8 ms·

It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right. Living in Cali

by 22289d 4y ago

It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right. Living in California is expensive, in more ways than just housing. Not everyone can afford it. Just like not everyone can afford a new BMW. In my corner of the state, people who increasingly cannot afford to live here are noisy. I mostly don't engage because I'm aware that I will simply receive vitriol and anger for sharing my views. But quietly, I'm ok with it. They can move if they want to. I love it here and having fewer people on the fringes of society as neighbors isn't really the worst outcome to me. Edit: and this why I don't engage. I'm out. Merry Christmas everyone.

kneebonian 4y ago
So if people keep leaving then the property values go down. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Imagine property values start plunging, people can't leave, they just start abandoning houses, soon you get vast swathes of abandoned houses which lead to increased crime and urban decay. Decades from now people will shake their heads and talk about the golden days of California and the problems with the silicon belt.
- 22289d 4y ago
  You're missing why people want to live here in the first place. It's one of the most beautiful places in the world, with one of the best year-round climates in the world. If prices start going down, people will move here. For those reasons.
- fundad 4y ago
  You’ve described most of the country outside of job centers. There’s very little rural housing available and people crowd into job centers and drive up costs. Unless you own property or make a high salary, housing is unaffordable in all 50 states.
greesil 4y ago
Do you support building more housing? Near your home?
- 22289d 4y ago
  Given that I know the local authorities will drag their feet and it'll take 5+ years for anything to actually be lived in and most stuff will be expensive to live in - yes. But that's already happening.
spacemadness 4y ago
You get anger and vitriol because your views are part of the problem. NIMBY’s pull up the ladder and try to turn a nice semi-affordable car into a Porsche then tell everyone “sorry, it’s just expensive to be here. Not my fault!”
- 22289d 4y ago
  It's not a problem to me, that's the point. By saying I am a part of the problem, what you really mean is that my views are an obstacle to you getting what you want.
  - natechols 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - 22289d 4y ago
      Once again, you don't get to decide for me what 'the problem is'. You're just framing what you want as objectively what should be. But you're incorrect to frame it that way. You want what you want. I want what i want.
      - mikem170 4y ago
        It's more than just framing. It's one set of people telling another set of people what they can and cannot do with the land they own. That seems to be a bit of a tie breaker. The parent you replied to wasn't telling other people what to do with land they owned, he was objecting to people telling him what he could do on land he owned (within reason, like a duplex/triplex, or an accessory dwelling unit). There's no principal like safety behind how restrictive many of these rules are, unless you count fear of people in different economic demographics to be a reasonable justification. It's a difference of opinion. People who want more flexible zoning are growing in number, these are people who can't find an affordable place to live or are otherwise not happy with the changes made to zoning in the last 75-100 years, and they are driving changes in more and more localities.
dionidium 4y ago
Yes, if we made it illegal to manufacture new lawnmowers or sofas or iPhones, then the value of the existing lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones would skyrocket, which would be (at least in the naive accounting [0]) very good for the current owners of lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones -- but hopefully you can see how ridiculous that is as policy. [0] I say "naive accounting," because it's not so great if you ever need to buy a new lawnmower, sofa, or iPhone or if you hope your kids will someday be able to. And it's not so great for your city in the long run if making ordinary products illegal results in drastically lower levels of productivity, etc, etc.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  Like most analogies, those fail. One person's quality of life is not affected in any way by another person having a sofa. More housing and population density does lead to increased crowding, which some people consider a decrease in quality of life. We can argue which QOL argument outweighs the other, but it's plain wrong to say that increasing housing has no impact on existing residents.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    Of course allowing more housing impacts people. And people on their iPhones impact me -- when they're behind the wheel, when they're talking loudly in a restaurant, when I can't get their attention in a shop. The towers impact me (they're ugly and ubiquitous and use valuable spectrum). And lawnmowers? Those impact me, too! They're loud and stir up dust. I'm struggling to think of anything objectionable about sofas, but that just means 2/3 of my totally-arbitrary examples have significant impacts on others. And, because those examples were totally arbitrary, we could easily substitute three far more objectionable products. You live in a society. Of course the things other people do impact you. That's a low bar, easily met, and not interesting enough to justify a ban on new housing. The impacts have to be overwhelmingly harmful to justify prohibition. Apartment buildings clearly do not meet that standard. You might not like apartments, but I love them, and banal preferences shouldn't drive policy in a free society.
    - 4y ago
TulliusCicero 4y ago
