7 ms·

What’s wrong with this? People have paid lots of money for those houses and they don’t feel like the local infrastructure can support apartments population dens

by pylua 3y ago

What’s wrong with this? People have paid lots of money for those houses and they don’t feel like the local infrastructure can support apartments population density. I have seen huge problems in Tennessee zoning causing massive traffic issues where I grew up. It’s honestly very bad — maybe we should start by fixing the infrastructure first.

davidw 3y ago
Spending money to try and stop homes from being built in the midst of a severe housing shortage is, to put it bluntly, gross. The infrastructure is just an excuse. The roads they're talking about are some of the least busy in town. Also you're never going to "just one more lane, bro" your way out of traffic. You need: * To put more things people need day to day closer to where they live, so they can walk, bike, or still drive, just not so far. Zoning prevents this in much of the US. * To build alternatives for the people who are able to use them, like bike infrastructure, transit and so on. But you have to start somewhere, and you can't wait until everything is 'just right' before you build homes. The real world doesn't line up like that, it works in fits and starts and you do what you can where you can.
adipose 3y ago
NIMBYism is rancid in general because it prevents the realization of anything that could materially help people, and keeps people at arm's length from problems. Concerns about property values, congestion, and other impacts are valid, but are plainly less important than preventing homelessness. Or not having medical care. Or not having good drinking water. Etc. It's possible that the NIMBYs in this case are right, especially if the proposed new "affordable housing" isn't really affordable at all, etc. But in general NIMBYism is essential for keeping things exactly as they are: it lets people feel good about "wanting" better things for society, without having to make material decisions which are inevitably imperfect and zero-sum.
- davidw 3y ago
  Brand new market-rate housing is rarely "affordable", just like new cars aren't, but the economic research is very, very clear that it creates "moving chains" that fairly rapidly do have effects on the overall market: https://bendyimby.com/2024/01/01/housing-supply-and-demand/ https://bendyimby.com/2024/01/01/housing-supply-and-demand/ Agree with everything else about NIMBYs.
jacobr1 3y ago
The problem is that there always is some objection. Building out in a wilderness area will have environmental impact. Building in a farm area will have a huge impact on the local, formerly rural community. Building in a former industrial area might have cleanup issues. Projects don't have "enough" affordability, or are too dense, or don't match the local style, or will require more investment in public services. There are many impacts. But collectively if all taken seriously, it means we can't build anything. Or the costs to build just get really high. And then we don't have enough housing and the housing we do have is either very costly or in undesirable areas. Something must give, and it really might impose costs on locals. But the alternatives ensure housing scarcity and its many ills.

by pylua 3y ago

davidw 3y ago

Spending money to try and stop homes from being built in the midst of a severe housing shortage is, to put it bluntly, gross. The infrastructure is just an excuse. The roads they're talking about are some of the least busy in town. Also you're never going to "just one more lane, bro" your way out of traffic. You need: * To put more things people need day to day closer to where they live, so they can walk, bike, or still drive, just not so far. Zoning prevents this in much of the US. * To build alternatives for the people who are able to use them, like bike infrastructure, transit and so on. But you have to start somewhere, and you can't wait until everything is 'just right' before you build homes. The real world doesn't line up like that, it works in fits and starts and you do what you can where you can.

adipose 3y ago

NIMBYism is rancid in general because it prevents the realization of anything that could materially help people, and keeps people at arm's length from problems. Concerns about property values, congestion, and other impacts are valid, but are plainly less important than preventing homelessness. Or not having medical care. Or not having good drinking water. Etc. It's possible that the NIMBYs in this case are right, especially if the proposed new "affordable housing" isn't really affordable at all, etc. But in general NIMBYism is essential for keeping things exactly as they are: it lets people feel good about "wanting" better things for society, without having to make material decisions which are inevitably imperfect and zero-sum.

davidw 3y ago
Brand new market-rate housing is rarely "affordable", just like new cars aren't, but the economic research is very, very clear that it creates "moving chains" that fairly rapidly do have effects on the overall market: https://bendyimby.com/2024/01/01/housing-supply-and-demand/ https://bendyimby.com/2024/01/01/housing-supply-and-demand/ Agree with everything else about NIMBYs.

jacobr1 3y ago

The problem is that there always is some objection. Building out in a wilderness area will have environmental impact. Building in a farm area will have a huge impact on the local, formerly rural community. Building in a former industrial area might have cleanup issues. Projects don't have "enough" affordability, or are too dense, or don't match the local style, or will require more investment in public services. There are many impacts. But collectively if all taken seriously, it means we can't build anything. Or the costs to build just get really high. And then we don't have enough housing and the housing we do have is either very costly or in undesirable areas. Something must give, and it really might impose costs on locals. But the alternatives ensure housing scarcity and its many ills.