4 ms·

Despite asking, "So what’s affordable housing, luxury and market-rate mean?" I don't think the author gives sufficient attention to the term "luxury." Their bes

by dkarl 3y ago

Despite asking, "So what’s affordable housing, luxury and market-rate mean?" I don't think the author gives sufficient attention to the term "luxury." Their best point is made in the photo of the sign advertising "affordable luxury rentals." In reality, "luxury" is a meaningless marketing team slapped on virtually every new apartment or condo development, even if it's cheap housing in distant suburbs for service workers displaced by prices in the core city. This is important, because the marketing use of the word "luxury" is exploited by NIMBYs to stop the construction of new housing. They oppose the construction of affordable housing by using dog whistles and other dark arts to appeal to classism and racism. They oppose the construction of "luxury" housing by co-opting progressive rhetoric about the need for affordable housing, saying the construction of high-end housing will only make our affordability crisis worse. Since there is no room for middle ground between "affordable" and "luxury," as the picture in the article shows, their anti-luxury playbook complements their anti-affordable playbook to let them oppose any new dense housing of any kind.

brailsafe 3y ago
The only part I don't think is entirely accurate, is your use of "co-opting", insomuch as the rhetoric is used by the people who are NIMBYs, who are one and the same group that make up "progressives". The progressives are the NIMBYs as much or moreso than apparent conservatives, and always have been. Not to say there aren't also true YIMBYs in both groups, but there's a hell of a lot of overlap between those who vote progressive and are ostensibly liberal, and those who gain the most in home appreciation and/or oppose denser housing near their SFH. It's what defines a NIMBY, because it's fine as long as it's elsewhere, and is inherently hypocritical. I like George Carlin's bit from the 90s on this; right out the gate he perfectly describes not just this idea, but also a series of other examples of idiotic rhetorical posturing we embrace unironically in 2023. [0] https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ

by dkarl 3y ago

brailsafe 3y ago

The only part I don't think is entirely accurate, is your use of "co-opting", insomuch as the rhetoric is used by the people who are NIMBYs, who are one and the same group that make up "progressives". The progressives are the NIMBYs as much or moreso than apparent conservatives, and always have been. Not to say there aren't also true YIMBYs in both groups, but there's a hell of a lot of overlap between those who vote progressive and are ostensibly liberal, and those who gain the most in home appreciation and/or oppose denser housing near their SFH. It's what defines a NIMBY, because it's fine as long as it's elsewhere, and is inherently hypocritical. I like George Carlin's bit from the 90s on this; right out the gate he perfectly describes not just this idea, but also a series of other examples of idiotic rhetorical posturing we embrace unironically in 2023. [0] https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ https://youtu.be/YjONsL4thQQ