4 ms·

No, historically (as in, the rules that were in effect when all the beloved neighborhoods were created), if you wanted to built apartments, you could. In most

by raldi 3y ago

No, historically (as in, the rules that were in effect when all the beloved neighborhoods were created), if you wanted to built apartments, you could. In most American cities, that rule wasn’t changed until the 1970’s, when the Supreme Court ruled that you couldn’t overtly discriminate by race. So all the white neighborhoods switched to this indirect way to maintain the status quo.

mlrtime 3y ago
I'm not going to argue with the past because it's true and unfortunate. But what I don't like, and distracts from the debate, is that anyone that says they want to live on a quiet SFH street is a racist or "hates the pores". It is antagonizing and just pushes more people away from your cause.
- raldi 3y ago
  There’s a difference between “if you like this policy, you’re a racist” and “this policy has historically harmed people of color”.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  If you want to live in a quiet SFH while benefiting from the amenities of urban or suburban life then yes, you should understand that you're seeking some kind of exclusivity and not everyone will be able to afford that. There are plenty of quieter outlying areas where people can have their larger homes more cheaply, but at the cost of being more isolated and directly dependent on transportation.
kbolino 3y ago
It's not just about the status quo or racial homogeneity. Every time I've lived in multi-unit dwellings I have had to deal with the following problems caused by neighbors: 1. Smoking. Maybe not such a problem in a brand-new dwelling with well isolated HVAC but it is a serious problem in older construction with poorly isolated HVAC. The negative effects vary from one room being smoky sometimes (usually a bathroom) to the entire place being unlivable at certain times of day. 2. Loud noises late at night. This can be parties, heavy footfalls, old pipes that clang or ring, animals, etc. 3. Pets. Besides the noise, the animals can be aggressive and their owners may not clean up their waste. 4. Water damage. If you can't tear the place down to the studs and rafters, you can't get rid of mold. You can try to ask people to change, you can try to get the landlord involved, you can even get the cops involved. But it's a lot of hassle, it rarely fixes the problem long-term, and you will be seen as "that guy" who causes trouble.
- raldi 3y ago
  Nobody’s seeking to forcibly evict homeowners and seize their property. If you like your house, you can keep it.
  - kbolino 3y ago
    Ok, cool? I don't think that was the issue at hand.
    - raldi 3y ago
      You listed a bunch of reasons that you personally don’t want to live in an apartment building, but the issue at hand is whether other people should be allowed to build them on the land they own.
      - kbolino 3y ago
        Ok, as I understood it, you were saying that the primary reason why zoning has become less flexible is that white homeowners used the zoning process to maintain discrimination. I was challenging that. Though my experience may not be universal, I don't think all of those issues are unique to me.
        yterdy 3y ago
        You say that as if the prospect of such disturbances weren't used as a pretext for discrimination - because, of course, "those people" are loud/smoke/have rotties and pitbulls/don't take care of the property they're renting. /s The characterization also ignores that the reason those things (lax maintenance, smoking indoors as sequela of tobacco company propaganda/anti-marijuana laws, etc.) do occasionally happen are closely intertwined with social disregard for marginalized groups. In other words, treatment of a symptom, not the cause. GP's point is that it's difficult to solve the issue without acknowledging that we made a stupid policy decision predicated mostly on class and racial hysteria. If we recognize those decisions for what they are and stop making them, maybe we can get somewhere. It's quite unlikely that your local zoning board forbade duplexes and low-rises 50 years ago because they were concerned about mold.
ameister14 3y ago
That's an oversimplification. For example, in the neighborhood I lived in years ago in Flatbush, they had a single family covenant in place since the 19th century.
happytoexplain 3y ago
This topic is one of those that suffers particularly from the noise of petty race-based paintbrushing. Obvious the villains you're referring to exist, but if you're white and object to some construction that will have a non-negligible negative impact on the preexisting residents, there is nigh universally a voice accusing you of hating poor people or whatever race is disproportionately represented among your poor population, despite the fact that pretty much anybody of any race would have (and do have) the same objection in that circumstance. You certainly should question the unjust historical and cultural reasons why white people are lucky enough to be in that situation more often to begin with, but it doesn't make them different or justify calling them out based on their race or encouraging hatred of them ("all the white neighborhoods").
- raldi 3y ago
  Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39420084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39420084

by raldi 3y ago

mlrtime 3y ago

I'm not going to argue with the past because it's true and unfortunate. But what I don't like, and distracts from the debate, is that anyone that says they want to live on a quiet SFH street is a racist or "hates the pores". It is antagonizing and just pushes more people away from your cause.