> It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right "Increasing price of cars during pandemic not an issue for people who already have cars." Yes, people are upset that the government pushes policies that hurt people, and that make no sense generationally (intentionally targeting rising property values is just a generational ponzi scheme). If your stance is apathy or even pleasure upon seeing the suffering caused by bad policy, it's no wonder you're being downvoted.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  > If your stance is apathy or even pleasure upon seeing the suffering caused by bad policy, it's no wonder you're being downvoted. There was absolutely nothing in the comment to imply he derived "pleasure from seeing suffering." You are making that leap in bad faith. I think the build-or-not argument might be more productive if the "YIMBY" side would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and therefore population density) does have an effect on existing residents.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > But quietly, I'm ok with it. They can move if they want to. I love it here and having fewer people on the fringes of society as neighbors isn't really the worst outcome to me. Maybe pleasure was the wrong word, but they certainly seem to enjoy the terrible situation. It's not very far off, and saying that you're okay with and even love the current setup that helps you at the expense of others isn't a great look. > would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and therefore population density) does have an effect on existing residents. Obviously it does, just like increasing the supply of anything has an impact relative to the option of constrained supply. Realistically, the real solution is radical upzoning at the state or even federal level. Upzoning individual neighborhoods and cities exacerbates the negative side effects of upzoning by concentrating them in small areas. If the population increase is broadly spread out, it'll be much less of an issue.
wonderwonder 4y ago
For the most part everyone arguing in favor of ideas championed by the left are unable to engage in rational argument they always engage by attempting to personally insult and label the other as bad or selfish. As someone that has always voted Dem prior to this past midterm, this style of argument actually drove me further right. Got to the point where I decided that if an idea can't be championed on it's merits it's probably not something I'm interested in
- specialist 4y ago
  > this style of argument actually drove me further right I believe you. People who feel threatened move to the right. This Volts episode about the psychology of "system justification" covers one facet of that phenomenon. "Why social change is so excruciatingly difficult" [2022-10-24] https://www.volts.wtf/p/why-social-change-is-so-excruciatingly#details https://www.volts.wtf/p/why-social-change-is-so-excruciating... Progressives ignore the psychology of action and reaction to their own peril.
- andirk 4y ago
  Sad but true that progressive "people deserve to live decently in my city" ideas are at odds with the "I'm fine so stop talking about how there's a problem". I'm working on an entire comedy set about how many of my peers care more about dissecting the wording of shit rather than actually furthering a cause. Those idiots aren't going to affect my ideology, though I am sometimes cancelled for the hilarious reasons (i.e. mentioning Joe Rogan). Lastly, I got ran out of a bar for saying I think people deserve health care. Labeled a communist with no job and that I'm not welcome there. Lol!
yibg 4y ago
Thing is, people aren't asking you (and people like you) to do anything, but simply to stop actively blocking things (like building new homes). You're getting the vitriol because you're simply sharing your views. You're getting it because based on your views, it seems like you support measures that actively blocks progress for others.
subpixel 4y ago
I find it problematic that so many people reject your opinion, in particular because I suspect they are probably downplaying the degree to which it parallels the way most Americans think about where they live, to one degree or another. Your logic isn’t unsound, but it will increasingly come across as unreasonable because not everyone in the workforce has the option of finding employment and accommodation elsewhere.
- andirk 4y ago
  Make it unaffordable in a city for service workers to live, and there will be no one to host your night out on the town. No one to serve your dinner, or to tear your venue ticket, or to play live music.
  - subpixel 4y ago
    As I said, it’s unreasonable in the big picture. The big picture matters. But it’s not _illogical_ for someone who has everything they want to oppose things they don’t need. NIMBY-is like another application of the “possession is 9/10ths of the law” argument. It has legs, but it doesn’t always win out.
    - andirk 4y ago
      I know what you mean but I still disagree. Is it _illogical_ to care for the disabled, elderly, widows and orphans in their affliction? I walk past people in need all the time but I don't justify it. Logical is subjective according to the person's wants and needs.
andirk 4y ago
TLDR: I'm fine so what's the problem? I'm the victim! I can't speak my hilarious beliefs because people will "engage" aka challenge my poorly thought out and constructed opinions. As a San Francisco area homeowner and a BMW owner, I believe every human deserves a roof over their head. Edit: Please don't discuss the things I've said. My BMW is the victim! Merry Christmas.

by 22289d 4y ago

kneebonian 4y ago

So if people keep leaving then the property values go down. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Imagine property values start plunging, people can't leave, they just start abandoning houses, soon you get vast swathes of abandoned houses which lead to increased crime and urban decay. Decades from now people will shake their heads and talk about the golden days of California and the problems with the silicon belt.

