5 ms·

> Family-friendly land use reforms make for more vibrant, joyous, and welcoming cities—they’re good for the entire city. Other cities hoping to stem the tide of

by alexb_ 3y ago

> Family-friendly land use reforms make for more vibrant, joyous, and welcoming cities—they’re good for the entire city. Other cities hoping to stem the tide of families flowing to the suburbs should follow Austin’s lead. Every single time I read about land use, I feel like people are running head first into exactly the point and still completely missing it. People think others must have the same opinions and worldviews as they do, so they don't even consider the real reason land use policies are they way they are. They don't realize that people are just racist. Maybe you read this and think "that's crazy, I'm not racist and I am against upzoning!". Well, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the person who is so passionate about keeping the neighborhood's "character" that they will go to every single local planning meeting to keep black people out. I'm talking about the person who will talk about how they don't want "big city problems". I'm talking about people concerned about the "riff raff" that more permissive land use will bring. The exclusion is the point. Over and over and over again I see well-meaning people think they can just convince people that it makes it cheaper, convince people about the economy, surely that will be the breakthrough! But it's racism. It has been racism ever since the first zoning laws that banned laundromats next to houses, knowing landromats were mostly owned by the Chinese. It's been racism ever since highways divided cities into the "good side" and "bad side". Stop arguing for this about cost, or "family friendliness", or preschool availability, or anything else, because you are immediately missing the actual reasons. NIMBYs are racist. It's that simple. Zoning and land use is designed to keep minorities away from "pure" suburbs.

zajio1am 3y ago
> Stop arguing for this about cost, or "family friendliness", or preschool availability, or anything else, because you are immediately missing the actual reasons. NIMBYs are racist. It's that simple. Zoning and land use is designed to keep minorities away from "pure" suburbs. Counterargument: The same/equivalent zoning, land use and NIMBY problems happen in countries that are racially homogeneous.
- bwestergard 3y ago
  Can you give a few examples?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    The Maldives are the most monoethnic nation-state in the world [1]. They have strict land use regulations [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoethnicity [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/geography-of-inequality-how-land-use-regulation-produces-segregation/BAB4ABDF014670550615CE670FF66016 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
  - nick__m 3y ago
    I live in a city in Québec that is, according to 2018 census, 94.2% white. And the land use, parking and "neighborhood's character" policies are present. The divide is among the socioeconomic status.
  - zajio1am 3y ago
    e.g. Czechia. Racially homogenous and have one of least affordable properties in Europe. https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-is-the-third-most-expensive-city-in-europe-to-purchase-property https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-is-the-third...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  The parent is only slightly off the mark. The core underlying thing that is driving exclusionary zoning is not racism, but classism. But racial exclusion is the bonus on top because race and class are often related. When zoning was beginning to be broadly implemented in the 1930s the core goal was to limit apartments. Apartments were filled of relatively low income, working class renters. They were often also racial minorities too. Two core reasons why wealthy single family home owners wanted to push them far away.
extr 3y ago
You are making the exact same reductivist mistake but in the other direction. > I'm talking about people concerned about the "riff raff" that more permissive land use will bring. The fact that you are making the huge logical jump from "I don't want crime in my neighborhood" to "You must hate black people!" says more about your assumptions and biases than it does people who simply don't want crime - regardless of the type of person who is committing it.
chlodwig 3y ago
[flagged]
- alexb_ 3y ago
  In case you had any doubt lmfao
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Why are you so quick to lump. Disagree with this individual, sure, but they gave you a lot of specific claims that you can argue against. Additionally, you’re implying that this person represents everyone that you disagree with, which is childish and crazy.
    - alexb_ 3y ago
      > since neighborhoods are not allowed to screen prospective buyers on an individual basis, using building restrictions and high-prices is the blunt tool available for limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime. Let's translate. "screen prospective buyers on an individual basis": neighborhoods cant deny certain people from having housing "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". The parent comment is agreeing with me.
      - chlodwig 3y ago
        > "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". No, I'm saying you are getting the causality inverted. You then "translate" what I am saying by inverting what I am saying and then call me names. How about you argue with exactly what I write rather than trying to "translate" it.
      - 3y ago
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
This is bananas. You are chastising people you disagree with for not recognizing the nuance of the situation, and that they ought to recognize others don’t hold the same views as themselves. Fair point. Then you forget you just said that and say the real reason is that everybody that doesn’t agree, for the most part, is racist. This is an insane and hateful point. The sort of belief that if held sincerely can hurt people. Where do you get the confidence or the merge to claim something like this? You’re the one that seems to be comfortable ascribing beliefs to people you don’t even know.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  This is the "not a racist bone" defense, implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Another choice is to look at outcomes. Racial exclusion is a predictable result of these policies. It does not need to be the intent. People who consistently support policies with racist outcomes can be called racist. It's a useful shorthand, not a conviction of their soul. Racism doesn't need to be a matter of personal malevolence. Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Which is why loosening the definition has backfired so spectacularly. Some ascribe racism statistically, to the point that in some circles it's done a full circle to all white people being inherently racist. Most, however, perceive it as a moral judgement. If you loosen the definition to remove intent, it's no longer a moral judgement. > Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient But it's not racism by most peoples' definition. It is by the neo-academic revisionist one. But that loosening gave cover for the actual racists to come out and become accepted again. (If everyone who wants a parking lot is called a racist, it takes the bite out of the guy waving a Confederate flag. And if you're called a racist despite knowing you had no racist intent, it makes the other people being called racist more sympathetic.)
francisofascii 3y ago
NIMBYs are self interested. It is that simple. Establishing a community and keeping outsiders out is nothing new. Is it morally wrong? Probably. Relaxing land policy required people to share and give some of what they have. Sharing is hard.
- pishpash 3y ago
  It's morally wrong to take somebody else's land, too. That's not sharing.
  - azemetre 3y ago
    Where in the US is this happening? We're talking about developers developing land for landowners while other people are able to stop them for "reasons."
  - ipqk 3y ago
    Is it morally wrong to take somebody's money for taxes? You never have an absolute right to your land. e.g there's eminent domain, or talk to the Texans that have oil rigs next to their McMansions drinking their milkshake.
  - francisofascii 3y ago
    The brutal truth is we are all living on land that has been “stolen” at some point in history.

