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

[Anonymous]

Well it is true that many (maybe most?) affluent liberals are hypocrites. "Tax the rich!!!" as long as the taxes don't extend down to me.

"Global warming is a huge crisis but don't build apartment buildings near my single family home"

etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article is spot on - democrat

+1. We just went through this is our DC neighborhood--a few outspoken neighbors blocked new development, saying a mid-sized apt. bldg was "out of character" would increase traffic etc. It got nixed after dragging out for several years.

[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.

See this is the problem though and it's not even really true. We moved to the Midwest (Finger Lakes region of upstate NY) so my husband could take an executive level job. I was against it at first for the reason you mention but eventually learned how wrong and short sighted I was being about it.

First, he has a great job making upwards of 500k so it's not true that high paying jobs don't exist in these parts. Housing is cheap here so we were able to buy our house in cash with no mortgage. Our money goes a lot farther with no mortgage or other debt so we are putting a TON of money into our kids' college accounts and retirement and spending a lot on traveling every year besides (50-60k). And there is plenty of stuff to do for family oriented people - lots of nearby state parks for hiking and boating in the summer, skiing in the winter, festivals all summer long.

It's probably not exciting for young people in their twenties but for people in their thirties and forties with kids? It's great. Our neighborhood is sandwiched in between one major R1 university, two small colleges, and a nationally ranked hospital so we have lots of highly educated, liberal people as our neighbors. We're a blue dot in an otherwise red area. But I never interact or even come into contact with those conservative people so who cares.

[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.

+1

He's calling them out on their glaring hypocrisy, as someone rightly should.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

The SF millionaires and billionaires who block the building of much needed homeless shelters and low income housing are as bad in their way as the conservative neanderthals who want to build a wall to keep Mexicans and other people out.

[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.

See this is the problem though and it's not even really true. We moved to the Midwest (Finger Lakes region of upstate NY) so my husband could take an executive level job. I was against it at first for the reason you mention but eventually learned how wrong and short sighted I was being about it.

First, he has a great job making upwards of 500k so it's not true that high paying jobs don't exist in these parts. Housing is cheap here so we were able to buy our house in cash with no mortgage. Our money goes a lot farther with no mortgage or other debt so we are putting a TON of money into our kids' college accounts and retirement and spending a lot on traveling every year besides (50-60k). And there is plenty of stuff to do for family oriented people - lots of nearby state parks for hiking and boating in the summer, skiing in the winter, festivals all summer long.

It's probably not exciting for young people in their twenties but for people in their thirties and forties with kids? It's great. Our neighborhood is sandwiched in between one major R1 university, two small colleges, and a nationally ranked hospital so we have lots of highly educated, liberal people as our neighbors. We're a blue dot in an otherwise red area. But I never interact or even come into contact with those conservative people so who cares.

But if he is ousted I assume he won’t find another job like that in Finger Lakes, that’s the issue. It’s fine if you are a company man, but it’s hard to know if it will work out (look at Kodak)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article is spot on - democrat

+1. We just went through this is our DC neighborhood--a few outspoken neighbors blocked new development, saying a mid-sized apt. bldg was "out of character" would increase traffic etc. It got nixed after dragging out for several years.

The kinda liberal NIMBYs the article is describing are all over this region. They say they love diversity but block any low income housing development cause they worry it will mess up their value and kids school ratings. And preach they're for diversity but live in the whitest neighborhood and call the cops on black neighbors moving in their neighborhood thinking that they're robbing someone (no joke, I've seen this happen to someone)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+ 1

They might call themselves Democrats but on a local level, they don't practice what the party preaches. They don't want dense low income housing built near where they live and they don't want to share their school district's resources with other poor school districts. And they don't want poor kids being able to choose to come into affluent schools.

They're libertarians at best which is not a progressive party.

[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.

+1

He's calling them out on their glaring hypocrisy, as someone rightly should.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

The SF millionaires and billionaires who block the building of much needed homeless shelters and low income housing are as bad in their way as the conservative neanderthals who want to build a wall to keep Mexicans and other people out.

It's a fallacy if you're assuming those millionaires and billionaires in SF are "liberal." Some are, but most are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article is spot on - democrat

+1. We just went through this is our DC neighborhood--a few outspoken neighbors blocked new development, saying a mid-sized apt. bldg was "out of character" would increase traffic etc. It got nixed after dragging out for several years.

The kinda liberal NIMBYs the article is describing are all over this region. They say they love diversity but block any low income housing development cause they worry it will mess up their value and kids school ratings. And preach they're for diversity but live in the whitest neighborhood and call the cops on black neighbors moving in their neighborhood thinking that they're robbing someone (no joke, I've seen this happen to someone)

PP. This is actually an ethnically diverse, majority minority neighborhood, although still fairly affluent (SFHs start around 900K+). But agree there is often a racial tinge to these discussions re: affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

I'm not against housing development - I'd like to see more - but all of the development in my neck of the woods (Hill/Navy Yard) seems to be studios & 1-bedrooms priced for DINKS or single young professionals; plus a smattering of super-luxe buildings (2 br apartments renting for $7k/month). It's not low-income housing or even middle class family housing, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think zoning changes alone will fix the lack of affordable housing, at least not in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html

Title pretty much says it all. NIMBYism is costing us affordable housing & drives housing to environmentally unfriendly locations (exurbs).

No one to blame but themselves. They vote for this crap over and over, and expect different results. Liberal elites are the ultimate hypocrites who NEVER do as they preach. From their private planes to the walls surrounding their palatial residences (with armed guards) they are completely out of touch with anyone not in their league. I remember an article not too long ago showing Zuckerberg's acquisition of all the properties adjoining his California home which he then gated in to shield his wealth and family. Jesus, it was enough land to build multiple high rise homes for people, but no, he sucked it up to take care of himself and his family. Typical. This article is spot on. I loved in California, San Francisco to be exact, this article is true.

[Anonymous]

loved s/b lived

[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.

Do you ever hang out with working class white families who hunt? They have zero desire to live in small, expensive, urban areas. They want land and privacy.

I like people who are working class and hunt. I'm happy to have them as my neighbors. But they do not proactively live in diverse urban communities. That's not their vibe.

[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 mean, could part of the opposition be related to the fact that historic row homes are typically more charming and attractive than tower blocks? I wouldn't be in favor of razing charming San Francisco neighborhoods and replacing them with tower blocks (a la outskirts of Paris) either. Yuck.