raldi 3y ago
There’s a difference between “if you like this policy, you’re a racist” and “this policy has historically harmed people of color”.
zozbot234 3y ago
If you want to live in a quiet SFH while benefiting from the amenities of urban or suburban life then yes, you should understand that you're seeking some kind of exclusivity and not everyone will be able to afford that. There are plenty of quieter outlying areas where people can have their larger homes more cheaply, but at the cost of being more isolated and directly dependent on transportation.

kbolino 3y ago

It's not just about the status quo or racial homogeneity. Every time I've lived in multi-unit dwellings I have had to deal with the following problems caused by neighbors: 1. Smoking. Maybe not such a problem in a brand-new dwelling with well isolated HVAC but it is a serious problem in older construction with poorly isolated HVAC. The negative effects vary from one room being smoky sometimes (usually a bathroom) to the entire place being unlivable at certain times of day. 2. Loud noises late at night. This can be parties, heavy footfalls, old pipes that clang or ring, animals, etc. 3. Pets. Besides the noise, the animals can be aggressive and their owners may not clean up their waste. 4. Water damage. If you can't tear the place down to the studs and rafters, you can't get rid of mold. You can try to ask people to change, you can try to get the landlord involved, you can even get the cops involved. But it's a lot of hassle, it rarely fixes the problem long-term, and you will be seen as "that guy" who causes trouble.

raldi 3y ago
Nobody’s seeking to forcibly evict homeowners and seize their property. If you like your house, you can keep it.
- kbolino 3y ago
  Ok, cool? I don't think that was the issue at hand.
  - raldi 3y ago
    You listed a bunch of reasons that you personally don’t want to live in an apartment building, but the issue at hand is whether other people should be allowed to build them on the land they own.
    - kbolino 3y ago
      Ok, as I understood it, you were saying that the primary reason why zoning has become less flexible is that white homeowners used the zoning process to maintain discrimination. I was challenging that. Though my experience may not be universal, I don't think all of those issues are unique to me.
      - yterdy 3y ago
        You say that as if the prospect of such disturbances weren't used as a pretext for discrimination - because, of course, "those people" are loud/smoke/have rotties and pitbulls/don't take care of the property they're renting. /s The characterization also ignores that the reason those things (lax maintenance, smoking indoors as sequela of tobacco company propaganda/anti-marijuana laws, etc.) do occasionally happen are closely intertwined with social disregard for marginalized groups. In other words, treatment of a symptom, not the cause. GP's point is that it's difficult to solve the issue without acknowledging that we made a stupid policy decision predicated mostly on class and racial hysteria. If we recognize those decisions for what they are and stop making them, maybe we can get somewhere. It's quite unlikely that your local zoning board forbade duplexes and low-rises 50 years ago because they were concerned about mold.

ameister14 3y ago

That's an oversimplification. For example, in the neighborhood I lived in years ago in Flatbush, they had a single family covenant in place since the 19th century.

happytoexplain 3y ago

This topic is one of those that suffers particularly from the noise of petty race-based paintbrushing. Obvious the villains you're referring to exist, but if you're white and object to some construction that will have a non-negligible negative impact on the preexisting residents, there is nigh universally a voice accusing you of hating poor people or whatever race is disproportionately represented among your poor population, despite the fact that pretty much anybody of any race would have (and do have) the same objection in that circumstance. You certainly should question the unjust historical and cultural reasons why white people are lucky enough to be in that situation more often to begin with, but it doesn't make them different or justify calling them out based on their race or encouraging hatred of them ("all the white neighborhoods").

raldi 3y ago
Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39420084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39420084