evil exploiter trying to extract value at the expense of the people. NIMBYs will often cite property values directly as a reason for their opposition. This isn’t some inference on my part, these are their own words. It’s one thing to say you don’t want a literal garbage dump next door, it’s another to say you don’t want more houses around because you want to secure the value of your own speculative investments.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. If only number of available housing units is your concern, then why not simply build them elsewhere?
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  >"Value" is just another way to say it is a nice neighborhood. Only if you deliberately take my words out of context. I was talking about increase the value of an investment, which is purely a function of supply and demand. Creating unnecessary scarcity by capping supply benefits no one other than the wallets of a small few.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    "Unnecessary scarcity" - in what sense unnecessary? And you can build housing elsewhere, I don't think artificial scarcity is really a good argument.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Like Not In My Backyard?
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  Location isn’t fungible, people generally need to be geographically located close to their work, family, etc. What makes more sense, for the state of California to massively increase teachers salaries just so they can afford a basic house, or allow yourself to have a few more neighbors? At this point it’s pretty obvious what your answer will be so consider that a rhetorical question.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    You don't need that many teachers if you limit how many families can live in an area. In any case, if it doesn't matter that the neighborhood is nice, surely you can find some crappy part of town to build a skyscraper.
  - stryker7001 5y ago
    Ive seen this 'people need to live near work' argument, but I don't know what its based on. If a teacher has to commute an hour, they will commute an hour. If a bartender has to commute, they will commute. Wouldn't it be better to make transportation cheaper and easier to use? That way people could live where they can afford, and still work in another place. I don't understand why people have to subsidize someone living close to their job.