4 ms·

>>which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us". NO, it is most definitely NOT that. It is overwhelmin

by toss1 2y ago

>>which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us". NO, it is most definitely NOT that. It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. Don't make claims in areas where you have zero knowledge just because you think it helps your point. I'm in a small sub-/ex-urban town with a rural character which has zoning, and have been involved in local issues. I've never met a single person who feels the way you claim (although there are surely a few examples somewhere). No one looks down on the low income ppl who are here because their families were here before housing started to get tight and expensive. Most everyone either grew up here or came specifically because they WANT to live in a quieter area, have some wildlife, maintain gardens, etc. No one is avoiding poor people, they are SEEKING quiet and green spaces where you can do outdoor activities. Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. Yes, the current homeowners could get rich subdividing their properties, razing the trees and putting up condos. Great, maybe you get a lower-income population. But getting ANYWHERE useful from here, even groceries or convenience stores, is a 5-10 mile car ride, and the rail station to the big city is 25min away by car. Any low income person is now condemned to replace housing expenses with car expenses, purchase/lease, maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc.. And, they now have a big commute reducing their time available. It is really simple to just blame other people and yell "they're just greedy!", and it surely makes you feel better and more righteous. It is much harder to actually figure out complex problems and create solutions that work.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sudosysgen 2y ago
The groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear once density increases if they are allowed to. It's a non issue. I'm sympathetic to your plight seeing the character of your neighborhood change if public housing is built, but society has to balance it against the plight of people who are forced to change their neighborhood due to poverty, and on the balance their plight is simply worse than yours. Unlike them, in such a scenario, you get to sell your land whose value now increased and go somewhere else with similar attribute. Any society that cannot make this obvious decision to inconvenience some to save others is doomed to failure.
- fragmede 2y ago
  > groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear I'm sorry, but that's not how that works. not if you really want it to happen. There's conversations between high level government officials and corporate execs to make things happen. negotiations are had, and contracts are signed. theres a city planning agency that has a CPC. All of that is to say, there's entire industry just in the planning of cities. while we're building housing for the homeless, let's also engage them and build a viable town and start with that, and not just build the center square with hope and wishes. (Hope is not a strategy.)
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    There is an entire industry for planning cities, yes. And public housing bypasses most of that industry. It's just a simple fact that if you have a large population center, and market demand for it, basic things like grocery stores and convenience stores will pop up. Not every grocery store and convenience store is run by a large chain that negotiates with the government for a location, if you believe that's the case you are missing knowledge of that industry. This isn't a hypothetical, things like this have been done. Just because we are overcomplicating it doesn't mean it has to be.
    - toss1 2y ago
      Yes, and even if they do magically popup, the grocery stores will STILL be a drive for everyone. And stores for every other supply, and the JOBS, will be a significant drive away. So, you will have just condemned every poor person you transplanted to now buying, maintaining, and insuring an automobile or several for each family. A constantly depreciating asset. Which may well cost more than they saved in rent. "Oh, just put in public transit", you'll say. Have you ever looked at any suburban/rural bus service? They only run infrequently, and often unreliably on time, and are so now the poor people must squander massive hours of their day just waiting on the busses, or configuring their schedule around the busses. No one else is overcomplicating it. You are massively oversimplifying it, waving your hands about, and being very loud about proclaiming your virtuous non-solution. Stop it, and think more.
marssaxman 2y ago
> Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. It's a good thing I am not talking about locales like yours, then; unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem, akin to the ones you see in big cities whose history of inadequate development due to strict zoning regulation has created a persistent housing crunch, nothing I said pertains to you. > It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. You're not making this point of view sound any more appealing by defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money.
- toss1 2y ago
  >>unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem...nothing I said pertains to you. Well, the current town has no homelessness problem, but there ARE most definitely laws in place (Massachusetts 40B) that specifically seeks to override local zoning and mandate low-income housing in ALL towns. So, while we agree that what you said should not pertain to me, the people making the actual laws most definitely apply it to me. I don't know why there is the disconnect, perhaps some misguided "it must apply to everyone everywhere" cop-out to avoid the actual complexity, but the fact is that the rhetoric is very destructive. >>defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money. The DEFINITION is "quiet, low traffic, wildlife, gardens, etc.". The COST is defined in money as well as work. The point is that those things are not free — they cost a lot of work and yes, money in both taxes and improvements and maintenance. More importantly, it is not cost-free to decide to destroy those valuable things. Especially when the result will not help the people you are intending to help.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    Thank you for explaining your situation. I can see why that would be frustrating! Here in Washington, the state legislature recently passed a law overriding any local zoning which would forbid multi-family housing, but the law does not apply to cities under 25K population, and its strongest provisions only apply above 75K. Oregon has had a similar law since 2019. This approach seems more reasonable to me.