22289d 4y ago
You're missing why people want to live here in the first place. It's one of the most beautiful places in the world, with one of the best year-round climates in the world. If prices start going down, people will move here. For those reasons.
fundad 4y ago
You’ve described most of the country outside of job centers. There’s very little rural housing available and people crowd into job centers and drive up costs. Unless you own property or make a high salary, housing is unaffordable in all 50 states.

greesil 4y ago

Do you support building more housing? Near your home?

22289d 4y ago
Given that I know the local authorities will drag their feet and it'll take 5+ years for anything to actually be lived in and most stuff will be expensive to live in - yes. But that's already happening.

spacemadness 4y ago

You get anger and vitriol because your views are part of the problem. NIMBY’s pull up the ladder and try to turn a nice semi-affordable car into a Porsche then tell everyone “sorry, it’s just expensive to be here. Not my fault!”

22289d 4y ago
It's not a problem to me, that's the point. By saying I am a part of the problem, what you really mean is that my views are an obstacle to you getting what you want.
- natechols 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - 22289d 4y ago
    Once again, you don't get to decide for me what 'the problem is'. You're just framing what you want as objectively what should be. But you're incorrect to frame it that way. You want what you want. I want what i want.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      It's more than just framing. It's one set of people telling another set of people what they can and cannot do with the land they own. That seems to be a bit of a tie breaker. The parent you replied to wasn't telling other people what to do with land they owned, he was objecting to people telling him what he could do on land he owned (within reason, like a duplex/triplex, or an accessory dwelling unit). There's no principal like safety behind how restrictive many of these rules are, unless you count fear of people in different economic demographics to be a reasonable justification. It's a difference of opinion. People who want more flexible zoning are growing in number, these are people who can't find an affordable place to live or are otherwise not happy with the changes made to zoning in the last 75-100 years, and they are driving changes in more and more localities.

dionidium 4y ago

Yes, if we made it illegal to manufacture new lawnmowers or sofas or iPhones, then the value of the existing lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones would skyrocket, which would be (at least in the naive accounting [0]) very good for the current owners of lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones -- but hopefully you can see how ridiculous that is as policy. [0] I say "naive accounting," because it's not so great if you ever need to buy a new lawnmower, sofa, or iPhone or if you hope your kids will someday be able to. And it's not so great for your city in the long run if making ordinary products illegal results in drastically lower levels of productivity, etc, etc.

khazhoux 4y ago
Like most analogies, those fail. One person's quality of life is not affected in any way by another person having a sofa. More housing and population density does lead to increased crowding, which some people consider a decrease in quality of life. We can argue which QOL argument outweighs the other, but it's plain wrong to say that increasing housing has no impact on existing residents.
- dionidium 4y ago
  Of course allowing more housing impacts people. And people on their iPhones impact me -- when they're behind the wheel, when they're talking loudly in a restaurant, when I can't get their attention in a shop. The towers impact me (they're ugly and ubiquitous and use valuable spectrum). And lawnmowers? Those impact me, too! They're loud and stir up dust. I'm struggling to think of anything objectionable about sofas, but that just means 2/3 of my totally-arbitrary examples have significant impacts on others. And, because those examples were totally arbitrary, we could easily substitute three far more objectionable products. You live in a society. Of course the things other people do impact you. That's a low bar, easily met, and not interesting enough to justify a ban on new housing. The impacts have to be overwhelmingly harmful to justify prohibition. Apartment buildings clearly do not meet that standard. You might not like apartments, but I love them, and banal preferences shouldn't drive policy in a free society.
  - 4y ago

