5 ms·

On a larger scale, people want more housing, vote for it, and vote for politicians that pass appropriate legislation. On a local level most people don't want it

On a larger scale, people want more housing, vote for it, and vote for politicians that pass appropriate legislation. On a local level most people don't want it next to them, although they don't actually own the land in question. Developers that do own the land would love to build more housing but are opposed by their neighbors. How do we reconcile the different interests? Whose goals are considered "democracy" here?

Obscurity4340 3y ago
[flagged]
lawlessone 3y ago
Not in the US but it's similar where I am. Often older people will complain their children can't afford to live near them. Some of the same people will protest any developments near them that could add more accommodation to the same area. One of the arguments often used is that the area doesn't have the amenities e.g schools, larger roads, shops etc to support an increased population. But the development of more amenities in an area is blocked "because it isn't needed right now" etc. Then you have people just trying to get a cut.. https://www.newstalk.com/news/dublin-residents-demand-e225000-to-not-protest-housing-development-1471826 https://www.newstalk.com/news/dublin-residents-demand-e22500...
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  This is the point that gets me the most. They donMt own anything 99% of the time outside their specific lot. They are basically saying "My investment gives me dominion over that which I have invested $0 because it happens to border MUH propert" Just appease me, non-investor and non-owner of whatever property is in question. I bet they circumcize their children as a matter of policy too. Cuz why should anyone else but me decide what happens to another person's body. After all, I sort of "own" them too" Sick! Edit: have these folks ever heard of buying surrounding lots or like, I dunno, buying options or whatever stuff pertains to this? The biggest NIMBY/Narcissitic trait is "I get everything, don't even have to pay! You get nothing! Im taking all your blocks and I refuse to share, here on the daycare mat!" ridiculous. Can't wait till they're all pallitaive and finally decisions can be made externally and with EVERYONEs best interest at heart, not just your chronically selfish nonsense.
  - j0hnyl 3y ago
    I don't know why you lump NIMBY with Boomer. I think 99% of people don't want new constructions next to their properties.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      What is your assessment outside of the unfortunate Boomer mis-reference?
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    Your argument had some juice up until the "boomer" slur. Are we still doing that?
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      K, that was admittedly excessive. My life experience up to now (btw definitely Boomers+Xers who display identical entitlement and offensive conduct) What say now?
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Why do folks downvote mea culpas. Seems incredibly obtuse
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I regret the use of "you/you" pronouns, at no point was I referring to you. Was more of a rhetorical fluorish gone amok
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    * MUH investment
- barbazoo 3y ago
  > Often older people will complain their children can't afford to live near them. Some of the same people will protest any developments near them Cross referencing this must be tricky
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Right? If I'm role-playing as a boomer, I just cant understand how I dropped out in grade 10, got the good job at a local factory over a handshake and an all-expenses paid 3-martini lunch the moment I expressed interest in applying, and got a full pension plus zero or close to zero education costs and I have like 3 cars between me, wife, daughter, vacation at least 1x/year, and protested every subsequent development after I bought my house outright for $50k, and now my daughter needs to leave (she's 18, we HAVE to kick them out at that point?!) and she has nowhere to buy that doesn't rely upon me since she has no money and I fomented this monster? Why me, Lord? Edit: and even if I purchase nearby properties for fun and profit, she definitely can'tafford what I demand to be paid for rent in exchange for transferring partial use of the property that I aquired purely because I was stupidly financially empowered to have all these opportunities cuz my dad fucked my mom at the right historical timeframe to make sure that the content of mybirthdate took precedence over the content of my character or intentions or worthiness
kshacker 3y ago
Most of the grassroots level opposition is because developers lie, bribe and threaten their way out of honest development. I used to live in Cupertino (left 5 years back) and you had to be there to see the heavy handed tactics. Developers will promise one thing then once the contract was signed, bit by bit they will work with the city to roll back public benefits. And then the fights amongst city council - ugly at times in social media (Nextdoor). Nextdoor may be ugly itself but sometimes it exposes the fault lines very clearly since you see the same people parroting the lines over and over, after some time you just understand their tilt without anyone having to tell you so. And this is not just Cupertino. I read stories from Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. Wherever you get big money, some people get corrupted, and they don't work in the interest of the society. I mention San Jose but that is an example of city so big that neighborhood complaints can be killed quite easily since mobilizing the entire city to fight in behalf of one corner is not easy, so that's where the cities end up winning - they can do whatever without worrying "much" about the residents. But smaller cities can fight back and IMO they should until they get delivered what was promised.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Why is it the responsibility of a developer to provide public benefits? That's the responsibility of the city. The developers should just be building the actual housing, which the cities by and large do not allow at all.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The benefits are essentially bribes to the citizens and planning departments. It would be irritating if someone bribed you to be able to do something, then once they did it the check bounced!
    - bhauer 3y ago
      Indeed. It's especially irritating that such bribes are necessary to get approval to build anything in the first place.
lazide 3y ago
The people who live there and vote clearly don’t want it, or they’d change the zoning? I think what you’re saying is ‘people in general want to be able to live there but currently can’t afford to do so, and those jerks who live there won’t budge on making it happen’. Which, okay?
edgyquant 3y ago
You’ve completely skirted the question with most of this comment > Whose goals are considered "democracy" here The people who actually live in the area where decisions are made. People outside of a city enforcing their terms on a place they don’t live is tyranny actually.
- tyg13 3y ago
  You're missing the point. The people in the area often do support building new housing, they just don't want it where they are. This is a fundamental paradox, as it has to be built _somewhere_, but seemingly none of the people who agree there is a problem want to disadvantage themselves to fix the problem. Anyways, can I just say how absurd it is to call the government allowing developers to build new houses "tyranny"? Seems like a hysterical reading of the situation.
  - bhauer 3y ago
    > Can I just say how absurd it is to call the government allowing developers to build new houses "tyranny"? Yes, please do say this. If anything in the system is tyranny-adjacent, it's zoning. Not to say I am against zoning holistically, but zoning is others telling you what you can and cannot do with your property. To characterize a liberalization of zoning as tyrannical is a great inversion.
  - cbozeman 3y ago
    He's not missing the point - everyone else is. There's only so much highly desirable real estate. There are only so many beachfront properties. There's a shitload of millionaires out there. There's an assload of multi-millionaires out there. There's quite a few billionaires out there now. If you make $100,000, you're not living on a beachfront house in Miami. You're not going to live in Downtown San Francisco in a nice home. That's life. Life's not fair. Too bad. Poor people are going to have to reconcile that they can't afford to live in the cities. They're going to have to be content with the suburbs, because the affluent people want to live in the cities, and they don't want people around them that are going to bring down their property values, period. Those affluent people, especially in places like NYC / SF / LA don't have the goddamn moral courage to just say, "I don't want a buncha poors around me, doing poor people shit, that's going to reduce the value of $4,500,000 home. This isn't just my house, it's an investment, and I cannot and will not allow you to tank my investment just because you want to live where I live." Now that's the truth. People should accept it, because you're not gonna change it; you're not gonna change it because it's human nature and you aren't going to change human nature without a lot of pain and suffering. There's entirely too many people in Big Tech that don't want to accept this. "If we just XXXXX, we can fix XXXXX!" No you can't. Evolution fixes these issues, not your money, not your regulations. We have to evolve into better angels - there are no shortcuts.
wiseowise 3y ago
The ones that were here first.
anon84873628 3y ago
One way that I've seen this explained (not that I necessarily agree with it or care to defend it) is that the city somehow has an obligation to _future_ residents. Or put another way, to a minimum level of sustainability as a going concern. Another commenter framed this as ensuring that essential service workers can afford to live in the area.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

