3 ms·

I don’t want to limit the housing supply around me to increase the value of my house. I want to limit the housing supply of my neighborhood to prevent it from b

I don’t want to limit the housing supply around me to increase the value of my house. I want to limit the housing supply of my neighborhood to prevent it from becoming an unlivable hellscape.

cycrutchfield 3y ago
Yes, NIMBYs tend to have creative rationalizations for their behaviors.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Hey, man, at least I have a back yard.
- MikePlacid 3y ago
  Well, what about your own dwelling. Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too: Communal apartments (Russian singular: коммунальная квартира, romanized: kommunal'naya kvartira, colloquial: kommunalka) are apartments in which several unrelated persons or families live in isolated living rooms and share common areas such a kitchen, shower, and toilet.[1] They generally lack privacy. Well, I’ve lived in a communalka without a shower, a toilet was outside. These are bourgeois luxuries, they increase price of the house.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    > Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too laughs in San Francisco Who can afford not to have roommates living in a converted living room and in the dining room? I probably know a couple rich people who don't, but most people I can think of don't have the luxury of a dining room or a living room. Certainly not both!
    - MikePlacid 3y ago
      Right direction to go, comrades! Now, start dismantling the shower and the toilet - save the Earth.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    > Well, what about your own dwelling. Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too: You own your own house; you don't own the land around it, and you should have no right to tell other people what to do with that land.
losteric 3y ago
Managed methodical growth can be more liveable than suburban stroad hellscapes, with the advantage that children aren't forced to move far away or sacrifice their finances when they come of age.
Spivak 3y ago
It's really rich being on HN having everyone seemingly not understand that non-exclusionary communities don't scale. You can't take a good neighborhood and make it bigger and keep the good, you just regress to the mean. We all have watched the enshittification of everything in the pursuit of scale and profits from everything from social networks and subcultures to appliances but somehow forget that the high buy-in either in the form of investment in the community in early stages to the extremely high price in the later stages is what makes it work. In places where there is legitimately nowhere to start a new community sure, but the loudest complainers about housing affordability in my area ignore there there are sub $300k, $200k and even a few sub $100k houses right fucking next to the $600k houses. You could break one of their windows with a stray baseball they're so close. You just think that living there is beneath you. If you don't have dollars you're supposed to pick somewhere cheap to live and put in the work instead to make it the next good neighborhood but seems like the people complaining want good cheap and easy.
- tsunagatta 3y ago
  > You can't take a good neighborhood and make it bigger and keep the good I suppose this is true, but I don’t feel like it contradicts the option of: instead of making a good neighborhood very large, building many small neighborhoods. This was the principle of the scaling of the Web back when it was agreed to be pretty good, and it is in a sense the principle of the scaling of the United States (and most governments). As an added bonus, most people would live closer to places to work and shop, since each neighborhood must necessarily have those, rather than being in the far-flung reaches of sprawl. The only trick then, I guess, is the neighborhoods do need to be small.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
Are urban homes "unlivable hellscapes" now?
- fragmede 3y ago
  They are! Haven't you seen your two minutes of San Francisco hate on Fox News today, citizen? You'd best report to your local GOP town hall for reeducation at once!
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  Sometimes, yes. But there's no reason to strawman the parent - developers are not benevolent. They just want to meet demand, even in the cases where the demand is only because an area is desirable, not because the alternative is the streets. Even in cases where that demand can only be met by destroying communities full of existing human beings who have worked hard for decades to attain the simple dream of living in a middle class home in a reasonably nice environment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
c22 3y ago
Yeah, at this point I'm never going to move again, so the value of my house going up is not enticing to me (because it increases my taxes and I don't plan to sell). Nevertheless I still don't want a five story apartment complex to be built just south of my vegetable garden.

I don’t want to limit the housing supply around me to increase the value of my house. I want to limit the housing supply of my neighborhood to prevent it from becoming an unlivable hellscape.

cycrutchfield 3y ago

Yes, NIMBYs tend to have creative rationalizations for their behaviors.

singleshot_ 3y ago
Hey, man, at least I have a back yard.
MikePlacid 3y ago
Well, what about your own dwelling. Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too: Communal apartments (Russian singular: коммунальная квартира, romanized: kommunal'naya kvartira, colloquial: kommunalka) are apartments in which several unrelated persons or families live in isolated living rooms and share common areas such a kitchen, shower, and toilet.[1] They generally lack privacy. Well, I’ve lived in a communalka without a shower, a toilet was outside. These are bourgeois luxuries, they increase price of the house.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too laughs in San Francisco Who can afford not to have roommates living in a converted living room and in the dining room? I probably know a couple rich people who don't, but most people I can think of don't have the luxury of a dining room or a living room. Certainly not both!
  - MikePlacid 3y ago
    Right direction to go, comrades! Now, start dismantling the shower and the toilet - save the Earth.
- logicchains 3y ago
  > Well, what about your own dwelling. Each of your rooms can house one additional family. And yes, I am counting a living room and a dining room too: You own your own house; you don't own the land around it, and you should have no right to tell other people what to do with that land.

losteric 3y ago

Managed methodical growth can be more liveable than suburban stroad hellscapes, with the advantage that children aren't forced to move far away or sacrifice their finances when they come of age.

Spivak 3y ago

It's really rich being on HN having everyone seemingly not understand that non-exclusionary communities don't scale. You can't take a good neighborhood and make it bigger and keep the good, you just regress to the mean. We all have watched the enshittification of everything in the pursuit of scale and profits from everything from social networks and subcultures to appliances but somehow forget that the high buy-in either in the form of investment in the community in early stages to the extremely high price in the later stages is what makes it work. In places where there is legitimately nowhere to start a new community sure, but the loudest complainers about housing affordability in my area ignore there there are sub $300k, $200k and even a few sub $100k houses right fucking next to the $600k houses. You could break one of their windows with a stray baseball they're so close. You just think that living there is beneath you. If you don't have dollars you're supposed to pick somewhere cheap to live and put in the work instead to make it the next good neighborhood but seems like the people complaining want good cheap and easy.

tsunagatta 3y ago
> You can't take a good neighborhood and make it bigger and keep the good I suppose this is true, but I don’t feel like it contradicts the option of: instead of making a good neighborhood very large, building many small neighborhoods. This was the principle of the scaling of the Web back when it was agreed to be pretty good, and it is in a sense the principle of the scaling of the United States (and most governments). As an added bonus, most people would live closer to places to work and shop, since each neighborhood must necessarily have those, rather than being in the far-flung reaches of sprawl. The only trick then, I guess, is the neighborhoods do need to be small.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

Are urban homes "unlivable hellscapes" now?

fragmede 3y ago
They are! Haven't you seen your two minutes of San Francisco hate on Fox News today, citizen? You'd best report to your local GOP town hall for reeducation at once!
happytoexplain 3y ago
Sometimes, yes. But there's no reason to strawman the parent - developers are not benevolent. They just want to meet demand, even in the cases where the demand is only because an area is desirable, not because the alternative is the streets. Even in cases where that demand can only be met by destroying communities full of existing human beings who have worked hard for decades to attain the simple dream of living in a middle class home in a reasonably nice environment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

c22 3y ago

Yeah, at this point I'm never going to move again, so the value of my house going up is not enticing to me (because it increases my taxes and I don't plan to sell). Nevertheless I still don't want a five story apartment complex to be built just south of my vegetable garden.