5 ms·

If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there t

by wan23 4y ago

If there is a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective, it is in the interest of the people who live there to block those new homes from being built to limit supply of the asset they own. The people who would vote in favor of the new homes don't actually get to vote, since they don't live there yet.

chii 4y ago
> a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective aka, somebody else deciding that there should be more homes. I think that's the wrong perspective to take. I don't want an authority to decide this - the locals should make their own choices (right or wrong).
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Wrong choices are still wrong. I'd like to move into a house with my wife, but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. With climate change we have no idea how the real estate market will be at 1.5 degrees warming.
  - bradknowles 4y ago
    NIMBYism is a thing. But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there. You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especially downtown. I wish we had some NIMBYism that we could actually aim at those plans for high-rise condos.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      Don't worry, you see the same thing in ultra liberal areas as well. All the plans for "improvement" turn into gentrification that pushes out the current residents, with a tiny allotment of subsidized units that current residents don't qualify for either.
      - apendleton 4y ago
        Not doing the development doesn't prevent the gentrification, though. It's not like desirable places to live suddenly become not-desirable because there's not enough housing to go around. The rich people just outcompete the current residents for the existing housing stock. Unless housing supply actually keeps up with demand, someone's going to get squeezed out, and it'll almost invariably be whoever has the least money.
    - bretthoerner 4y ago
      What real estate do you think those people would buy if the condos weren't build?
      - bradknowles 4y ago
        If they were buying single family detached homes, at least those wouldn't block the views, ruin the skyline, and wipe out the natural areas near the river.
        bretthoerner 4y ago
        Huh, I think the condos downtown "wipe out" a lot less of the river (they're not even that close to the river, there's a whole hike and bike trail between them and the river...?) than all of the single family detached homes right up against the river that go on for mile after mile upstream (literally for cities-worth of land!). And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it. Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
        bradknowles 4y ago
        There were plenty of older buildings in downtown Austin that were not right up on the riverbanks, before the flood of the multi-million dollar condo hi-rises. They would be the skyline that I would want to maintain. The expensive single-family homes further up the river may take up a lot of horizontal space, but they don't ruin the skyline and since you have to dig down about as far as the building will be tall, they don't cause such massive damage to the natural surroundings. Moreover, most of them are occupied. Most of the hi-rise condos are not occupied. They are pure empty investment properties from people who have more money than they know what to do with. If those condos came with a local residence requirement, then I'd feel a lot better about them being there.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > … at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. I saved for a decade to buy my home in an area I enjoy, at a level of density I enjoy. You can do the same, or you can choose to live somewhere cheaper that you can afford. It’s your choice to live somewhere expensive, and to not want to save for a decade to get what you want.
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    > but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. That's normal. Median first-time homebuyer is 34, and that's for a starter house, which most people refuse to do nowadays.
charlescooper 4y ago
I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections. Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? They do. Residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states all vote for President, Congressfolk and Senators.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    President is a federal election, run by the individual states. Congressional members are likewise state run elections, but only affect the members assigned by each state. It's a nonsensical comparison.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    I think the question is more oriented around voting for the representation allotted to other states, rather than voting for candidates that will serve at the same level. For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's representatives to Federal office (e.g. a Massachusetts vote being counted in the Connecticut US Senate election.) Likewise, all counties in a state vote in State elections, but don't vote in each others' county elections. This goes down the line to cities within counties, districts within cities, etc. Not that I disagree with your point (it's totally valid to point out that elections from multiple areas can all serve in one body), but I think the question was more about citizens from outside a region voting for policies/representatives within that region.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

by wan23 4y ago

chii 4y ago

> a place where there should be more homes if you were looking at it from a regional perspective aka, somebody else deciding that there should be more homes. I think that's the wrong perspective to take. I don't want an authority to decide this - the locals should make their own choices (right or wrong).

formerkrogemp 4y ago
Wrong choices are still wrong. I'd like to move into a house with my wife, but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. With climate change we have no idea how the real estate market will be at 1.5 degrees warming.
- bradknowles 4y ago
  NIMBYism is a thing. But the flip side of that coin is local authorities that have zoning laws that allow the big and powerful builders to build pretty much whatever they want, wherever they want. Which always turns out to be high-rise condos for multi-millionaires and billionaires, most of whom have them as investment properties and don't actually live there. You see that here in Austin, all along the river, especially downtown. I wish we had some NIMBYism that we could actually aim at those plans for high-rise condos.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Don't worry, you see the same thing in ultra liberal areas as well. All the plans for "improvement" turn into gentrification that pushes out the current residents, with a tiny allotment of subsidized units that current residents don't qualify for either.
    - apendleton 4y ago
      Not doing the development doesn't prevent the gentrification, though. It's not like desirable places to live suddenly become not-desirable because there's not enough housing to go around. The rich people just outcompete the current residents for the existing housing stock. Unless housing supply actually keeps up with demand, someone's going to get squeezed out, and it'll almost invariably be whoever has the least money.
  - bretthoerner 4y ago
    What real estate do you think those people would buy if the condos weren't build?
    - bradknowles 4y ago
      If they were buying single family detached homes, at least those wouldn't block the views, ruin the skyline, and wipe out the natural areas near the river.
      - bretthoerner 4y ago
        Huh, I think the condos downtown "wipe out" a lot less of the river (they're not even that close to the river, there's a whole hike and bike trail between them and the river...?) than all of the single family detached homes right up against the river that go on for mile after mile upstream (literally for cities-worth of land!). And without downtown, I don't know what your view or skyline would be of, other than an empty blue sky, of which 99.99% of Texas offers you that, if you want it. Oh well, like you said, NIMBYism is certainly a thing.
        bradknowles 4y ago
        There were plenty of older buildings in downtown Austin that were not right up on the riverbanks, before the flood of the multi-million dollar condo hi-rises. They would be the skyline that I would want to maintain. The expensive single-family homes further up the river may take up a lot of horizontal space, but they don't ruin the skyline and since you have to dig down about as far as the building will be tall, they don't cause such massive damage to the natural surroundings. Moreover, most of them are occupied. Most of the hi-rise condos are not occupied. They are pure empty investment properties from people who have more money than they know what to do with. If those condos came with a local residence requirement, then I'd feel a lot better about them being there.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > … at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. I saved for a decade to buy my home in an area I enjoy, at a level of density I enjoy. You can do the same, or you can choose to live somewhere cheaper that you can afford. It’s your choice to live somewhere expensive, and to not want to save for a decade to get what you want.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > but at this rate we'll be saving for a decade to get there. That's normal. Median first-time homebuyer is 34, and that's for a starter house, which most people refuse to do nowadays.

charlescooper 4y ago

I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections. Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?

barry-cotter 4y ago
> Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? They do. Residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states all vote for President, Congressfolk and Senators.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  President is a federal election, run by the individual states. Congressional members are likewise state run elections, but only affect the members assigned by each state. It's a nonsensical comparison.
- gameman144 4y ago
  I think the question is more oriented around voting for the representation allotted to other states, rather than voting for candidates that will serve at the same level. For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's representatives to Federal office (e.g. a Massachusetts vote being counted in the Connecticut US Senate election.) Likewise, all counties in a state vote in State elections, but don't vote in each others' county elections. This goes down the line to cities within counties, districts within cities, etc. Not that I disagree with your point (it's totally valid to point out that elections from multiple areas can all serve in one body), but I think the question was more about citizens from outside a region voting for policies/representatives within that region.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]