Biden Has Fully Embraced YIMBYs and Will Lose Suburban Voters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all complain about the homeless crisis.
Y’all complain about a housing shortage.
Y’all complain about proposed solutions.
Rinse and repeat.

This is actually more horrific than the problem, though. Right now, I walk past the homeless on my way to my office in the urban core of a city. You're suggesting that we should ship them off to neighborhoods. No. People aren't homeless due to housing shortage. They are homeless due to substance abuse and mental illness. This isn't a solution for that problem. It makes the problem more potent.

There are people who are homeless because, despite having jobs, they cannot afford housing where they work or close to it, so they live in their car or in a tent. Yes, this does actually happen. If there were MORE housing where the jobs where, the relative cost would come down, you know, supply and demand.

And yes, there are also significant mental health and substance abuse issues. The GOP has NO solution or proposed legislation around those issues.

Well, one thing is for sure.....
The GOP is not trying to force the mentally ill and drug addicted homeless into suburban neighborhoods.
That is a Democratic policy.

What is the Republican solution?

It was basically saying no to immigration.


Those ships have sailed though, so right now its "make it someone else's problem." Which is also the Democrat's solution.

Immigration is not the cause of homelessness, but it sure makes a great bogeyman, right?

What would be the age distribution in the GOP version? Gotta wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multifsm housing works in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Singapore because there is massive social pressure to tattle/conform and otherwise behave

In Anglo countries, individualism is considered supreme so there is no social or state coercion to behave and hence muktifsm housing is annoying to live in

YIMBYs never want to talk about the social/state pressure required to make everyone behave better

There is a reason why living in a multifam in Tokyo or Zurich or Munich is ok but then you try in dc and it sucks

This is such BS. It is the same as saying that biking as a mode of transportation works in Europe and Asia but not the US because, reasons.

It is all about leadership. Do we want to continue the failed sprawl of the 20th Century or shift to something else that virtually the entire rest of the world does? Because what we are doing here is unsustainable from a landuse standpoint.

There is some truth to what this person is saying. Americans frankly are not as considerate towards their neighbors as other places. In Japan and South Korea, at least there is some social pressure for people to behave well. In the US, not so much.

So reward poor socialization and behavior with wasteful single family homes that are more expensive and farther way than multi-family closer in?

The reality is that our SFH, far from the city and on a nice lot is much more affordable than your multi-family dwelling closer in.

What do you do to earn a living? Grow and sell cherries? Work remote? Live off the land? How scalable is your solution in terms of the number of people who could be accommodated with their "large lots farm from the city"?
Not knocking it, really, As a kid I grew up in a pretty small town with lots of time spent on grandparents' farms, a family member now operates one of those farms, visiting there I feel like urban detritus is just being released from my soul. But not practical to move there and could be tough when I got old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

OMG, "conservatives" didn't create the concept of zoning. The concept goes all the way back to early human civilization. But in the United States at least, it was a largely popular movement based on the industrial and commercial development of the early 20th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

OMG, "conservatives" didn't create the concept of zoning. The concept goes all the way back to early human civilization. But in the United States at least, it was a largely popular movement based on the industrial and commercial development of the early 20th century.

LOL, nope it was racists in Cleveland. Please see zoning law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

OMG, "conservatives" didn't create the concept of zoning. The concept goes all the way back to early human civilization. But in the United States at least, it was a largely popular movement based on the industrial and commercial development of the early 20th century.

LOL, nope it was racists in Cleveland. Please see zoning law.

Please see zoning law for racists in Cleveland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

OMG, "conservatives" didn't create the concept of zoning. The concept goes all the way back to early human civilization. But in the United States at least, it was a largely popular movement based on the industrial and commercial development of the early 20th century.

LOL, nope it was racists in Cleveland. Please see zoning law.

I would say there were multiple drivers. Some was race-driven (forget Cleveland, consider Baltimore), some intended to keep certain industries (slaughterhouses) away from residential areas, keeping skyscrapers from shadowing residential neighborhoods. Not one thing. And not always popular:

During their inception, zoning laws were harshly criticized as an overreach of government power.[2] Some believed that they were an unjust restriction of private action, while others believed that the power of zoning would be corrupted in the hands of bureaucrats. General P. Lincoln Mitchell went as far as to call zoning laws "an advanced form of communism."[2] Others supported zoning laws for their uniform and consistent application, and believed that they would be a force of social equality. The constitutionality of zoning laws was highly debated until the ruling of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty.[47]

(Wikipedia on zoning in the US)

[Anonymous]

Biden is a president for ALL the people. Oh... wait...

[Anonymous]

A house is for most people the single biggest asset they will ever buy. It’s the gateway to Intergenerational wealth. If you buy a sfh on land and a neighborhood zoned for sfh then it isn’t right that the zoning changes and you can have a behemoth apartment complex built next door that towers over your house.

Why do so many politicians think that everyone should be allowed to move wherever they want and it should be subsidized? Biden should plan on developing industries where there is plenty of housing like in Detroit or places in Louisiana. Move federal office to places where there is plenty of housing. There is plenty of land in America. No need for everyone to crowd into the same places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

It was conservatives who created the concept of zoning which dictates what you can build, where you can build it and how big it can be, but go on with our bUt tHe lEfT

Well, modern conservatives are the ones who say shit like "This is MURICA and y'all cain't come along and tell me what I can and can't do with MAH land!" while completely ignoring the fact that documented land use controls go all the way back to the Puritan conservatives of the Plymouth colony in the 1620s - partly lessons learned from the clusterf*ck of Jamestown 1607-1610 that was more of a poorly-planned free-for-all that failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why this is a bad thing. We have a limited amount of land, so we should be increasing density where this is infrastructure, rather than eating up our arable land for single family home on acre plots an hour outside our cities. It is crazy and unprecendented in human terms to be so wasteful.

Leave it to the liberals to dictate where people should live, how much land they can own, and how big their home can be.
Which party is the "authoritarian" party?

Presumably you have no problems with turning arable farmland into housing developments and becoming more dependent on imported foods?

That is not a near term problem. A huge share of the food we import is fruit/veg to complement and expand our growing cycles, higher end optional products (eg fancy cheeses, meats), and booze.

We export 1/3 of our corn and half of our soy. That’s a lot of our farmland that has room to spare still re: meeting domestic needs.

Once developers actually exhaust the current redevelopment opportunities I’ll be more sympathetic to the argument we need to abandon zoning to save our open land. I used to live in Glenmont though and that area within close metro proximity is still way underutilized for example. Gov’s need to use eminent domain in high density and existing metro areas if needed to drive the right changes - not look to change every neighborhood into somewhere you can stick a high rise.

Endless acres of big-ag monoculture like corn and soy are what are contributing to pollinator collapse. Bees and other pollinators need sources of sustinence to keep them going throughout the year but monoculture doesn't work that way. We need the monoculture broken up with different crops with different cycles between and reachable by pollinator colonies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A house is for most people the single biggest asset they will ever buy. It’s the gateway to Intergenerational wealth. If you buy a sfh on land and a neighborhood zoned for sfh then it isn’t right that the zoning changes and you can have a behemoth apartment complex built next door that towers over your house.

Why do so many politicians think that everyone should be allowed to move wherever they want and it should be subsidized? Biden should plan on developing industries where there is plenty of housing like in Detroit or places in Louisiana. Move federal office to places where there is plenty of housing. There is plenty of land in America. No need for everyone to crowd into the same places.

Louisiana? A lot of southern Louisiana will be underwater in the coming decades. And some of the places out west are running out of water. That's another thing that planning and zoning needs to start dealing with pronto, and on a macro scale.