Biden Has Fully Embraced YIMBYs and Will Lose Suburban Voters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m legitimately thinking about switching my vote over this.

Good thing zoning is a local and not federal issue, then.

They are going to try to force it on local communities by tying federal funding to zoning reforms.

So you think eventually having people commute 2+ hours and not having arable land close to suburbs and cities is a good thing?

Exactly. We need to save our farms, save our small towns, and so on - and the best way to do that is to change our current dumb zoning policies which have promoted sprawl, car dependence, long commutes, and endless acres lost to stupid cookie-cutter subdivisions. The people who oppose this should take some time to read some Jane Jacobs, who talked about saving cities and having them be livable rather than carving them up with superhighways coming and going, nothing but massive office complexes and so on. Or read Save Our Land, Save Our Towns by Thomas Hylton. Europe does not have many of the problems that we do in the US because their towns grew up organically, where zoning doesn't just chunk things out into "commercial here, residential there" and instead has first-floor retail with residential above, and so on. We really should aim for livable, walkable communities, where you can walk to the grocery store and other things, where you have easy mass transit to work or wherever else you need to go and don't even need a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason to change near-in zoning to increase density when there are thousands of vacant homes in places like Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit that the government can't give away. Maybe Biden should focus on addressing how to fix the surplus housing caused by job loss and crime before trying to ghettoize functioning suburbs.

ok, so there is a homeless person in Montgomery County, MD. You offer them a vacant house in Cleveland. then what? How do they rehab the house with no money? How do they earn money with no job? There is a reason Baltimore and Clevleand are how they are. Detroit is a little different because the city simply razed blocks of houses and turned it into "urban agriculture" which has been successful in providing jobs and food for area residents.

First, I don't know why you are fixated on the homeless who would still not be able to afford to rent or own a home on any sub-divided suburban lot. Second, I pay taxes for the government to hire people to find solutions to your questions. There are government programs that offer rehab money that owners do not have to repay as long as they occupy the homes. Third, if millions of illegals can cross the border and find jobs, then I would think the same can be expected of citizens, homeless or otherwise.

[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.

No, they forced them out of mental institutions and defunded the rehab facilities, so they are homeless. I don't know what you mean by "forcing...into suburban neighborhoods" - I guess you only want homeless people to be in urban areas? Or you think there aren't suburban people who are forced out of their homes and are just homeless where they are? Can you clarify this because it doesn't make any sense to me.

A lot of the urban homeless got sent to cities from elsewhere, picked up by the sheriff and given a one-way bus ticket, by smaller communities who figured the big cities would have the resources to deal with them. There have been a lot of articles written about this. There were also notorious cases like the Nevada mental institution that closed down and just dumped over a hundred mental patients onto street corners in San Francisco.

A lot of the homeless are also drug addicts who went to the city to chase after their poison of choice.

What is the Republican solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely no reason to change near-in zoning to increase density when there are thousands of vacant homes in places like Baltimore, Cleveland, and Detroit that the government can't give away. Maybe Biden should focus on addressing how to fix the surplus housing caused by job loss and crime before trying to ghettoize functioning suburbs.

The IRA and other bills passed help address job creation and crime. The GOP voted against these bills. It takes time to undo decades of urban neglect, but places like Baltimore and Cleveland have to work at the state and regional level to capture their place in the corporate heirarchy to attract investment, businesses and thus jobs. That is why Biden has been so focused on Jobs jobs Jobs...because jobs actually do trickle down.

I have seen nothing from the GOP from a policy standpoint to address this. But it still doesn't help when there are jobs in places like the DC area and there aren't in Cleveland. How does moving please from the DC area to Cleveland help when the jobs are here and not there?

If our government isn't able to export jobs to Cleveland, Baltimore or Detroit (and I don't see why not), then it's time to seriously consider UBI.

[Anonymous]

This is all about deregulation for cities. Republicans should love this proposal! Unfortunately zoning is local and this will have minimal to no impact.

The American way to get rich is buy a home somewhere and don’t allow anyone else to build nearby, thus raising your property value. Then complain about prices and why your kids can’t afford to live nearby and blame external forces, god bless the USA!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is hocking Bibles.

He compared himself to Jesus

But he can't cite a single Bible verse: https://packaged-media.redd.it/h5vn1x6ygvqc1/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1711558800&s=9fdd6205d2396a804044cacc4409563e23cc432d#t=0

Jesus Wept

[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?

An increase in population increases the competition for housing which increases the cost of housing. No everyone who is homeless has mental/substance abuse issue - some individuals/families just can't afford the current cost of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m legitimately thinking about switching my vote over this.

Good thing zoning is a local and not federal issue, then.

They are going to try to force it on local communities by tying federal funding to zoning reforms.

So you think eventually having people commute 2+ hours and not having arable land close to suburbs and cities is a good thing?

Exactly. We need to save our farms, save our small towns, and so on - and the best way to do that is to change our current dumb zoning policies which have promoted sprawl, car dependence, long commutes, and endless acres lost to stupid cookie-cutter subdivisions. The people who oppose this should take some time to read some Jane Jacobs, who talked about saving cities and having them be livable rather than carving them up with superhighways coming and going, nothing but massive office complexes and so on. Or read Save Our Land, Save Our Towns by Thomas Hylton. Europe does not have many of the problems that we do in the US because their towns grew up organically, where zoning doesn't just chunk things out into "commercial here, residential there" and instead has first-floor retail with residential above, and so on. We really should aim for livable, walkable communities, where you can walk to the grocery store and other things, where you have easy mass transit to work or wherever else you need to go and don't even need a car.

