I have nowhere near the same problem with someone who claims the things Andreesesen does in his angry rebuke of this project, if that person doesn't at the same time preach for elsewhere what they very visibly don't want to practice close to home. Again, this is why NIMBYsm is so detested, not so much because of its specific arguments but because of its often overtly disgusting hypocrisy.
If that's how you think, then at least I hope you're not writing massive essays asking (the rest of) the entire the nation to build more housing, even if it makes neighbourhoods ugly.
Show me land on the periphery of an urban center that's large enough to meaningfully expand housing that isn't farmland, rangeland, forestry, or a protected habitat/important ecological preserve.
Generally solved by incentivizing large lush green lawns for single family housing in large tracts. The lawns have the added benefit of capturing carbon and increasing air quality.
Mandating one 18-hole golf course for every 2K people in municipalities would also create positive offsets to impervious surface and add to the benefit.
Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?
I don't want housing to be an investment. But I also own a house that will inevitably be treated like one because that's the currently supported cultural standard.
I don't think ordinary folks should lose their shirts off their backs if they lose their homes. Sure, I have zero sympathy for the investors who are manipulating markets, but the every day worker? Nah.
Usually if the solution seems that simple, and you think everyone else is an idiot for not realizing it, then they are not the ones being idiots. It's a pattern we should all consider when we "don't understand" a widely understood concept.
And I don‘t understand why the idea that the only way to keep things nice is to never change anything, ever, is en vogue. I find it incredibly uninspired and depressing.
It's not socialist to allow private entities to build the housing that the market demands on the land they own in order to make money. It's much closer to "socialist" to have state apparatus dictating that people not build housing.
I own and live in an 80-year old single family house. My neighborhood -- one of the more desirable ones in my city -- has had a massive ongoing build out of 3-5 story apartment buildings in the past 10 years. They don't bother me in the least. It's either that or people can't afford to live here, which seems bad.
> AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and take no action inconsistent with this obligation”
AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
Every nice town was a lot nicer in the past. Including Atherton. By that logic, he should tear his house down and give his land to his neighbors, making the town nicer.
Peopleperson is trying to dodge around saying they don't want to live near people who are lower income. Often this is a way of saying, "I don't want people with different ethnic, racial, or cultural backgrounds near me."
It's more the density that people object to, not more people, or more housing. It's when there's an area in the denominator. More density means more cars, more air pollution, more traffic, more noise. More accidents, more time searching for parking and standing in lines. It may not add up to ruin, but it's objectively worse.
Socialist? Letting you build whatever you want on your own property is the spirit of capitalism. NIMBYs are the ones who want every town to be run by central planning.
Socialism doesn't even mean central planning either. Most socialists are just interested in, "everyone who wants a home should be able to get a home." Not necessarily a big fancy home with a three car garage, but somewhere they can call their own.
Even if that means billionaires might lose some of their home value.
Sure, but targeted political messaging shouldn't be concerned with things like factual accuracy. The people who complain about socialists don't know any self-identified US socialists, since those Bernie-type people didn't exist before 2016.
Totally. I'm a Marxist and I have no idea where half the complaints about socialists even come from. People just make up a bogeyman and slap the "socialism" label on it.