TulliusCicero 4y ago

> It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right "Increasing price of cars during pandemic not an issue for people who already have cars." Yes, people are upset that the government pushes policies that hurt people, and that make no sense generationally (intentionally targeting rising property values is just a generational ponzi scheme). If your stance is apathy or even pleasure upon seeing the suffering caused by bad policy, it's no wonder you're being downvoted.

khazhoux 4y ago
> If your stance is apathy or even pleasure upon seeing the suffering caused by bad policy, it's no wonder you're being downvoted. There was absolutely nothing in the comment to imply he derived "pleasure from seeing suffering." You are making that leap in bad faith. I think the build-or-not argument might be more productive if the "YIMBY" side would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and therefore population density) does have an effect on existing residents.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > But quietly, I'm ok with it. They can move if they want to. I love it here and having fewer people on the fringes of society as neighbors isn't really the worst outcome to me. Maybe pleasure was the wrong word, but they certainly seem to enjoy the terrible situation. It's not very far off, and saying that you're okay with and even love the current setup that helps you at the expense of others isn't a great look. > would acknowledge that a massive increases in housing density (and therefore population density) does have an effect on existing residents. Obviously it does, just like increasing the supply of anything has an impact relative to the option of constrained supply. Realistically, the real solution is radical upzoning at the state or even federal level. Upzoning individual neighborhoods and cities exacerbates the negative side effects of upzoning by concentrating them in small areas. If the population increase is broadly spread out, it'll be much less of an issue.

wonderwonder 4y ago

For the most part everyone arguing in favor of ideas championed by the left are unable to engage in rational argument they always engage by attempting to personally insult and label the other as bad or selfish. As someone that has always voted Dem prior to this past midterm, this style of argument actually drove me further right. Got to the point where I decided that if an idea can't be championed on it's merits it's probably not something I'm interested in

specialist 4y ago
> this style of argument actually drove me further right I believe you. People who feel threatened move to the right. This Volts episode about the psychology of "system justification" covers one facet of that phenomenon. "Why social change is so excruciatingly difficult" [2022-10-24] https://www.volts.wtf/p/why-social-change-is-so-excruciatingly#details https://www.volts.wtf/p/why-social-change-is-so-excruciating... Progressives ignore the psychology of action and reaction to their own peril.
andirk 4y ago
Sad but true that progressive "people deserve to live decently in my city" ideas are at odds with the "I'm fine so stop talking about how there's a problem". I'm working on an entire comedy set about how many of my peers care more about dissecting the wording of shit rather than actually furthering a cause. Those idiots aren't going to affect my ideology, though I am sometimes cancelled for the hilarious reasons (i.e. mentioning Joe Rogan). Lastly, I got ran out of a bar for saying I think people deserve health care. Labeled a communist with no job and that I'm not welcome there. Lol!

yibg 4y ago

Thing is, people aren't asking you (and people like you) to do anything, but simply to stop actively blocking things (like building new homes). You're getting the vitriol because you're simply sharing your views. You're getting it because based on your views, it seems like you support measures that actively blocks progress for others.

subpixel 4y ago

I find it problematic that so many people reject your opinion, in particular because I suspect they are probably downplaying the degree to which it parallels the way most Americans think about where they live, to one degree or another. Your logic isn’t unsound, but it will increasingly come across as unreasonable because not everyone in the workforce has the option of finding employment and accommodation elsewhere.

andirk 4y ago
Make it unaffordable in a city for service workers to live, and there will be no one to host your night out on the town. No one to serve your dinner, or to tear your venue ticket, or to play live music.
- subpixel 4y ago
  As I said, it’s unreasonable in the big picture. The big picture matters. But it’s not _illogical_ for someone who has everything they want to oppose things they don’t need. NIMBY-is like another application of the “possession is 9/10ths of the law” argument. It has legs, but it doesn’t always win out.
  - andirk 4y ago
    I know what you mean but I still disagree. Is it _illogical_ to care for the disabled, elderly, widows and orphans in their affliction? I walk past people in need all the time but I don't justify it. Logical is subjective according to the person's wants and needs.

andirk 4y ago

TLDR: I'm fine so what's the problem? I'm the victim! I can't speak my hilarious beliefs because people will "engage" aka challenge my poorly thought out and constructed opinions. As a San Francisco area homeowner and a BMW owner, I believe every human deserves a roof over their head. Edit: Please don't discuss the things I've said. My BMW is the victim! Merry Christmas.