A person I know of outstanding moral character (has adopted 3 kids) boasts about voting against any development in his area. I don't know what it'll take for people to see what you are saying
California seems to be forcing zoning changes onto cities that have not allowed enough new housing to be built (things like expediting approvals for allowed development, also allowing R3 to replace R1).
I assume that their politicians were worried about all the people leaving.
It makes sense to set a lot of zoning policy at the state level, where all people are represented, so that incumbent local property owners can't selfishly micromanage everyone else.
Japan is an example of a place that does a great job with this. Housing there is more affordable and convenient. Residential side streets are off-street parking only, and each property can be a triplex, with one unit allowed to be a low-impact business, off-street. These side streets connected to larger roads with denser retail/apartments leading to planned high-rise areas that are allowed to grow when/if the population grows. Industrial areas are separate, on the other side of town.
I think the problem is that people have a vote. Most people would like things to stay as it is around where they live. I feel in my country there is not so much tools for NIMBYism as people are not listened to so much. I can support better infrastructure on a city level but can’t really do much if it is decided that the train needs to run over my house.
Often laws passed by the federal legislature or provincial legislature that, in practice, only effects people living in a small area. I don't see why decisions related to housing can also not be made at larger level.
To put it another way, it often happens that people will vote for candidates at the provincial/federal level that support increased immigration and/or population growth, and simultaneously vote NIMBY at the local level.
Yes, the same people that agree that there’s a housing crisis and that their city should in general have more affordable housing, just not in their specific neighborhood.
I don’t think people with moral character can be reasonably expected to always have moral views on every subject matter. Not to be political but this is what people mean when they talk about intersectionality. For example a women’s rights advocate might unintentionally exclude disabled women, or be harder on black women they work with than white women for being ghetto or ratchet.
You are being downvoted but you are right. It just depresses me to see that people I look up think this way. I have met others who also can't see that building is the solution because of more exotic reasons: those who want to impose price controls because they think this will somehow finally allow them to own that coveted flat in the center, those unwilling to allow the mass building of lower quality stock because who cares about poor people's houses, etc
A multitude of entitled opinions that in a democracy hinder the construction of houses for the future generation
I assume that their politicians were worried about all the people leaving.
It makes sense to set a lot of zoning policy at the state level, where all people are represented, so that incumbent local property owners can't selfishly micromanage everyone else.
Japan is an example of a place that does a great job with this. Housing there is more affordable and convenient. Residential side streets are off-street parking only, and each property can be a triplex, with one unit allowed to be a low-impact business, off-street. These side streets connected to larger roads with denser retail/apartments leading to planned high-rise areas that are allowed to grow when/if the population grows. Industrial areas are separate, on the other side of town.