7 ms·

You're never going to win anyone over with the tired "if you disagree with me, you're a racist" BS. Low-income, high-density housing attracts problems. It has

You're never going to win anyone over with the tired "if you disagree with me, you're a racist" BS. Low-income, high-density housing attracts problems. It has literally nothing to do with race. You could guarantee that the high-rise apartment building you want to construct down the street from me would be 100% filled with people who look like me, and I'd still oppose it. Keep your YIMBY nonsense IYBY.

davidw 4y ago
It's a pretty well document fact that it has a lot of its roots in racism. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... If that makes you feel uncomfortable, so be it. Americans spend zillions of dollars every year visiting Europe, which is full of high density housing. And come home raving about how much they love it. It does not 'cause problems'.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  America is not Europe. It will never be Europe. Things that work in Europe may not work in America, and vice-versa.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    This always strikes me as an unsatisfying response. What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? Every time I’ve seen this type of argument brought up, it’s fallen flat when the same infrastructure is built here because it does end up working. We’re really not so unique.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Land area and population density? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        Which doesn’t mean much as a comparison point in the US because much of that land has zero or approximately zero residents, and nobody’s talking about building high-density housing in the middle of nowhere anyway. Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas and those places certainly are comparable to much of Europe.
        ghaff 4y ago
        >Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas Look up the US Census definition of "urban." In the town where I live, three houses around me are on 100 acres collectively--not to mention even more adjacent conservation land and that's classified as urban because it's near a smaller old mill town and only about 50 miles from a major city.
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        Without knowing exactly which town you’re talking about, I would posit that that’s likely still dense enough to have some pretty direct comparison points somewhere in Western Europe. It’s not like all of Western Europe is a city. Which doesn’t mean that the same infrastructure you’d see in a dense European city would make sense in your town, mind you. I just think that Europe and America aren’t as incomparable as some people seem to think.
        ghaff 4y ago
        Well, it's a typical more rural New England town. There is zero public transit of any sort. Essentially no businesses in town except barely when they merge with an adjacent small old mill city. So even in the town center where there are some sidewalks basically nowhere to walk to other than the library or post office. About 7K population total. About an hour drive from a major city. Though not that different really from small English countryside towns I've walked through.
        ethbr0 4y ago
    - waffle_ss 4y ago
      > What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? The amount of violent criminality? Look at any major light rail network in America and they are nowhere near as safe as the European equivalents.
    - xienze 4y ago
      > What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? And yet, if I suggested that the US do something a lot of (all?) European countries do, like having to present ID when voting, I’d get an endless stream of replies about why that’s fundamentally impossible in the US (and racist, naturally). And that’s a FAR easier problem to solve than pie-in-the-sky “make everything more dense and have high speed rail everywhere and European-style public transit in every city” daydreams that are so popular. Maybe some things really aren’t that easy to do in the US.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > like having to present ID when voting Complaints about this usually revolve around the fact that voter ID laws aren't accompanied with increased funding for and availability of voter ID services. Show me a law where they added Saturday and late-evening DMV services, or pop-up voter ID registration services at grocery stores, pharmacies, post offices, churches, community recreation centers, and schools. The purpose behind these laws is quite clear. It's fundamentally unfair to add voter ID laws to depress turnout under the guise of "election security".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- giantg2 4y ago
  Of course, they love visiting and perhaps the idea of it. Then they realize they can't have their larger houses, cars, etc that they want. And that government will be more involved in their lives (zoning, policies, prohibitions), which is fairly reasonable given the track record in many places in the US.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  There's a correlation between crime / neighborhood blight and low income residents. That correlation may be because of historic and current structural racism, lack of access to mental health services and a social safety net, or a myriad of other socio-economic issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Insinuating that anyone who brings up those issues is racist isn't helpful. It would be more productive to say "Yes, I understand why neighborhoods might be resistant to denser, low-income tolerant development, and here are some ways we could incorporate that fact into a productive plan..." E.g. building more mixed-income developments.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dakna 4y ago
  >It does not 'cause problems'. Like with most policies, the details are much more nuanced. Check out the history of the Gropiusstadt in Berlin: https://www.goethe.de/ins/jp/en/m/kul/sup/boe/21633080.html https://www.goethe.de/ins/jp/en/m/kul/sup/boe/21633080.html
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  I love Costa Rica therefor I want all my food drenched is Salsa Lezao according to your powerful logic.
ryukafalz 4y ago
Even if you ignore the racist roots mentioned in a sibling thread (and I maintain that you shouldn’t), we will need low-income housing as long as there are people with low incomes! And it’s best for everyone involved if that housing is commingled in every community rather than being concentrated in one place. It’s well documented that the neighborhood you grow up in has a huge impact on how upwardly mobile you’ll be if you’re in a low-income family. Look to Vienna’s social housing program for an example of this done very well. That doesn’t look like it attracts problems, now does it?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "And it’s best for everyone..." How exactly is it best for the well-off? I'm curious what pros and cons it would have for them.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    It promotes empathy with and reduces bias against those of different racial and economic backgrounds, for one. It’s easier for stereotypes to take hold in highly segregated environments because you don’t get much interaction with those outside your own groups.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I mean, that's good for society. But that's not a benefit for the well off who rely on their "network" (aka nepotism and cronyism).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Social cohesion and avoidance of class warfare. Historically, the decline of most late-stage empires was triggered by spiraling economic bifurcation. Sometimes, it's better to be less wealthy but on top of an ordered country vs more wealthy and without the rule of law as society breaks down.
    - giantg2 4y ago
dang 4y ago
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell. Your comment was a noticeable step hellward. You can make your substantive points without swipes, name-calling, and flamebait, so please do that instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

davidw 4y ago

It's a pretty well document fact that it has a lot of its roots in racism. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten... If that makes you feel uncomfortable, so be it. Americans spend zillions of dollars every year visiting Europe, which is full of high density housing. And come home raving about how much they love it. It does not 'cause problems'.

