Opinion | America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals. - The New York Times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to live in a less populated area, but of course jobs. So many disadvantages to city life. I hate the pollution. Hate going on a run and inhaling fumes. Depression rates are higher. Communities are not as tight, exposure to people so angry and stressed. But what do I do? I need to feed my family.

Honestly I hate it. Hate the city hate the congestion and gridlock. Hate the hassle. But I need the job and the short commute so here I am.

We got out. It’s mostly wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US needs to simply spread out more. We have a HUGE country full of livable land, but we keep concentrating more and more people and jobs in the same locations.

I get it - who wants to move to *gasp* the mid-west, because there is nothing to do! It's a chicken/egg problem. People don't move to open areas of the country because there is nothing there so companies don't move there because talent is too hard to attract. But if companies don't move there, nothing gets developed that'd entice people to move.

Maybe there should be plans in place for a Marshall Plan for our own country. Develop huge swaths of the mid-West and South to attract more investment and development. Spread the wealth and population out more evenly throughout the country.

In the 21st century, people worldwide want to concentrate in cities because there are benefits to smart people all living in one place.

That's happening worldwide, not just in the US. You can't really reverse it. You can't turn Akron into Silicon Valley.

Moreover, Silicon Valley and the American tech economy is a major economic driver. You do NOT want to mess with SF, LA, Boston, NYC, Seattle, Chicago, Portland, DC, etc.. If you try to break them up just to fix the Senate-represents-empty-land problem, you may well destroy America's economic advantages.

Both of you chill. There are plenty of Fortune 500 companies located in second tier cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The US needs to simply spread out more. We have a HUGE country full of livable land, but we keep concentrating more and more people and jobs in the same locations.

I get it - who wants to move to *gasp* the mid-west, because there is nothing to do! It's a chicken/egg problem. People don't move to open areas of the country because there is nothing there so companies don't move there because talent is too hard to attract. But if companies don't move there, nothing gets developed that'd entice people to move.

Maybe there should be plans in place for a Marshall Plan for our own country. Develop huge swaths of the mid-West and South to attract more investment and development. Spread the wealth and population out more evenly throughout the country.

People like Andrew Yang have proposed solutions like relocating federal agencies to other parts of the country in an effort to “spread the wealth around.” But voters don’t want policy proposals, they want a candidate who charms them on The View or who does a good job of “sticking up to Trump.” Until Americans care more about actual solutions instead of the Red vs Blue zero sum game football match that’s propped up by cable news and internet sites for ratings and clicks we’re all screwed.

[Anonymous]

This article isn’t about spreading around the wealth to smaller cities. It’s about seemingly “liberal” people routinely blocking proposals to change zoning laws to allow affordable housing - which brings the diversity they tell everyone they love - to their own neighborhoods.

This is why you shouldn’t judge rich liberals by what they say, but what they do. There are a lot of people out here calling Trump a racist that spend millions of dollars to live in rich, mostly white enclaves and do everything they can to keep their DCs away from schools with large populations of minority, low SES kids. They claim to love diversity, but do everything to avoid and fight it in their own lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article isn’t about spreading around the wealth to smaller cities. It’s about seemingly “liberal” people routinely blocking proposals to change zoning laws to allow affordable housing - which brings the diversity they tell everyone they love - to their own neighborhoods.

This is why you shouldn’t judge rich liberals by what they say, but what they do. There are a lot of people out here calling Trump a racist that spend millions of dollars to live in rich, mostly white enclaves and do everything they can to keep their DCs away from schools with large populations of minority, low SES kids. They claim to love diversity, but do everything to avoid and fight it in their own lives.

Correction: they love the *right* kind of diversity. Obama as your neighbor? Fabulous. Working class white family that goes hunting on the weekend? Oh, god no!

We keep getting these posters claiming that they can't move to smaller cities because of jobs and I'm always puzzled because most smaller American cities are doing just fine. Jobs isn't the point of the article. It's really about a handful of certain cities becoming unaffordable, and yep, it's because it's very difficult to build large scale new housing to keep up with the demand, and a large part of that is due to NIMBYISM. IF DC was allowed to achieve the density of New York, it'd become a lot more affordable. But try demolishing blocks of historic rowhouses for tower blocks you only get angry screeches and protests.