[flagged]

lawlessone 3y ago

Not in the US but it's similar where I am. Often older people will complain their children can't afford to live near them. Some of the same people will protest any developments near them that could add more accommodation to the same area. One of the arguments often used is that the area doesn't have the amenities e.g schools, larger roads, shops etc to support an increased population. But the development of more amenities in an area is blocked "because it isn't needed right now" etc. Then you have people just trying to get a cut.. https://www.newstalk.com/news/dublin-residents-demand-e225000-to-not-protest-housing-development-1471826 https://www.newstalk.com/news/dublin-residents-demand-e22500...

Obscurity4340 3y ago
This is the point that gets me the most. They donMt own anything 99% of the time outside their specific lot. They are basically saying "My investment gives me dominion over that which I have invested $0 because it happens to border MUH propert" Just appease me, non-investor and non-owner of whatever property is in question. I bet they circumcize their children as a matter of policy too. Cuz why should anyone else but me decide what happens to another person's body. After all, I sort of "own" them too" Sick! Edit: have these folks ever heard of buying surrounding lots or like, I dunno, buying options or whatever stuff pertains to this? The biggest NIMBY/Narcissitic trait is "I get everything, don't even have to pay! You get nothing! Im taking all your blocks and I refuse to share, here on the daycare mat!" ridiculous. Can't wait till they're all pallitaive and finally decisions can be made externally and with EVERYONEs best interest at heart, not just your chronically selfish nonsense.
- j0hnyl 3y ago
  I don't know why you lump NIMBY with Boomer. I think 99% of people don't want new constructions next to their properties.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    What is your assessment outside of the unfortunate Boomer mis-reference?
- Tagbert 3y ago
  Your argument had some juice up until the "boomer" slur. Are we still doing that?
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    K, that was admittedly excessive. My life experience up to now (btw definitely Boomers+Xers who display identical entitlement and offensive conduct) What say now?
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Why do folks downvote mea culpas. Seems incredibly obtuse
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  I regret the use of "you/you" pronouns, at no point was I referring to you. Was more of a rhetorical fluorish gone amok
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  * MUH investment
barbazoo 3y ago
> Often older people will complain their children can't afford to live near them. Some of the same people will protest any developments near them Cross referencing this must be tricky
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Right? If I'm role-playing as a boomer, I just cant understand how I dropped out in grade 10, got the good job at a local factory over a handshake and an all-expenses paid 3-martini lunch the moment I expressed interest in applying, and got a full pension plus zero or close to zero education costs and I have like 3 cars between me, wife, daughter, vacation at least 1x/year, and protested every subsequent development after I bought my house outright for $50k, and now my daughter needs to leave (she's 18, we HAVE to kick them out at that point?!) and she has nowhere to buy that doesn't rely upon me since she has no money and I fomented this monster? Why me, Lord? Edit: and even if I purchase nearby properties for fun and profit, she definitely can'tafford what I demand to be paid for rent in exchange for transferring partial use of the property that I aquired purely because I was stupidly financially empowered to have all these opportunities cuz my dad fucked my mom at the right historical timeframe to make sure that the content of mybirthdate took precedence over the content of my character or intentions or worthiness

