The article talks about how the poll tested things like upzoning in people's own neighborhoods and found a majority in support, so yes, it is in their own backyards.
I've already addressed your arguments in previous posts.
I think you are NOT reflecting the poll correctly (i.e. again: debate tactics).
The poll talks about people's support to have more housing being built near public transportation, allowing the construction of duplexes, fourplexes and sixplexes being built "in all large cities" and giving homeowners the right to build e.g. "in-law suites" and "cottages" in their own backyards.
Nowhere does it say: "Are you okay that the state simply builds 'social housing' next to you."
There is a giant difference between a "sixplex" like:
And "social housing":
I am talking about upzoning and building more housing in general, not social housing. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm talking about social housing.
Anyway, back to the point. Polling finds that a lot of Americans in big cities are fine with building more housing to meet the demand from people who live there.
"I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm talking about social housing."
I literally asked you: "Is this a poll about people being in favor that some development company starts building "social housing" in their "backyards"?"
And instead of saying "no", you simply kept going. Also I asked you directly whether your goal is to address homelessness and you already said how horrible homelessness is and how this aims at addressing it. (Which sounds very much like social housing.)
Regardless. It feels very, very "vague" talking to you as you try to use the urgency of homelessness, but in reality you simply want to house as many people as you can - no matter how many people want to move into some city. It feels like you deliberately misrepresent statistics and polls and misuse the results just to make points, while constantly jumping from one location to the next, changing goals, changing problems, changing everything.
It feels like you are desperately avoiding the actual issue of the conversation:
Literally nobody cares about duplexes and the poll shows it. But that's not what the resistance of "NIMBYs" is about. It's not about duplexes. People don't want "social" housing near them, because people who have lived near some projects knows how unpleasant it is to get mugged by some drug addict or get beaten up by some thug, who wants to prove their strength to their "peers". Only privileged young people, who were born with a silverspoon up their butt and who were driven around by helicopter parents don't know the danger of having "social" housing in the neighborhood. I enjoy jogging without getting my teeth kicked in. I enjoy a stroll through the neighborhood without getting stabbed, just because someone wants my wallet to fuel their addiction. Do you understand that difference?
I had enough beatings in my childhood and my teen years, when I lived near "social" housing. I do not want any more constant, physical danger and I do not want my children to experience that. And sorry that people like you will be opposed by me, when you do your "big numbers = good" game, but my security and the security of my family is far more important to me than whatever "points" you want to maximize.
You already answered your own question: the poll is talking about missing middle housing- stuff like triplexes and low rise apartment buildings. I also pointed that out. I never brought up social housing until you did.
Homelessness can be addressed without social housing if you want to. It turns out that the biggest driver of homelessness is a lack of housing. Simply allowing the construction of much more market rate housing increases the vanacy rate, which drives down rents and homelessness: https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem/
So I have no idea why you are going on about social housing.
I have used all the statistics and polls in their original context. A lot of people, including in New York City, support allowing the construction of more housing: https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-NYC-Issues-Survey-Topline-F0...
New York City has a low vanacy rate. And so on.
The Sightline poll literally shows that "A poll conducted this January shows over two-thirds of polled Washington voters support a statewide zoning law to construct more missing middle housing."
It is talking about market rate new housing, not social housing. Your original post on this game was about market rate housing, judging by the mention of corporations on it, and I responded with points about market rate housing. I don't know why you keep bringing up social housing and crime when I was talking about market rate housing.
The majority of NIMBYism I've seen is resisting new market rate housing. So, presumably people do care about duplexes.
The description points at "affordable housing" (Which means "not market rate", when one of the premises is that the housing is too expensive) and "equitable living". Also one of the texts in the game calls the NIMBYs racist, which is often used as a strawman to smear the opposition to developments like the projects. Finally upzoning would increase property values, but the game constantly repeats "No! I don't want my property value to go down.". (The last point alone is enough to contradict your assumption that the game is about upzoning)
I'm not sure why you even pretend that it's about upzoning and not social housing.
"The majority of NIMBYism I've seen is resisting new market rate housing. So, presumably people do care about duplexes."
