4 ms·

This looks like a good place to recycle part a comment of mine from 10 days ago. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37747936 https://news.ycombinator.com/i

by btilly 3y ago

This looks like a good place to recycle part a comment of mine from 10 days ago. In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37747936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37747936 I said: > The triangle that you're looking at is that NIMBYs lead to lack of construction, lead to undersupply of housing, which is a direct cost of both high housing costs and high homeless populations. The profit that I have as a homeowner comes from somewhere. Where it comes from is artificial scarcity that causes renters to struggle, and over 170,000 Californians to be unhoused. There is an answer. It is a simple and direct and has my complete support. It is the one issue where I completely agree with https://twitter.com/mattyglesias https://twitter.com/mattyglesias. YIMBY. Build housing. Get rid of barriers to building housing. It doesn't matter whether it is high end, low end, high density apartments, or weird condominiums. The laws of supply and demand remain true. High prices are a result of high demand and a lack of supply. And if the new housing is only attractive to the well-off, it still helps. The homes that they live in now can go to the less rich. Being for NIMBY policies is being for homelessness. Go to a homeless encampment. See people that our society has turned into garbage. We did it people wanted pristine neighborhoods to make their houses worth more. Well, the houses are worth more. Was it worth it?

jstarfish 3y ago
> There is an answer. It is a simple and direct and has my complete support. [...] YIMBY. Build housing. Get rid of barriers to building housing. > It doesn't matter whether it is high end, low end, high density apartments, or weird condominiums. LMAO. This "yes to everything" experiment was tried and failed-- it's called suburban Atlanta. Saying yes to everything is how you make an area completely uninhabitable. You can't "just" build housing. You need railed public transit infrastructure first, because you cannot build that shit after the fact. Even if people don't want it, if you don't have support for public transit first, don't build housing-- because once you build those houses, then it's NIMBY/FYIGM/racism on the subject of trains. The result is perpetually-clogged roads and mean commute speed of 4mph, with your "home" being nothing more than a cheaply-constructed, overpriced gilded cage you literally cannot leave at certain times of day if there happens to be a nearby accident. Solutions involve trying to run streetcars and buses over the same impassible roads. The housing situation is a problem, I don't deny it. But saying "fuck it just build" ignores all of the actual urban planning work that needs to happen. It's great for lining the pockets of developers though! They will never live in the hellscape they're being paid to build.
- btilly 3y ago
  Funny. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/100-u-s-cities-ranked-by-commute-time/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-... says that the average commute in the Bay Area is worse than Atlanta. I think that you're overstating the problem.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
7e 3y ago
That's not a fix. People in houses will breed even more people and/or people will move in from afar--and then one generation later you're back to where you were before, only with more total population, less room for the earth, and more carbon emissions. What do you do then? Repeat the cycle, like an idiot? How do you think we got so many people in the first place? Do you fix traffic by building more highways?
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Are you suggesting lack of housing as a solution to overpopulation? Just don't build houses so the ones we don't want to live with will just die off? That's... ummm.. an interesting sentiment. Perhaps we could speed up the process and burn the undesirables in some kind of ovens? Heating the houses of the chosen ones would be an added benefit!
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  You're suggesting housing (by itself) increases birth rate? Hmm, that's an interesting... theory.
- btilly 3y ago
  Most advanced countries are not having children at a replacement rate. Current population projections have the world topping out with about 1/4 to 1/3 more people than today, and then declining. Your Malthusian vision seems unlikely in the extreme.

by btilly 3y ago

jstarfish 3y ago

> There is an answer. It is a simple and direct and has my complete support. [...] YIMBY. Build housing. Get rid of barriers to building housing. > It doesn't matter whether it is high end, low end, high density apartments, or weird condominiums. LMAO. This "yes to everything" experiment was tried and failed-- it's called suburban Atlanta. Saying yes to everything is how you make an area completely uninhabitable. You can't "just" build housing. You need railed public transit infrastructure first, because you cannot build that shit after the fact. Even if people don't want it, if you don't have support for public transit first, don't build housing-- because once you build those houses, then it's NIMBY/FYIGM/racism on the subject of trains. The result is perpetually-clogged roads and mean commute speed of 4mph, with your "home" being nothing more than a cheaply-constructed, overpriced gilded cage you literally cannot leave at certain times of day if there happens to be a nearby accident. Solutions involve trying to run streetcars and buses over the same impassible roads. The housing situation is a problem, I don't deny it. But saying "fuck it just build" ignores all of the actual urban planning work that needs to happen. It's great for lining the pockets of developers though! They will never live in the hellscape they're being paid to build.

btilly 3y ago
Funny. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/100-u-s-cities-ranked-by-commute-time/ https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-... says that the average commute in the Bay Area is worse than Atlanta. I think that you're overstating the problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

7e 3y ago

That's not a fix. People in houses will breed even more people and/or people will move in from afar--and then one generation later you're back to where you were before, only with more total population, less room for the earth, and more carbon emissions. What do you do then? Repeat the cycle, like an idiot? How do you think we got so many people in the first place? Do you fix traffic by building more highways?

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
Are you suggesting lack of housing as a solution to overpopulation? Just don't build houses so the ones we don't want to live with will just die off? That's... ummm.. an interesting sentiment. Perhaps we could speed up the process and burn the undesirables in some kind of ovens? Heating the houses of the chosen ones would be an added benefit!
RetroTechie 3y ago
You're suggesting housing (by itself) increases birth rate? Hmm, that's an interesting... theory.
btilly 3y ago
Most advanced countries are not having children at a replacement rate. Current population projections have the world topping out with about 1/4 to 1/3 more people than today, and then declining. Your Malthusian vision seems unlikely in the extreme.