[Anonymous]

I agree there are problems but most of this I'd lay at the feet of the GOP and their out of control spending on defense and huge deficits brought on by tax cuts for the wealthuy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article isn’t about spreading around the wealth to smaller cities. It’s about seemingly “liberal” people routinely blocking proposals to change zoning laws to allow affordable housing - which brings the diversity they tell everyone they love - to their own neighborhoods.

This is why you shouldn’t judge rich liberals by what they say, but what they do. There are a lot of people out here calling Trump a racist that spend millions of dollars to live in rich, mostly white enclaves and do everything they can to keep their DCs away from schools with large populations of minority, low SES kids. They claim to love diversity, but do everything to avoid and fight it in their own lives.

Correction: they love the *right* kind of diversity. Obama as your neighbor? Fabulous. Working class white family that goes hunting on the weekend? Oh, god no!

We keep getting these posters claiming that they can't move to smaller cities because of jobs and I'm always puzzled because most smaller American cities are doing just fine. Jobs isn't the point of the article. It's really about a handful of certain cities becoming unaffordable, and yep, it's because it's very difficult to build large scale new housing to keep up with the demand, and a large part of that is due to NIMBYISM. IF DC was allowed to achieve the density of New York, it'd become a lot more affordable. But try demolishing blocks of historic rowhouses for tower blocks you only get angry screeches and protests.

I am one of these posters. My spouse and I tried to find jobs in smaller cities before moving to DC and still do try, we don't love it and it's too damn expensive. We're not saying there are NO jobs and these cities are cesspools of despair, we are saying there are not enough jobs FOR US. Why is it so hard to believe that there is a better job market for some kinds of work in DC specifically? Nobody seems that shocked that people who want to be actors live in LA, lots of people in finance live in NYC, tech jobs are clustered in SF, etc, even though sure, smaller numbers of these jobs exist elsewhere in the country.

No comment on NIMBYs and how liberal or conservative they may be, since I can't afford a home here anyway and I have no dog in this fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US needs to simply spread out more. We have a HUGE country full of livable land, but we keep concentrating more and more people and jobs in the same locations.

I get it - who wants to move to *gasp* the mid-west, because there is nothing to do! It's a chicken/egg problem. People don't move to open areas of the country because there is nothing there so companies don't move there because talent is too hard to attract. But if companies don't move there, nothing gets developed that'd entice people to move.

Maybe there should be plans in place for a Marshall Plan for our own country. Develop huge swaths of the mid-West and South to attract more investment and development. Spread the wealth and population out more evenly throughout the country.

People like Andrew Yang have proposed solutions like relocating federal agencies to other parts of the country in an effort to “spread the wealth around.” But voters don’t want policy proposals, they want a candidate who charms them on The View or who does a good job of “sticking up to Trump.” Until Americans care more about actual solutions instead of the Red vs Blue zero sum game football match that’s propped up by cable news and internet sites for ratings and clicks we’re all screwed.

I love you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article isn’t about spreading around the wealth to smaller cities. It’s about seemingly “liberal” people routinely blocking proposals to change zoning laws to allow affordable housing - which brings the diversity they tell everyone they love - to their own neighborhoods.

This is why you shouldn’t judge rich liberals by what they say, but what they do. There are a lot of people out here calling Trump a racist that spend millions of dollars to live in rich, mostly white enclaves and do everything they can to keep their DCs away from schools with large populations of minority, low SES kids. They claim to love diversity, but do everything to avoid and fight it in their own lives.

Correction: they love the *right* kind of diversity. Obama as your neighbor? Fabulous. Working class white family that goes hunting on the weekend? Oh, god no!

We keep getting these posters claiming that they can't move to smaller cities because of jobs and I'm always puzzled because most smaller American cities are doing just fine. Jobs isn't the point of the article. It's really about a handful of certain cities becoming unaffordable, and yep, it's because it's very difficult to build large scale new housing to keep up with the demand, and a large part of that is due to NIMBYISM. IF DC was allowed to achieve the density of New York, it'd become a lot more affordable. But try demolishing blocks of historic rowhouses for tower blocks you only get angry screeches and protests.

