3 ms·

The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules. SROs are undesirable from the perspe

The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules. SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community. The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-for-murdering-80-year-old-washington-heights-neighbor/ https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....

fhn 2mo ago
ok, so let them sleep on the streets
- alex43578 2mo ago
  These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.
the_real_cher 2mo ago
This is a wildly insane entitled NIMBY boomer tier take but I'm glad you said it because it's what a lot of property owners are trying to convince people of. Artists, college students, young people getting started, older people, service industry people, quiet poor, etc, etc. I can think of numerous types of people who would live in an SRO and be a net positive to the community. Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables'.
- alex43578 2mo ago
  I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences. Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc. "Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views. People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
  - the_real_cher 2mo ago
    > People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it. You made my argument against Nimby-ism better than I could!
- margalabargala 2mo ago
  I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems. In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them. Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.
  - the_real_cher 2mo ago
    Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals. There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS. That being said, what other incentives are there to eliminate affordable housing then other than property values? The boomer NIMBY's are taking over regions by running local politics and enacting zoning ordinances that are out of control to keep their property values high. The government is telling people what they can do with their own property to an insane degree. I suspect at some point there will be a legal battle over this.

fhn 2mo ago

ok, so let them sleep on the streets

alex43578 2mo ago
These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.

the_real_cher 2mo ago

This is a wildly insane entitled NIMBY boomer tier take but I'm glad you said it because it's what a lot of property owners are trying to convince people of. Artists, college students, young people getting started, older people, service industry people, quiet poor, etc, etc. I can think of numerous types of people who would live in an SRO and be a net positive to the community. Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables'.

alex43578 2mo ago
I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences. Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc. "Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views. People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
- the_real_cher 2mo ago
  > People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it. You made my argument against Nimby-ism better than I could!
margalabargala 2mo ago
I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems. In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them. Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.
- the_real_cher 2mo ago
  Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals. There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS. That being said, what other incentives are there to eliminate affordable housing then other than property values? The boomer NIMBY's are taking over regions by running local politics and enacting zoning ordinances that are out of control to keep their property values high. The government is telling people what they can do with their own property to an insane degree. I suspect at some point there will be a legal battle over this.