Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:NIMBYs in this thread: "This housing is not really affordable for [INSERT GROUP HERE THAT I DON'T ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT]"
State: "Ok, let's raise your taxes to subsidize these units".
NIMBYs: "No not like that! Something Something evil developer profits!!!11!!"
Geniuses at work people.
Lmao, speaking of genius, why should they be forced to subsidize housing in their SFH neighborhood where they don’t want multifamily homes in the first place?
It is so hilarious to me that you think you’ve made some point like a big boy.
It's not that hard to understand.
Most NIMBYs here keep yapping about "unaffordable" housing and "evil developer giveaways". They pretend to care about affordable housing but in reality it's just a ploy to stop housing. Because it's obvious they would never support the same affordability requirements in their own neighborhoods.
Get it? Or should I simplify it for a 3rd grader?
DP. You sound unhinged. When elected officials claim that their zoning changes or tax cuts or subsidies are to make housing more affordable, people are right to call them out if the housing isn’t affordable or isn't attainable for the people the politicians claimed it would serve.
And honestly providing basic consumer protections and demanding that developers deliver some social benefit isn’t unreasonable. A big part of their earnings are land rents that accumulate because of things the government or other people built. I’m happy to have the government capture part of those land rents for public benefit, whether in the form of taxes or low income housing.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}