4 ms·
Where i live, NIMBYs just killed an ADU ordinance and were screaming just as loudly and about all the same things they would have if you were replacing their gr
by queenkjuul 1y ago
Where i live, NIMBYs just killed an ADU ordinance and were screaming just as loudly and about all the same things they would have if you were replacing their grandma's cottage with a high rise.
They can't be rationed with.
Social housing is the only thing that will really work.
- tsunamifury 1y agoThis was tried the 60s in the us and uk, which gave rise to the ghettos torn down in the 2000s. There is little appetite on any side to re do that It’s amazing how little history people seem to remember or know. I think people might be open to trying again if you could address what went wrong last time (extreme crime and poverty traps)
- nobody9999 1y ago>It’s amazing how little history people seem to remember or know. Yourself included. cf. Mitchell-Lama housing[0]. It was enormously successful in creating housing (both rentals and sales) for significant numbers of people. In fact, such housing is still (70 years later) doing so. We could use a whole lot more of that! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%E2%80%93Lama_Housing_...
- tsunamifury 1y agoCherry picking singular successes does not overcome the large amounts of data going the other way. Please do better.
- nobody9999 1y agoHundreds to thousands of buildings over seventy years is a "singular success?" I personally know dozens of people who grew up in Mitchell-Lama housing. Tens to hundreds of thousands of people still do. But because other implementations are less successful (which is debatable, especially as you've provided zero examples), we should scrap successful ones? Or am I missing your point? Please do elucidate. Edit: It occurs to me that you're likely ignorant (especially given your response) of Mitchell-Lama programs. As such, I encourage you to educate yourself and to advocate for similar programs, as they create stable housing and promote community for many people -- and unless you live in a large urban area, it provides that for more folks than live in your entire county.
- tsunamifury 1y agoMitchell–Lama Housing Program Is specifically NOT public housing and you are calling me ignorant. JFC dude it’s a great private sector tax abatement program but this is a comment about Cabrini Green type projects.
- nobody9999 1y agoI never said it was public housing. And it's not just a tax abatement program. You go ahead and keep moving the goalposts, friend. You can do that all by yourself. kthxbai!
- tsunamifury 1y agoAre you confused it’s literally what the thread is about. Jeeze dude.
- nobody9999 1y agoWhat happens when housing prices go down? (clmarohn.substack.com) 153 points by chmaynard 4 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 335 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44634266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44634266
- arethuza 1y agoA lot of "social housing" in the UK was perfectly decent and still exists - I grew up in a council house as did a lot of my friends. The main thing that has changed is that most of those houses have now been bought and are privately owned. Yes, of course there were a lot of grim council housing estates (particularly tower blocks) that had to be knocked down but the causes were often a lot more complex than the concept of social housing being fundamentally flawed.
- queenkjuul 1y agoPost war UK social housing was a huge success, and US social housing was deliberately turned into ghettos through deliberate lack of maintenance. It's amazing how little history people who think they know history actually know
- arethuza 1y agoSocial housing, at least here in Scotland, is actually built to a higher standard than that produced for sale.
- anthonypasq 1y agono, you just strip NIMBY's of their power. I frankly don't give a shit about grandma's opinion if the owner of the land wants to put a highrise there.
- fireflash38 1y agoAfter that is built, they then become the NIMBY because new buildings after them are threats to their income.
- queenkjuul 1y agoWhy do you care whether it's a developer or the city building it, then
- ecshafer 1y agoI absolutely care if its a developer or the city building it. If its the developer who puts a high rise on my block, they want to make money and they sell it for a profit. The people that move in are the people that can afford a condo in a high rise. If its the city building it, they don't want to make a profit, they want to get votes. So after they fill the high rise with their quota of homeless people and a drug dealers. Its going to have a very different population and affect my neighborhood in a much more negative way.
- queenkjuul 1y agoRidiculous. Such disdain for poor people! Not even poor people either. Plenty of working and middle class people can't afford decent homes right now.
- ecshafer 1y agoI grew up in poverty. I worked hard to NOT have to deal with that shit as an adult and to not have my kids deal with that either. People screaming in the street at night on schizo rants, meth heads, getting your bikes stolen, people vandalizing your house, drug dealers, fights, schools being less safe and effective because of gangs/ problem children. This stuff actually sucks to live through constantly in a day by day situation. And the only way to get away from it is to not live where that shit happens, and you don't invite it into your back yard.
- nisegami 1y agoWhy can't we have luxury social housing?
- queenkjuul 1y ago[flagged]
- 69tg69 1y ago[flagged]
- queenkjuul 1y agoI'm not a billionaire
- Nasrudith 1y ago[flagged]
- queenkjuul 1y ago[flagged]
- FireBeyond 1y agoYeah, sounds like here. Homeowners on cul-de-sacs complaining about the rise in traffic and how it will keep them up at night. Complaining that improving the missing middle will lower projected year-over-year property value increases from 11% to 8%. Hyperbole and hysteria about having to widen streets to accommodate parking and traffic.