by alexb_ 3y ago

zajio1am 3y ago

> Stop arguing for this about cost, or "family friendliness", or preschool availability, or anything else, because you are immediately missing the actual reasons. NIMBYs are racist. It's that simple. Zoning and land use is designed to keep minorities away from "pure" suburbs. Counterargument: The same/equivalent zoning, land use and NIMBY problems happen in countries that are racially homogeneous.

bwestergard 3y ago
Can you give a few examples?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The Maldives are the most monoethnic nation-state in the world [1]. They have strict land use regulations [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoethnicity [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/geography-of-inequality-how-land-use-regulation-produces-segregation/BAB4ABDF014670550615CE670FF66016 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
- nick__m 3y ago
  I live in a city in Québec that is, according to 2018 census, 94.2% white. And the land use, parking and "neighborhood's character" policies are present. The divide is among the socioeconomic status.
- zajio1am 3y ago
  e.g. Czechia. Racially homogenous and have one of least affordable properties in Europe. https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-is-the-third-most-expensive-city-in-europe-to-purchase-property https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/prague-is-the-third...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Tiktaalik 3y ago
The parent is only slightly off the mark. The core underlying thing that is driving exclusionary zoning is not racism, but classism. But racial exclusion is the bonus on top because race and class are often related. When zoning was beginning to be broadly implemented in the 1930s the core goal was to limit apartments. Apartments were filled of relatively low income, working class renters. They were often also racial minorities too. Two core reasons why wealthy single family home owners wanted to push them far away.

extr 3y ago

You are making the exact same reductivist mistake but in the other direction. > I'm talking about people concerned about the "riff raff" that more permissive land use will bring. The fact that you are making the huge logical jump from "I don't want crime in my neighborhood" to "You must hate black people!" says more about your assumptions and biases than it does people who simply don't want crime - regardless of the type of person who is committing it.

chlodwig 3y ago

[flagged]

alexb_ 3y ago
In case you had any doubt lmfao
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Why are you so quick to lump. Disagree with this individual, sure, but they gave you a lot of specific claims that you can argue against. Additionally, you’re implying that this person represents everyone that you disagree with, which is childish and crazy.
  - alexb_ 3y ago
    > since neighborhoods are not allowed to screen prospective buyers on an individual basis, using building restrictions and high-prices is the blunt tool available for limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime. Let's translate. "screen prospective buyers on an individual basis": neighborhoods cant deny certain people from having housing "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". The parent comment is agreeing with me.
    - chlodwig 3y ago
      > "limiting influxes from populations that have much higher rates of crime": gives the first paragraph defines black people as a population that has a higher rate of crime, this is pretty much explicitly saying "building restrictions are a tool to limit influxes of black people". No, I'm saying you are getting the causality inverted. You then "translate" what I am saying by inverting what I am saying and then call me names. How about you argue with exactly what I write rather than trying to "translate" it.
    - 3y ago

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

This is bananas. You are chastising people you disagree with for not recognizing the nuance of the situation, and that they ought to recognize others don’t hold the same views as themselves. Fair point. Then you forget you just said that and say the real reason is that everybody that doesn’t agree, for the most part, is racist. This is an insane and hateful point. The sort of belief that if held sincerely can hurt people. Where do you get the confidence or the merge to claim something like this? You’re the one that seems to be comfortable ascribing beliefs to people you don’t even know.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
This is the "not a racist bone" defense, implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Another choice is to look at outcomes. Racial exclusion is a predictable result of these policies. It does not need to be the intent. People who consistently support policies with racist outcomes can be called racist. It's a useful shorthand, not a conviction of their soul. Racism doesn't need to be a matter of personal malevolence. Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > implying that you need privileged insight into someone's intent, motivations, and personal beliefs to call them racist. Which of course we rarely ever have. Which is why loosening the definition has backfired so spectacularly. Some ascribe racism statistically, to the point that in some circles it's done a full circle to all white people being inherently racist. Most, however, perceive it as a moral judgement. If you loosen the definition to remove intent, it's no longer a moral judgement. > Taking self-interested action with known & predictable unjust outcomes is sufficient But it's not racism by most peoples' definition. It is by the neo-academic revisionist one. But that loosening gave cover for the actual racists to come out and become accepted again. (If everyone who wants a parking lot is called a racist, it takes the bite out of the guy waving a Confederate flag. And if you're called a racist despite knowing you had no racist intent, it makes the other people being called racist more sympathetic.)

francisofascii 3y ago

NIMBYs are self interested. It is that simple. Establishing a community and keeping outsiders out is nothing new. Is it morally wrong? Probably. Relaxing land policy required people to share and give some of what they have. Sharing is hard.

pishpash 3y ago
It's morally wrong to take somebody else's land, too. That's not sharing.
- azemetre 3y ago
  Where in the US is this happening? We're talking about developers developing land for landowners while other people are able to stop them for "reasons."
- ipqk 3y ago
  Is it morally wrong to take somebody's money for taxes? You never have an absolute right to your land. e.g there's eminent domain, or talk to the Texans that have oil rigs next to their McMansions drinking their milkshake.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  The brutal truth is we are all living on land that has been “stolen” at some point in history.