by toss1 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sudosysgen 2y ago

The groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear once density increases if they are allowed to. It's a non issue. I'm sympathetic to your plight seeing the character of your neighborhood change if public housing is built, but society has to balance it against the plight of people who are forced to change their neighborhood due to poverty, and on the balance their plight is simply worse than yours. Unlike them, in such a scenario, you get to sell your land whose value now increased and go somewhere else with similar attribute. Any society that cannot make this obvious decision to inconvenience some to save others is doomed to failure.

fragmede 2y ago
> groceries and convenience stores and so on will naturally appear I'm sorry, but that's not how that works. not if you really want it to happen. There's conversations between high level government officials and corporate execs to make things happen. negotiations are had, and contracts are signed. theres a city planning agency that has a CPC. All of that is to say, there's entire industry just in the planning of cities. while we're building housing for the homeless, let's also engage them and build a viable town and start with that, and not just build the center square with hope and wishes. (Hope is not a strategy.)
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  There is an entire industry for planning cities, yes. And public housing bypasses most of that industry. It's just a simple fact that if you have a large population center, and market demand for it, basic things like grocery stores and convenience stores will pop up. Not every grocery store and convenience store is run by a large chain that negotiates with the government for a location, if you believe that's the case you are missing knowledge of that industry. This isn't a hypothetical, things like this have been done. Just because we are overcomplicating it doesn't mean it has to be.
  - toss1 2y ago
    Yes, and even if they do magically popup, the grocery stores will STILL be a drive for everyone. And stores for every other supply, and the JOBS, will be a significant drive away. So, you will have just condemned every poor person you transplanted to now buying, maintaining, and insuring an automobile or several for each family. A constantly depreciating asset. Which may well cost more than they saved in rent. "Oh, just put in public transit", you'll say. Have you ever looked at any suburban/rural bus service? They only run infrequently, and often unreliably on time, and are so now the poor people must squander massive hours of their day just waiting on the busses, or configuring their schedule around the busses. No one else is overcomplicating it. You are massively oversimplifying it, waving your hands about, and being very loud about proclaiming your virtuous non-solution. Stop it, and think more.

marssaxman 2y ago

> Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. It's a good thing I am not talking about locales like yours, then; unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem, akin to the ones you see in big cities whose history of inadequate development due to strict zoning regulation has created a persistent housing crunch, nothing I said pertains to you. > It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. You're not making this point of view sound any more appealing by defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money.

toss1 2y ago
>>unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem...nothing I said pertains to you. Well, the current town has no homelessness problem, but there ARE most definitely laws in place (Massachusetts 40B) that specifically seeks to override local zoning and mandate low-income housing in ALL towns. So, while we agree that what you said should not pertain to me, the people making the actual laws most definitely apply it to me. I don't know why there is the disconnect, perhaps some misguided "it must apply to everyone everywhere" cop-out to avoid the actual complexity, but the fact is that the rhetoric is very destructive. >>defining "the character of a neighborhood" entirely in terms of money. The DEFINITION is "quiet, low traffic, wildlife, gardens, etc.". The COST is defined in money as well as work. The point is that those things are not free — they cost a lot of work and yes, money in both taxes and improvements and maintenance. More importantly, it is not cost-free to decide to destroy those valuable things. Especially when the result will not help the people you are intending to help.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  Thank you for explaining your situation. I can see why that would be frustrating! Here in Washington, the state legislature recently passed a law overriding any local zoning which would forbid multi-family housing, but the law does not apply to cities under 25K population, and its strongest provisions only apply above 75K. Oregon has had a similar law since 2019. This approach seems more reasonable to me.