3 ms·

From the supply side NIMBY attitude is clearly a major problem. However that's looking at it in complete isolation, vast majority of population growth has come

by matt-p 2y ago

From the supply side NIMBY attitude is clearly a major problem. However that's looking at it in complete isolation, vast majority of population growth has come from Immigration, so it would be just as one sided to say "The bogeyman is mostly immigrants" Just to be super clear I'm arguing against one sided statements and not (legal) immigration which I don't have a problem with. However our politicians cannot allow population growth without also providing housing and infrastructure growth otherwise we end up here.

fragmede 2y ago
One interesting cultural thing at a company I worked for was to not say "no", and instead say"yes, but have you considered..." Restricting immigration and reproductive rights is not going to go well, politically, but pointing out that it is seems there's a need to be some sort of overarching plan to actually absorb X number of people into a system with a carrying capacity of Y number of people, especially because it seems "the market" hasn't been able to solve that, given how widespread the housing crisis seems to be (though I'm biased because I live in one such region). Cities do have urban planners drafting capital improvement plans(CIP) (usually), but I don't know how much top down directives are involved to say the plan must include plans to increase housing by X%, especially when X can't actually be planned for.
- matt-p 2y ago
  Completely agree; it's great to allow it but we need to grow housing and infrastructure to match it - right now we also need to 'catch-up' for the years we failed to. By the way reproduction is not driving growth in most of the US or Western Europe, immigration is and that is fine but politicians plan, quota and set criteria for legal immigration, they've not really got the same control of reproduction rates. They know what housing demand will be, since they set and control it, so why do they restrict and frustrate supply (house building)? It's like they've either a vested interest, or building supply is more unpopular than house price increases and eventually homelessness.

by matt-p 2y ago

fragmede 2y ago

One interesting cultural thing at a company I worked for was to not say "no", and instead say"yes, but have you considered..." Restricting immigration and reproductive rights is not going to go well, politically, but pointing out that it is seems there's a need to be some sort of overarching plan to actually absorb X number of people into a system with a carrying capacity of Y number of people, especially because it seems "the market" hasn't been able to solve that, given how widespread the housing crisis seems to be (though I'm biased because I live in one such region). Cities do have urban planners drafting capital improvement plans(CIP) (usually), but I don't know how much top down directives are involved to say the plan must include plans to increase housing by X%, especially when X can't actually be planned for.

matt-p 2y ago
Completely agree; it's great to allow it but we need to grow housing and infrastructure to match it - right now we also need to 'catch-up' for the years we failed to. By the way reproduction is not driving growth in most of the US or Western Europe, immigration is and that is fine but politicians plan, quota and set criteria for legal immigration, they've not really got the same control of reproduction rates. They know what housing demand will be, since they set and control it, so why do they restrict and frustrate supply (house building)? It's like they've either a vested interest, or building supply is more unpopular than house price increases and eventually homelessness.