4 ms·
Not everybody wants new tenements in their nice neighborhood.
by steponlego 4y ago
Not everybody wants new tenements in their nice neighborhood.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- idiotsecant 4y agoClassy. At some point that 'nice neighborhood' was low-density farmland or widely spaced residential that no doubt didn't want to see new packed urban housing in their nice neighborhood. If you live in a city housing around you will steadily increase in density. You need to live with that, you own your property - you don't own everyone else's.
- steponlego 4y agoThese lawsuits are an excellent refutation of your premise. I don’t want tenements anywhere near where I live. And I will work as hard as necessary to prevent their installation.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoThese are million dollar condos, you insensitive clod.
- steponlego 4y agoOnly on the top floors. They’re Section 8 below that.
- notch898a 4y agoThis is a tongue in cheek explanation for destruction of the urban middle class. Lowest class gets free rent, the rich buy the luxury condos, meanwhile middle class bread and butter workers flushed out of the city.
- steponlego 4y agoI have a condition that makes me unable to understand Internet sarcasm unless it is preceded by an upside-down exclamation mark.
- mixmastamyk 4y agoYes, only the top 90%.
- p0pcult 4y agoNot everyone wants wealthy assholes either, but unfortunately they tend to be able to pay more lawyer fees.
- steponlego 4y ago[flagged]
- pwinnski 4y agoI'm not sure whether your replies here are more stupid, or more nasty. The two attributes are neck-in-neck thus far. Not everyone is as selfish as you are. I'm a happy YIMBY, disappointed that the houses they're building on the corner are $900k+, hoping they build cheaper on the giant lot across the street from them.
- steponlego 4y agoI just oppose whatever the astroturfed trends are, usually. It's never backfired on me. I don't mind the pleas, projection, and wheedling, either. I've been doing this a LOT longer than you.
- pwinnski 4y agoTo justify the upper-case "LOT" you'll need to be a centenarian. I'm not young.
- sjf 4y agoYou can choose to have affordable housing, or you can choose have a homeless encampment. The poor people don't just disappear.
- steponlego 4y ago[flagged]
- vkou 4y agoI think a better solution would be to see the NIMBYs get a bus ticket to Portland.
- steponlego 4y agoEverybody who lives here is a NIMBY. Can’t fight that. Why not make a walkable city for the homeless? A fresh one from scratch.
- vkou 4y ago> Everybody who lives here is a NIMBY. Can’t fight that. State-level laws will end your fight to stop development, as just happened in California, and is working its way through state legislatures in Washington.
- steponlego 4y agoDon't worry - people are fighting these tooth and nail. There isn't enough WEF money in the world to bribe people who have to live in the communities they represent.
- rootusrootus 4y agoBetween Republicans wanting to use the state to overpower cities, and Democrats now wanting the same, maybe we ought to just eliminate cities altogether and centralize all the authority.
- vkou 4y agoNot everyone wants NIMBYs in their nice neighborhood, but we end up having to tolerate them. The way state-level political winds are going, it looks like you'll have to tolerate things you dislike, as well.
- steponlego 4y agoNo I won’t. Lawsuits like this are the proof. I don’t want bus lines, walkable cities, or section 8 in my nice quiet community and neither does anybody else who lives here. Democracy has spoken.
- cmh89 4y agoThe lawsuits exist because democracy spoke and the NIMBYs didn't like what it had to say. The builders are operating under the laws of the community. The NIMBYs are abusing the legal system in an attempt to subvert the will of the people.
- steponlego 4y agoSorry, the nature of local, county, state, and federal jurisdictions won't tolerate some inevitable voter takeover even if most people in a state seem to vote for some socialist WEF policy or another. It's one of the differences between federalization and what other countries have. You can fool the voters but they're getting sharper and they're becoming conspiracy theorists too now, for good reason.
- pwinnski 4y agoIt seems you've been posting every two minutes for too long to have noticed how wrong you are. Calm down with the nonsense labels and conspiracy foolishness, maybe take a break from posting to touch nature. The State of California recently revoked the rights of quite a few smaller jurisdictions to set their own zoning laws because they abdicated that right by refusing to set zoning laws that allowed for new development. So... Voters at every level pretty consistently vote for more development, seeing clearly that development beats homeless encampments, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. The obstructionist lawsuits come from sub-jurisdictional groups like the residents of one particular building in this case. Federalism doesn't apply here any more than "socialism" does. Appeals to imaginary international conspiracies aside, this is pretty simple: in many areas we have, and will continue to have, more people who need places to live than we have places for them to live. Either we build more places, or we deal with the consequences of failure. People abusing the legal system to stick their fingers in their ears until the problem moves a few blocks or a city or a state away are running out of time, because the tricks are seen clearly. Every selfish NIMBY is saying much the same thing: any and all development that led to the point where I could move here and buy my place is well and good and the natural order of things, and every bit of construction that happens after I close on my property is horrible and evil and will irreparably damage the character of the neighborhood. Of course, anyone who has lived in the area just a few years more could say the same thing about the freshly-minted NIMBY, all the way back to those who lived here 500 years ago. It's obvious nonsense.
- pwinnski 4y agoAnd yet the Escala was built with 269 units anyway. Tear it down, I guess? Or stop the YIMBY nonsense and let's build enough places to live for people who need to live somewhere.
- steponlego 4y agoMigration is about to stop completely very soon. We won't need new urban housing.