What exactly is your job that you encounter NIMBYs so often to get that impression?
There can be affordable market rate housing as well- things like older garden apartments often fill this area in many cities.
We're not talking about the game, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. I was pointing out that higher vanacy rates typically lower rents in my original post. I did not even mention the game.
??? The stuff I've linked to is about building more market rate housing to lower rents and homelessness. I haven't mentioned social housing until you brought it up out of nowhere.
I just pay attention to local politics in the places I have lived in, and notice a lot of NIMBY opposition to new market rate housing.
"We're not talking about the game, so I'm not sure why you brought that up"
What? The discussion started with my first comment that was criticizing the game and all my points were mostly addressing "building stuff in people's backyards against their will" which would also "lower the property value of the surrounding"(i.e. social housing). So you were having a conversation that was completely detached from the context of the game and the premise, while I was criticizing the game and the views pushed by the game.
This would explain why I had the strong impression that you weren't addressing the central issue: the obvious implication of what the game wants, namely putting social housing in small towns or suburbs.
If your goal is not to build "property value reducing" projects but instead you are for (property value increasing) upzoning, then there is far less disagreement between us than I had thought. As long as the cities put a clear cap on demand and focus on solving their internal problems (instead of doing the infinite growth thing of trying to house everyone, who wants to come to that city) and also only build in areas where the local residents want them to build, then it's mostly fine.
There are plenty of homeowners who wouldn't mind to see their property explode in value and have their local businesses and communities strengthened. But this kind of growth shouldn't be forced on people, who don't want it, because most locals have very good reasons why they oppose an increase in density. Personally I don't care why they oppose it. This can be concerns regarding already overstrained infrastructure, to protect nature, budgetary concerns, being afraid of vote farms or just being against it due to "mere" personal preference. It should be respected regardless.
Some people simply prefer to live in a quiet, cozy place and they should be able to do so, if they want. And if some communities are for growth and expand their housing capabilities to 5 story mixed-use buildings, then there will probably be enough housing for the internal needs anyway. I think it's good, when people can decide what they want to do, without bureaucrats, politicians and development corporations forcing some lifestyle-change on them.
So I will support the "NIMBYs" out of sheer solidarity, no matter what their reasoning might be to oppose the development, simply out of respect for their personal choices. Just as I support upzoning and mixed-use development in areas that want it.
"I just pay attention to local politics in the places I have lived in, and notice a lot of NIMBY opposition to new market rate housing."
Can you share their reasoning?
You stated "No need to build new stuff in regular people's backyards", which I read as a general comment about development in general, not the game. All my responses have not been about the game, but about how cities badly need new housing to lower rents and reduce homelessness.
Upzoning is the opposite of a cap on demand. It allows for much more housing to be built to meet demand and lower rents. Also, population is not growing to infinity, so there isn't infinite demand for housing.
A few local residents successfully opposing the construction of more market rate housing is how we got in this mess- high rents, low supply, and high homelessness. We need much more housing to be built, which means allowing the construction of much more housing everywhere in residential and commercial zones.
No one is making you or other people live in a high density area.
Sprawl and low density put significantly more strain on municipal budgets then higher density: http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Halifax-data.pdf It costs a lot more per person to, say, run a water pipe to a low density neighborhood then a higher density one.
Sprawl is environmentally damaging: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oecd.org/enviro... If you want to prevent sprawl to protect the environment, the solution is to build more housing in cities.
??? Voter fraud is very rare: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppres...
Blocking people using their property rights to build more housing on their own land is a lessening of freedom by bureaucrats and politicians who do the zoning. It channels massive wealth from high rents to big corporations.
I don't get to block people from driving cars with colors I don't like or wearing clothing I think looks ugly. Why should people be able to block where other people want to live?
Also, keep in mind that the NIMBY blocking of housing through the last several decades has been enough to cause a massive housing prices and homelessness crisis in the U.S. We can't afford any more roadblocks to building much more housing. NIMBYs' "personal choices" have made housing unaffordable for many people and forced many others into homelessness. It's no longer a personal choice if it affects such a large group of people.
Too long to detail, so sorry, but no.