I am one of these posters. My spouse and I tried to find jobs in smaller cities before moving to DC and still do try, we don't love it and it's too damn expensive. We're not saying there are NO jobs and these cities are cesspools of despair, we are saying there are not enough jobs FOR US. Why is it so hard to believe that there is a better job market for some kinds of work in DC specifically? Nobody seems that shocked that people who want to be actors live in LA, lots of people in finance live in NYC, tech jobs are clustered in SF, etc, even though sure, smaller numbers of these jobs exist elsewhere in the country.

No comment on NIMBYs and how liberal or conservative they may be, since I can't afford a home here anyway and I have no dog in this fight.

I'm not disputing what you say, it's mainly addressed to the posters who seem to believe the only jobs in flyover or Dallas or Atlanta is working at McDonalds. DC is indeed a very robust market and has the advantage of finding higher paying jobs more quickly. And certain types of jobs are heavily concentrated in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree there are problems but most of this I'd lay at the feet of the GOP and their out of control spending on defense and huge deficits brought on by tax cuts for the wealthuy.

How does that have anything to do with the heavily blue cities and their housing affordability problems? I suspect you didn't read the article.

Zoning regulations are not a federal responsibility. They are local responsibilities.It has nothing to do with the GOP in Washington and out of control spending on defense and huge deficits.

The power to zone is wholly at local government levels. And zoning is what affects housing prices more than anything else. Just to use as an example: Bethesda is infamous for teardowns and replacing small starter homes with McMansions selling for 1+ million. That happens in part because zoning only allows SFH on those lots. If Montgomery County rezoned to allow SFH on a quarter acre lot to be replaced with rowhouses or apartments, you'd find a lot more affordable housing in Bethesda..... But can you imagine the uproar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a bunch of ideological BS. Nice hatchet job. I can't take anything this article says seriously because it's so one sided. This is a serious issue that is nuanced and complicated. This author has a definite ax to grind. So show me the purely conservative/Republican proven solutions to this?

Income inequality and poor housing policy are NOT a "liberal" only issue.

The wealthy of both political parties are to blame.

The author is definitely (a) not a conservative, (b) not a Republican, and (c) a liberal.

[Anonymous]

Article is spot on - democrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree there are problems but most of this I'd lay at the feet of the GOP and their out of control spending on defense and huge deficits brought on by tax cuts for the wealthuy.

How does that have anything to do with the heavily blue cities and their housing affordability problems? I suspect you didn't read the article.

Zoning regulations are not a federal responsibility. They are local responsibilities.It has nothing to do with the GOP in Washington and out of control spending on defense and huge deficits.

The power to zone is wholly at local government levels. And zoning is what affects housing prices more than anything else. Just to use as an example: Bethesda is infamous for teardowns and replacing small starter homes with McMansions selling for 1+ million. That happens in part because zoning only allows SFH on those lots. If Montgomery County rezoned to allow SFH on a quarter acre lot to be replaced with rowhouses or apartments, you'd find a lot more affordable housing in Bethesda..... But can you imagine the uproar?

Sorry, but a lot of those people that would and do uproar are conservatives. MoCo may be dominated by Democrats, but those NIMBY's with the deepest pockets are often not liberal AT ALL.

Look at Chevy Chase Country Club that used a lot of money and power to try to scuttle the Purple line and higher density development near their club. You think they are "liberals"? They are not.

The problem isn't "liberal cities." It's those who have the money and power to tie up the system from making meaningful changes. San Francisco has actually been trying to increase density, but the wealthy NIMBY's keep suing and gumming up new policies in the courts. Here's a hint: they are NOT uniformly liberal. In fact, I would posit that they probably trend conservative, even in San Francisco.

[Anonymous]

I mean, this article isn't lying. This forum is proof of it. Example: the 60 page thread on the mental health institute in McLean.

It's funny cause 97% of the houses in this area are nothing remotely even special at all. Just mcmansions, shitshacks, and colonials everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, this article isn't lying. This forum is proof of it. Example: the 60 page thread on the mental health institute in McLean.

It's funny cause 97% of the houses in this area are nothing remotely even special at all. Just mcmansions, shitshacks, and colonials everywhere.

I wouldn't call McLean "liberal." It's definitely one of the more conservative areas within the core of the DC MSA.