2 ms·

> most building is happening in rapidly growing areas, and most rapidly-growing areas are filled with moneyed transplants who are coming for local industry jobs

> most building is happening in rapidly growing areas, and most rapidly-growing areas are filled with moneyed transplants who are coming for local industry jobs If you don't build for them, they're going to buy up whatever property they can, raise rents, and destroy existing communities instead. Or you can somehow stop... them from moving in? America has never blocked freedom of movement so this seems unlikely. > If you want to get serious about housing people in America, you need to think about supporting policies that would slow down the 200K-1M people we add to the US every year, each of who needs housing. No I don't think I need to stop population growth for building aesthetics, sorry I don't like to count my cityscape in lives blocked to maintain it ("ah that genteel cul-de-sac was worth 300 people #blessed"). Unless you can make a convincing argument as to why this very moment in history is when America needs to add blocks to development, as opposed to the development of the trans-American railroad, the creation of Route 66, or the establishment of the Interstate Highway System, then I'm going to say you're just the garden variety NIMBY that everyone else seems to think you are.

quacked 4y ago
> Or you can somehow stop... them from moving in? This is done by: > Buy up whatever property they can, raise rents. That's going to happen whether or not they build new developments. > No I don't think I need to stop population growth for building aesthetics, sorry I don't like to count my cityscape in lives blocked to maintain it I'll keep happily blocking ugly, poorly-built new developments from people like you until you all get real about sprawl and start proposing buildings that make sense and cooperate with existing living patterns. I actually like living in a town neighborhood with a community, not a transformed economic region with several dozen 6-story apartments stuffed full of transplant yuppies, which is the only thing YIMBYs are capable of rubber-stamping. As I said: go to any town in the US that's had a lot of development recently (Chicago, Boston, SF, Durham, Houston, Austin, Denver, Boulder, etc.) and that's what you'll find. You need to understand that for "NIMBYs", this is a zero-sum game. Either people who live in a nice area keep their claws around that niceness, or YIMBYs get ahold of it and it becomes a paved, crowded area that houses either apartment stacks or commercial real estate. Either way, the rent goes up. As I said in my first post: start proposing some nice development instead of the shell-corporation aluminum-siding wood-frame crap that everyone is building now, and you'll convert me as well as, I suspect, many other people to the pro-development side. Leaving a nice town in the hands of developers is a recipe to get the exact result that the developers have perpetrated on the other towns in America. > No I don't think I need to stop population growth This is the real kicker. How many more people do you want in the country? 500M? 1B? What's your end goal? I don't want to live in a crowded, extremely dense area, especially not if I've already bought property in a less crowded area. What do you expect me to do, roll over for you and the "we need to save lives by building shitty apartments everywhere and opening the borders" train?

quacked 4y ago

> Or you can somehow stop... them from moving in? This is done by: > Buy up whatever property they can, raise rents. That's going to happen whether or not they build new developments. > No I don't think I need to stop population growth for building aesthetics, sorry I don't like to count my cityscape in lives blocked to maintain it I'll keep happily blocking ugly, poorly-built new developments from people like you until you all get real about sprawl and start proposing buildings that make sense and cooperate with existing living patterns. I actually like living in a town neighborhood with a community, not a transformed economic region with several dozen 6-story apartments stuffed full of transplant yuppies, which is the only thing YIMBYs are capable of rubber-stamping. As I said: go to any town in the US that's had a lot of development recently (Chicago, Boston, SF, Durham, Houston, Austin, Denver, Boulder, etc.) and that's what you'll find. You need to understand that for "NIMBYs", this is a zero-sum game. Either people who live in a nice area keep their claws around that niceness, or YIMBYs get ahold of it and it becomes a paved, crowded area that houses either apartment stacks or commercial real estate. Either way, the rent goes up. As I said in my first post: start proposing some nice development instead of the shell-corporation aluminum-siding wood-frame crap that everyone is building now, and you'll convert me as well as, I suspect, many other people to the pro-development side. Leaving a nice town in the hands of developers is a recipe to get the exact result that the developers have perpetrated on the other towns in America. > No I don't think I need to stop population growth This is the real kicker. How many more people do you want in the country? 500M? 1B? What's your end goal? I don't want to live in a crowded, extremely dense area, especially not if I've already bought property in a less crowded area. What do you expect me to do, roll over for you and the "we need to save lives by building shitty apartments everywhere and opening the borders" train?