kshacker 3y ago

Most of the grassroots level opposition is because developers lie, bribe and threaten their way out of honest development. I used to live in Cupertino (left 5 years back) and you had to be there to see the heavy handed tactics. Developers will promise one thing then once the contract was signed, bit by bit they will work with the city to roll back public benefits. And then the fights amongst city council - ugly at times in social media (Nextdoor). Nextdoor may be ugly itself but sometimes it exposes the fault lines very clearly since you see the same people parroting the lines over and over, after some time you just understand their tilt without anyone having to tell you so. And this is not just Cupertino. I read stories from Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. Wherever you get big money, some people get corrupted, and they don't work in the interest of the society. I mention San Jose but that is an example of city so big that neighborhood complaints can be killed quite easily since mobilizing the entire city to fight in behalf of one corner is not easy, so that's where the cities end up winning - they can do whatever without worrying "much" about the residents. But smaller cities can fight back and IMO they should until they get delivered what was promised.

CydeWeys 3y ago
Why is it the responsibility of a developer to provide public benefits? That's the responsibility of the city. The developers should just be building the actual housing, which the cities by and large do not allow at all.
- lazide 3y ago
  The benefits are essentially bribes to the citizens and planning departments. It would be irritating if someone bribed you to be able to do something, then once they did it the check bounced!
  - bhauer 3y ago
    Indeed. It's especially irritating that such bribes are necessary to get approval to build anything in the first place.

lazide 3y ago

The people who live there and vote clearly don’t want it, or they’d change the zoning? I think what you’re saying is ‘people in general want to be able to live there but currently can’t afford to do so, and those jerks who live there won’t budge on making it happen’. Which, okay?

edgyquant 3y ago

You’ve completely skirted the question with most of this comment > Whose goals are considered "democracy" here The people who actually live in the area where decisions are made. People outside of a city enforcing their terms on a place they don’t live is tyranny actually.

tyg13 3y ago
You're missing the point. The people in the area often do support building new housing, they just don't want it where they are. This is a fundamental paradox, as it has to be built _somewhere_, but seemingly none of the people who agree there is a problem want to disadvantage themselves to fix the problem. Anyways, can I just say how absurd it is to call the government allowing developers to build new houses "tyranny"? Seems like a hysterical reading of the situation.
- bhauer 3y ago
  > Can I just say how absurd it is to call the government allowing developers to build new houses "tyranny"? Yes, please do say this. If anything in the system is tyranny-adjacent, it's zoning. Not to say I am against zoning holistically, but zoning is others telling you what you can and cannot do with your property. To characterize a liberalization of zoning as tyrannical is a great inversion.
- cbozeman 3y ago
  He's not missing the point - everyone else is. There's only so much highly desirable real estate. There are only so many beachfront properties. There's a shitload of millionaires out there. There's an assload of multi-millionaires out there. There's quite a few billionaires out there now. If you make $100,000, you're not living on a beachfront house in Miami. You're not going to live in Downtown San Francisco in a nice home. That's life. Life's not fair. Too bad. Poor people are going to have to reconcile that they can't afford to live in the cities. They're going to have to be content with the suburbs, because the affluent people want to live in the cities, and they don't want people around them that are going to bring down their property values, period. Those affluent people, especially in places like NYC / SF / LA don't have the goddamn moral courage to just say, "I don't want a buncha poors around me, doing poor people shit, that's going to reduce the value of $4,500,000 home. This isn't just my house, it's an investment, and I cannot and will not allow you to tank my investment just because you want to live where I live." Now that's the truth. People should accept it, because you're not gonna change it; you're not gonna change it because it's human nature and you aren't going to change human nature without a lot of pain and suffering. There's entirely too many people in Big Tech that don't want to accept this. "If we just XXXXX, we can fix XXXXX!" No you can't. Evolution fixes these issues, not your money, not your regulations. We have to evolve into better angels - there are no shortcuts.

wiseowise 3y ago

The ones that were here first.

anon84873628 3y ago

One way that I've seen this explained (not that I necessarily agree with it or care to defend it) is that the city somehow has an obligation to _future_ residents. Or put another way, to a minimum level of sustainability as a going concern. Another commenter framed this as ensuring that essential service workers can afford to live in the area.