4 ms·

The housing crisis is a bit more complicated than that particular situation you're describing though. Some very 'progressive' places are full of raging NIMBYism

by davidw 2y ago

The housing crisis is a bit more complicated than that particular situation you're describing though. Some very 'progressive' places are full of raging NIMBYism that prevents anything like enough housing from being built.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
The entirety of the state of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
- rcpt 2y ago
  The only thing holding back California from having an economy larger than the rest of the United States combined
Avicebron 2y ago
I agree it's more complicated, but I don't see NIMBYism as inherently 'progressive'/'not-progressive', I don't think it's as simple as "just build more housing, it needs to be something like, build more housing where it makes sense". Like if we turned Mill Valley into Kowloon City tomorrow, sure we would have more "housing", but no one benefits". That's extreme, but I think blaming NIMBYism completely doesn't cover the logical progression.
- davidw 2y ago
  Lots of people would benefit if they had housing to live in. There's no need for it to be some extreme thing like your example. NIMBYism is to blame for the lack of hundreds of homes here in the small city I live in, in Oregon, since I started tracking these things. It's not the only factor, but things like interest rates are something our city councils and state legislatures can't control. Saying 'yes' to a new apartment building is very much something they can control.
  - Avicebron 2y ago
    If saying yes to a new apartment build is all it takes and doing so won't have any negative impacts on the community at all, and there is someone who can guarantee that and ensure that. Then sure, seems odd that a state legislature and city council wouldn't sign off. It seems like maybe the issue is that people are saying "hey, I don't want to live next to or in high density housing, that's not why I live in a small city in Oregon"...well, ask them, hey would you be ok with this being a very tasteful, non-intrusive, home in your neighborhood with a quiet family that fits in well with everyone. They might say yes, which means likely people are not making enough money to live that way, so the real problem is that people don't want to have slums set up in the name of affordable housing.
    - davidw 2y ago
      So a big part of the problem is that we feel the need to give people a veto about apartments, but not single detached units. That's a decent portion of our housing crisis right there! "Would we ask any of the same questions of a new single-family house in the same neighborhood?" https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/28/new-apartments-and-the-what-if-game https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/28/new-apartments...
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - squigz 2y ago
        I'm not sure that's unreasonable, as there's a fairly large difference between a house and an apartment - usually on the scale of several floors.

by davidw 2y ago

Der_Einzige 2y ago

The entirety of the state of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

rcpt 2y ago
The only thing holding back California from having an economy larger than the rest of the United States combined

Avicebron 2y ago

I agree it's more complicated, but I don't see NIMBYism as inherently 'progressive'/'not-progressive', I don't think it's as simple as "just build more housing, it needs to be something like, build more housing where it makes sense". Like if we turned Mill Valley into Kowloon City tomorrow, sure we would have more "housing", but no one benefits". That's extreme, but I think blaming NIMBYism completely doesn't cover the logical progression.

davidw 2y ago
Lots of people would benefit if they had housing to live in. There's no need for it to be some extreme thing like your example. NIMBYism is to blame for the lack of hundreds of homes here in the small city I live in, in Oregon, since I started tracking these things. It's not the only factor, but things like interest rates are something our city councils and state legislatures can't control. Saying 'yes' to a new apartment building is very much something they can control.
- Avicebron 2y ago
  If saying yes to a new apartment build is all it takes and doing so won't have any negative impacts on the community at all, and there is someone who can guarantee that and ensure that. Then sure, seems odd that a state legislature and city council wouldn't sign off. It seems like maybe the issue is that people are saying "hey, I don't want to live next to or in high density housing, that's not why I live in a small city in Oregon"...well, ask them, hey would you be ok with this being a very tasteful, non-intrusive, home in your neighborhood with a quiet family that fits in well with everyone. They might say yes, which means likely people are not making enough money to live that way, so the real problem is that people don't want to have slums set up in the name of affordable housing.
  - davidw 2y ago
    So a big part of the problem is that we feel the need to give people a veto about apartments, but not single detached units. That's a decent portion of our housing crisis right there! "Would we ask any of the same questions of a new single-family house in the same neighborhood?" https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/28/new-apartments-and-the-what-if-game https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/28/new-apartments...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - squigz 2y ago
      I'm not sure that's unreasonable, as there's a fairly large difference between a house and an apartment - usually on the scale of several floors.