The YIMBYs are never satisfied and they will not stop until there is basically no zoning and developers are allowed to build high density 10+ story apartments everywhere. They are total shills for developers and the real estate industry. Most of them do not care about any practical concerns like infrastructure limitations, traffic, school capacity, or community impact. Upzoning an entire county or state (to allow multiplexes) is not necessarily an effective solution to prevent sprawl and encourage environmental sustainability or farmland preservation. It will actively encourage sprawl and development in rural locations when land is substantially cheaper per acre. More targeted zoning changes are the most effective way to ensure that development is sustainable while preventing sprawl.

[Anonymous]

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.

Do you really think people living in homeless encampments or on city streets or off somewhere in wooded areas will have the wherewithal to live in nanny flats in someone’s basement or a tiny house in a backyard?

Where would the rent money come from?

And who is willing to rent to people with mental health and/or addiction issues?

It’s far more likely that affluent people will put tiny homes in their yards and rent them out through Airbnb. Or their failed-to-launch adult children will move into the backyard.

None of this is solving the housing crisis.

Here’s what would:

Go back in a Time Machine so Congress could have taken steps to prevent corporations from commoditizing housing. Prevent Airbnb in urban tourist areas. Only allow citizens to purchase real estate and land. Put caps on how many properties one can own.

Those are real solutions.

Packing more people/families in tiny spaces is a fast track to shantytown.

Yes, these are all huge problems. My point was somebody needs to do something. But all proposed solutions are immediately shot down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

An increase in population increases the competition for housing which increases the cost of housing. No everyone who is homeless has mental/substance abuse issue - some individuals/families just can't afford the current cost of housing.

Hedge fund and corporate purchases of single family homes has much more impact impact on housing prices than immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m legitimately thinking about switching my vote over this.

Good thing zoning is a local and not federal issue, then.

They are going to try to force it on local communities by tying federal funding to zoning reforms.

So you think eventually having people commute 2+ hours and not having arable land close to suburbs and cities is a good thing?

Exactly. We need to save our farms, save our small towns, and so on - and the best way to do that is to change our current dumb zoning policies which have promoted sprawl, car dependence, long commutes, and endless acres lost to stupid cookie-cutter subdivisions. The people who oppose this should take some time to read some Jane Jacobs, who talked about saving cities and having them be livable rather than carving them up with superhighways coming and going, nothing but massive office complexes and so on. Or read Save Our Land, Save Our Towns by Thomas Hylton. Europe does not have many of the problems that we do in the US because their towns grew up organically, where zoning doesn't just chunk things out into "commercial here, residential there" and instead has first-floor retail with residential above, and so on. We really should aim for livable, walkable communities, where you can walk to the grocery store and other things, where you have easy mass transit to work or wherever else you need to go and don't even need a car.

The YIMBYs are never satisfied and they will not stop until there is basically no zoning and developers are allowed to build high density 10+ story apartments everywhere. They are total shills for developers and the real estate industry. Most of them do not care about any practical concerns like infrastructure limitations, traffic, school capacity, or community impact. Upzoning an entire county or state (to allow multiplexes) is not necessarily an effective solution to prevent sprawl and encourage environmental sustainability or farmland preservation. It will actively encourage sprawl and development in rural locations when land is substantially cheaper per acre. More targeted zoning changes are the most effective way to ensure that development is sustainable while preventing sprawl.

I get it, that the Boomers have been sold a bill of goods about the idealized American condition of a single family home on a quarter acre lot with a white picket fence. That was fine when the world's population was under a billion people. It isn't fine now. I get it, you are upset about it, but we can't really contain global population growth or population growth in the US. We also can't force people from rural areas to stay in those rural areas. Most of the ones who can, leave their rural hamlet, go to a public university and then on to the big city in their state or to NY, Boston, Chicago, DC, San Francisco, Atlanta etc. Unless you want to somehow ban people from doing that, we will need to continue to grow our cities.

We can either grow our cities by continuing to build single family homes on quarter acre lots, or we can densify and use the land more efficiently. Using land more efficiently also means more transportation choices, more choices around housing types etc.

The ideal of the boomers, of the open road, a car and a house just isn't reality today for the Gen Z and many Millennials. So we need to plan for a future that is different from the Boomer past. Sure, there will still be single family homes, there will still be people who commute by car, but we also need to plan for people living in apartmens and high rises, and to get around by mass transit or bikes or scooters.

The planning taking place now won't impact you, PP, but it will make life more tenable for your grandchildren.

[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?

An increase in population increases the competition for housing which increases the cost of housing. No everyone who is homeless has mental/substance abuse issue - some individuals/families just can't afford the current cost of housing.

Population growth is placing huge pressure across all of society. Immigration is not helping. Illegal immigration is taking up taxpayer funds and services meant for U.S. citizens.

It may not be PC to state the obvious, but it is no less obvious. The emperor is naked, but nobody wants to state the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

An increase in population increases the competition for housing which increases the cost of housing. No everyone who is homeless has mental/substance abuse issue - some individuals/families just can't afford the current cost of housing.

Population growth is placing huge pressure across all of society. Immigration is not helping. Illegal immigration is taking up taxpayer funds and services meant for U.S. citizens.

It may not be PC to state the obvious, but it is no less obvious. The emperor is naked, but nobody wants to state the obvious.

Illegal workers pay into the system via phantom social security numbers that never get collected after they are 65 and by sales tax and other fees they pay just by being in the country. They often will live with family; they aren't taking up space that would otherwise be used by someone here legally. They are sleeping on couches or floors of people already here.