jaywalk 4y ago
America is not Europe. It will never be Europe. Things that work in Europe may not work in America, and vice-versa.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  This always strikes me as an unsatisfying response. What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? Every time I’ve seen this type of argument brought up, it’s fallen flat when the same infrastructure is built here because it does end up working. We’re really not so unique.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Land area and population density? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Which doesn’t mean much as a comparison point in the US because much of that land has zero or approximately zero residents, and nobody’s talking about building high-density housing in the middle of nowhere anyway. Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas and those places certainly are comparable to much of Europe.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        >Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas Look up the US Census definition of "urban." In the town where I live, three houses around me are on 100 acres collectively--not to mention even more adjacent conservation land and that's classified as urban because it's near a smaller old mill town and only about 50 miles from a major city.
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        Without knowing exactly which town you’re talking about, I would posit that that’s likely still dense enough to have some pretty direct comparison points somewhere in Western Europe. It’s not like all of Western Europe is a city. Which doesn’t mean that the same infrastructure you’d see in a dense European city would make sense in your town, mind you. I just think that Europe and America aren’t as incomparable as some people seem to think.
        ghaff 4y ago
        Well, it's a typical more rural New England town. There is zero public transit of any sort. Essentially no businesses in town except barely when they merge with an adjacent small old mill city. So even in the town center where there are some sidewalks basically nowhere to walk to other than the library or post office. About 7K population total. About an hour drive from a major city. Though not that different really from small English countryside towns I've walked through.
        ethbr0 4y ago
  - waffle_ss 4y ago
    > What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? The amount of violent criminality? Look at any major light rail network in America and they are nowhere near as safe as the European equivalents.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > What about America is so fundamentally different than Europe that would make the same policies that work there not work here? And yet, if I suggested that the US do something a lot of (all?) European countries do, like having to present ID when voting, I’d get an endless stream of replies about why that’s fundamentally impossible in the US (and racist, naturally). And that’s a FAR easier problem to solve than pie-in-the-sky “make everything more dense and have high speed rail everywhere and European-style public transit in every city” daydreams that are so popular. Maybe some things really aren’t that easy to do in the US.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > like having to present ID when voting Complaints about this usually revolve around the fact that voter ID laws aren't accompanied with increased funding for and availability of voter ID services. Show me a law where they added Saturday and late-evening DMV services, or pop-up voter ID registration services at grocery stores, pharmacies, post offices, churches, community recreation centers, and schools. The purpose behind these laws is quite clear. It's fundamentally unfair to add voter ID laws to depress turnout under the guise of "election security".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
giantg2 4y ago
Of course, they love visiting and perhaps the idea of it. Then they realize they can't have their larger houses, cars, etc that they want. And that government will be more involved in their lives (zoning, policies, prohibitions), which is fairly reasonable given the track record in many places in the US.
ethbr0 4y ago
There's a correlation between crime / neighborhood blight and low income residents. That correlation may be because of historic and current structural racism, lack of access to mental health services and a social safety net, or a myriad of other socio-economic issues, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Insinuating that anyone who brings up those issues is racist isn't helpful. It would be more productive to say "Yes, I understand why neighborhoods might be resistant to denser, low-income tolerant development, and here are some ways we could incorporate that fact into a productive plan..." E.g. building more mixed-income developments.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dakna 4y ago
>It does not 'cause problems'. Like with most policies, the details are much more nuanced. Check out the history of the Gropiusstadt in Berlin: https://www.goethe.de/ins/jp/en/m/kul/sup/boe/21633080.html https://www.goethe.de/ins/jp/en/m/kul/sup/boe/21633080.html
ROTMetro 4y ago
I love Costa Rica therefor I want all my food drenched is Salsa Lezao according to your powerful logic.

ryukafalz 4y ago

Even if you ignore the racist roots mentioned in a sibling thread (and I maintain that you shouldn’t), we will need low-income housing as long as there are people with low incomes! And it’s best for everyone involved if that housing is commingled in every community rather than being concentrated in one place. It’s well documented that the neighborhood you grow up in has a huge impact on how upwardly mobile you’ll be if you’re in a low-income family. Look to Vienna’s social housing program for an example of this done very well. That doesn’t look like it attracts problems, now does it?

giantg2 4y ago
"And it’s best for everyone..." How exactly is it best for the well-off? I'm curious what pros and cons it would have for them.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  It promotes empathy with and reduces bias against those of different racial and economic backgrounds, for one. It’s easier for stereotypes to take hold in highly segregated environments because you don’t get much interaction with those outside your own groups.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I mean, that's good for society. But that's not a benefit for the well off who rely on their "network" (aka nepotism and cronyism).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Social cohesion and avoidance of class warfare. Historically, the decline of most late-stage empires was triggered by spiraling economic bifurcation. Sometimes, it's better to be less wealthy but on top of an ordered country vs more wealthy and without the rule of law as society breaks down.
  - giantg2 4y ago

dang 4y ago

Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell. Your comment was a noticeable step hellward. You can make your substantive points without swipes, name-calling, and flamebait, so please do that instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html