MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

DP. Some people are definitely trying to be racist, assuming that some of the posters on this thread (and social media) are people, not bots. And other people are not trying to be racist and do not think of themselves as racists (most people don't want to think of themselves as racist), but nonetheless are saying things that are racist.

But yes, nobody is saying that the PP is racist for saving for and buying a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You have no proof of any of that, nor do you have any proof that upzoning will have any affect on those issues. Seems that no one can predict any outcomes, positive or negative. Therefore, it’s a terrible reason to change zoning.

This is just YImBY fantasy housing, and it’s a simplistic “common sense” based argument, like not wearing a sweater will make you sick, when we actually know about germ theory. It’s the housing equivalent of telling people not to shave or it will grow in thicker.

The YIMBYs have no clue what they are doing, and I mean that very literally.

People, start here:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

There is a lot more literature out there. I should compile it and push it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You have no proof of any of that, nor do you have any proof that upzoning will have any affect on those issues. Seems that no one can predict any outcomes, positive or negative. Therefore, it’s a terrible reason to change zoning.

This is just YImBY fantasy housing, and it’s a simplistic “common sense” based argument, like not wearing a sweater will make you sick, when we actually know about germ theory. It’s the housing equivalent of telling people not to shave or it will grow in thicker.

The YIMBYs have no clue what they are doing, and I mean that very literally.

People, start here:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

There is a lot more literature out there. I should compile it and push it out.

A quote:

what is called the “logic” of Econ 101 is often a fairy tale, a story about a world that could theoretically exist rather than the world that actually does exist. In the “Econ 101” fairy tale about housing, more housing helps everyone no matter what kind of housing it is. Thus it does not make any sense to oppose development, and we should relax zoning codes (and forget about historic preservation, which is pure nostalgia, or rent control, which is a doomed attempt to interfere with market forces) to maximize the number of available units.
The story is insidious because it makes intuitive sense. Like many Econ 101 tales (e.g., raising the minimum wage kills jobs), it has a superficially compelling logic, and it is only when you think a bit harder (i.e., when you get past the “101” class) that you realize it might be false. There is no necessary economic reason why increasing the total number of housing units in a city helps make housing more affordable for poor residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You have no proof of any of that, nor do you have any proof that upzoning will have any affect on those issues. Seems that no one can predict any outcomes, positive or negative. Therefore, it’s a terrible reason to change zoning.

This is just YImBY fantasy housing, and it’s a simplistic “common sense” based argument, like not wearing a sweater will make you sick, when we actually know about germ theory. It’s the housing equivalent of telling people not to shave or it will grow in thicker.

The YIMBYs have no clue what they are doing, and I mean that very literally.

People, start here:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2021/01/the-only-thing-worse-than-a-nimby-is-a-yimby

There is a lot more literature out there. I should compile it and push it out.

This is true, in the Yogi Berra sense that it is hard to make predictions, especially about the future. In that case, though, we should never change anything, but likewise we should never leave anything unchanged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

We must have different ideas about what destruction means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

We must have different ideas about what destruction means.

Turning a farmland into suburban neighborhood necessarily destroys the farmland, Same thing for upzoning single family neighborhoods to high density housing. By definition it destroys what previously existed because the place has change so much that it no longer bears any meaningful resembles to its previous form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

We must have different ideas about what destruction means.

Turning a farmland into suburban neighborhood necessarily destroys the farmland, Same thing for upzoning single family neighborhoods to high density housing. By definition it destroys what previously existed because the place has change so much that it no longer bears any meaningful resembles to its previous form.

Well, no. Building houses on farmland does destroy the farmland. Allowing property owners to build two-to-four-unit housing in a neighborhood where previously only one-unit housing was allowed does not destroy the neighborhood. In fact, I don't think it destroys the neighborhood even if property owners actually build two-to-four-unit housing in it. It changes the neighborhood, certainly, but it doesn't destroy the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

We must have different ideas about what destruction means.

Turning a farmland into suburban neighborhood necessarily destroys the farmland, Same thing for upzoning single family neighborhoods to high density housing. By definition it destroys what previously existed because the place has change so much that it no longer bears any meaningful resembles to its previous form.

Well, no. Building houses on farmland does destroy the farmland. Allowing property owners to build two-to-four-unit housing in a neighborhood where previously only one-unit housing was allowed does not destroy the neighborhood. In fact, I don't think it destroys the neighborhood even if property owners actually build two-to-four-unit housing in it. It changes the neighborhood, certainly, but it doesn't destroy the neighborhood.

Your personal opinion is noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x

We must have different ideas about what destruction means.

Turning a farmland into suburban neighborhood necessarily destroys the farmland, Same thing for upzoning single family neighborhoods to high density housing. By definition it destroys what previously existed because the place has change so much that it no longer bears any meaningful resembles to its previous form.

Well, no. Building houses on farmland does destroy the farmland. Allowing property owners to build two-to-four-unit housing in a neighborhood where previously only one-unit housing was allowed does not destroy the neighborhood. In fact, I don't think it destroys the neighborhood even if property owners actually build two-to-four-unit housing in it. It changes the neighborhood, certainly, but it doesn't destroy the neighborhood.

It will be great if you are white and are looking for an area to get more white, which I guess is a YIMBY goal from what I can tell. Just leisurely bike rides to the local cafe to work “from home.”

Not sure why the YImBYs chose to live in such a diverse area…maybe cheaper to gentrify?

Little reading:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837721000703

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

YES! Thank you.

-a POC who is a homeowner in MoCo and does NOT want to see upzoning in my middle class neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You are assuming that people in these areas in Silver Spring are white. They are not universally white. This is where your “good intentions” have bad outcomes. My neighborhood is heavily Latino, Ethiopian, and black American. We are middle class and working class families. We are being told by YIMBYs we need to put up with the dismantling of racism and access to affordable housing …. We got affordable housing which we saved for. We are not all white - this is an incredibly diverse area. And this proposal will undercut our neighborhoods and the value of our homes.

Why is the inequity of this so hard for you understand?