3 ms·

Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. It's perfectly understandable that you like density and want more of it but not everyone feels that way. Even if i

by nullc 3y ago

Not everyone wants to live in a dense city. It's perfectly understandable that you like density and want more of it but not everyone feels that way. Even if it isn't what interests a person, I think it's reasonable to have empathy for people who moved into a location specifically because it had a level of density that met their needs and don't want to be repeatedly be forced out of their home to maintain the conditions they chose to live in-- particularly given host costly and disruptive moving is (severing ties with your community, loss of business relationships, substantial tax increases due to prop 13, and currently massive increases in the cost of financing due to higher interest rates).

nrr 3y ago
Forgive me, but who's being forced out and how?
- nullc 3y ago
  No forgiveness required. Who? People who chose to live in an area in due to its low density (or more specifically because of the living conditions allowed by the low density), being subjected to intensification against their preferences would find themselves forced to move to maintain the conditions they originally purchased. It's doubly so a concern where established future land use and other policy set a reasonable expectation that these increases would not occur, only to have that overridden by distant politicians in furtherance of a arguably blunt objective. It may well be that in a specific situation the increase is still the best option but that in no way invalidates the preferences someone who prefers things how they were or makes their loss any less real. And its only from a perspective of mutual understanding and empathy can good compromises be found, to the extent that they're possible.
  - nrr 3y ago
    I appreciate the follow-up, but I must confess that I'm still scratching my head here. Is this legislation outlawing building sparsely? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems meant to strengthen Sacramento's ability to get California cities to meet the RHNA targets that they consistently miss, not make rural California urban. What living conditions are a priori being imperiled by densification and where?
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    The tax base in the suburbs needs to increase to the point that it can actually support the massive amount of infrastructure needed to support their desired lifestyle. Much like rural areas, the suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban residents and businesses. If low density housing had to realize all of their actual costs, it would probably be a lot less desirable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
lispisok 3y ago
People are forced to deal with the issues you mention like being forced to move and more because of housing unaffordability because of NIMBY regulations. I have more empathy for them than somebody who "prefers less density"
- nullc 3y ago
  Empathy is not mutually exclusive. That said, I disagree that the two are all that comparable comparable: NIMBY regulations don't force anyone out of their homes. Landlords that decide they can raise their rents and still find tenants may displace renters-- but that's the landlord's choice and generally increasing density increases rents regardless too because of the increased value of denser areas.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by nullc 3y ago

nrr 3y ago

Forgive me, but who's being forced out and how?

nullc 3y ago
No forgiveness required. Who? People who chose to live in an area in due to its low density (or more specifically because of the living conditions allowed by the low density), being subjected to intensification against their preferences would find themselves forced to move to maintain the conditions they originally purchased. It's doubly so a concern where established future land use and other policy set a reasonable expectation that these increases would not occur, only to have that overridden by distant politicians in furtherance of a arguably blunt objective. It may well be that in a specific situation the increase is still the best option but that in no way invalidates the preferences someone who prefers things how they were or makes their loss any less real. And its only from a perspective of mutual understanding and empathy can good compromises be found, to the extent that they're possible.
- nrr 3y ago
  I appreciate the follow-up, but I must confess that I'm still scratching my head here. Is this legislation outlawing building sparsely? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems meant to strengthen Sacramento's ability to get California cities to meet the RHNA targets that they consistently miss, not make rural California urban. What living conditions are a priori being imperiled by densification and where?
- tstrimple 3y ago
  The tax base in the suburbs needs to increase to the point that it can actually support the massive amount of infrastructure needed to support their desired lifestyle. Much like rural areas, the suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban residents and businesses. If low density housing had to realize all of their actual costs, it would probably be a lot less desirable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

lispisok 3y ago

People are forced to deal with the issues you mention like being forced to move and more because of housing unaffordability because of NIMBY regulations. I have more empathy for them than somebody who "prefers less density"

nullc 3y ago
Empathy is not mutually exclusive. That said, I disagree that the two are all that comparable comparable: NIMBY regulations don't force anyone out of their homes. Landlords that decide they can raise their rents and still find tenants may displace renters-- but that's the landlord's choice and generally increasing density increases rents regardless too because of the increased value of denser areas.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]