4 ms·
95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable. Now everyone is competing to live in 15% of zipcodes You address the supply side of the "housing crisis", what abou
by tonymet 3y ago
95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable. Now everyone is competing to live in 15% of zipcodes
You address the supply side of the "housing crisis", what about demand?
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago>You address the supply side of the "housing crisis" Why the scare quotes especially when no such term was used? >what about demand? "...growing demand due to job growth" <- demand side was indeed mentioned. It's literally illegal to build enough housing in many, many places where jobs are via low height limits, absurd parking requirements, and large setbacks etc.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago> 95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable. 95% of white suburban zips might have been safe and livable, but nowhere close to 95% of all zips.
- thfuran 3y agoPay no attention to the red lines behind the curtain.
- kibwen 3y ago> 95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable. I've been trying to give your comments the benefit of the doubt, but now it's abundantly clear that you're fundamentally unserious about having a conversation grounded in reality.
- chipgap98 3y agoWhere are your stats on 95% of zips being safe and livable? How are you defining those?
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoThis is absurd. Crime is far lower than it was in 1963.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]