Post by penguincascadia in Sim Nimby comments

Viewing post in Sim Nimby comments

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.

Ravery (Ravery.net)3 years ago

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?

penguincascadia3 years ago

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.

Ravery (Ravery.net)3 years ago

"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?

penguincascadia3 years ago (1 edit)

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.

Ravery (Ravery.net)3 years ago

---"Why should people be able to block where other people want to live?"

If people want to live at your home or in your backyard, feel free to let them live there. I'm all for people's ability to use their property how they like it and I don't want bureaucrats to stop you from subdividing YOUR property. But don't force it on others, who don't want it. Have you already emptied a few of your rooms in your house and offered it on some rent site? (And don't say "no", as "It's no longer a personal choice")

Also, according to your polls and your statements, you believe that the majority are in favor of bigger houses and upzoning, so there shouldn't be a problem to find people who will do the same like you, right?

---"No one is making you or other people live in a high density area. "

---"It's no longer a personal choice"

Sounds like a contradiction.

---"??? Voter fraud is very rare"

My mistake, I mistook the term "Voter Farm" for another English political term. What I meant was that if you have a group of people with very similar life situations, then they are more likely to find common ground and improve their life. But if a party forces in another group that has a completely different life, then that party will be able to manipulate that (now dependent) second group and push laws against the former group through divide&conquer tactics.

---"Upzoning is the opposite of a cap on demand."

There must be a cap on demand otherwise you will never stop the growth of demand.

---"Also, population is not growing to infinity, so there isn't infinite demand for housing."

We are nearly 8 billion people on earth and the coastal areas of the US are quite nice...

---"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."

Really? Decades? All NIMBY's fault?

Let's say 5 decades. What was the population of the US like 50 years ago, in 1972? It was 210 million.

Now the population of the US is 332 million.

That's a 122 million increase in 50 years. (The birthrate in the US since 1972 is below replacement levels.)

So it's all NIMBY's fault that some magically appearing 122 million people raised prices? It can't be that there are 122 million additional people, who now all have additional demand for housing. (Don't forget: Price is driven by demand and supply.)

Are you really blaming some regular folks, who don't want stuff built in their backyards for increased housing prices? And not maybe the politicians, who did the same "big number = good" game as you are playing, who then - due to their policies - allowed demand to grow by 50 percent, despite below-replacement birthrates? And you are blaming the little guy? It feels like you are hating the regular folks quite a lot, if you blame them for that problem as if it was their responsibility to build 122 million housing units, when they simply want to be left alone and live a peaceful life.

That's why I think you'd end up with countless skyscrapers of social housing. Cause you think just like the politicians, who caused all of that. It's the "big number = good" mentality. It's the "I don't care about the consequences of my actions and will simply blame the little guy for my errors" mentality. You might be solving one problem in the now, but you will be causing a new massive problem a few decades in the future, especially as you are mistaken about the current problems and what caused them.

Please remember that we are talking about people.

Not Sims in Sim City.

When you are saying "It's no longer a personal choice", you sound like a tyrant, who's willing to let his people do the sacrifices, just so that your numbers can go up.

penguincascadia3 years ago (3 edits)

No one is forcing you to have other people living in your own home. In contrast, NIMBYs blocking the construction of more housing on other people's property are reducing the property owners' freedom.

Most people are only weakly politically engaged on the local level. This allows for NIMBYs who are much more politically involved on the local level to block housing. Hence why California and Washington, among other states, are bypassing the NIMBYs by mandating broad upzoning on a statewide level.

You have the freedom to move to and live in a low density area. However, people do not have the right to force other people into poverty and homelessness just because they don't like new market rate housing.

That makes no sense. Cuban Americans are a big Republican voting group and the GOP caters to them, but you don't typically get people accusing the Republican Party of catering to Cubans as a tactic to divide white voters.

There is no infinite demand for housing because population growth is not infinite.

The entire population of the Earth is not moving to America.

NIMBYs blocked enough new housing supply to be built to meet demand from a growing population. Therefore, we can properly blame NIMBYs.

American birth rates are above replacement rate, and even if they were below replacement rate, population growth would still continue for a while because of new generations being born. There's no way around this- people need a place to live and we can build more housing or see more poverty and homelessness.

No one is saying that random people have to build housing themselves. By mass upzoning, we can leave that up to the free market which will respond to demand and lower prices.

Building more housing lowers prices, which reduces homelessness and poverty. Poverty and homelessness cause all sorts of other problems. Therefore, by building more housing, we reduce problems in the future.

Considering that upzoning typically is allowing up to five story buildings, where you are getting the skyscrapers stuff from?

NIMBYs are causing poverty and homelessness by blocking new housing. So NIMBYs are the one who are causing the problems, and people who want more housing are fixing the problems.

People do not have the right to force people into homelessness and poverty by blocking housing, just like I can't stop my car on the freeway for hours and block traffic and excuse it for saying "it's a personal choice".

NIMBYs blocking other property owners from building more housing on the other property owners' own land are forcing their own personal choice onto the property owners. It's no longer a matter of personal chpice if the NIMBYs are reducing other people's rights.

Ordinary people are the ones who are become homeless and having a lot of money being sucked away from them because of high housing prices. Ordinary people are the people who are paying the price for NIMBYs blocking housing. NIMBYs are the ones who are not leaving ordinary people alone. The people who are working for more housing are the ones leaving ordinary people alone so they are not paying high rents or mortgages or are not homeless.

Homeless people and people spending a lot of their income on rent are also, well, people. By blocking new housing that would stop them from being homeless and from shelling out too much hard earned money to big corporations, aren't NIMBYs treating people being hurt by high rents and little housing as numbers?

One group of people are working for more housing to reduce poverty and homelessness. They are also working to increase property owners' rights. They are working to increase people's rights to live decently and not be homeless. They are working to expand property rights.

Another group of people are blocking housing from being built, which throws more people on the street and more people into poverty. Their blocking of housing also reduces property owners' property rights. NIMBYs are taking away people's right to not be homeless and their right to live decently. They also are taking away people's property rights.

Tyrants are generally considered to be taking away rights. The people working to allow the construction of more housing are expanding rights. The people blocking housing are taking away rights. Who are really the tyrants?

Ravery (Ravery.net)3 years ago (1 edit) (-1)

"Cuban Americans are a big Republican voting group and the GOP caters to them, but you don't typically get people accusing the Republican Party of catering to Cubans as a tactic to divide white voters. "

Both parties in the US use identity politics and divide&conquer tactics to get votes, just so they come to power and then benefit their (rich) donors: Billionaires and big corporations.

"There is no infinite demand for housing because population growth is not infinite. The entire population of the Earth is not moving to America."

We know that due to migration (as birthrates are below replacement levels) the US has grown from 210 to 332 million in 50 years. That's a factor of 1.58. Even if we assume the same growth rate, you'd have 524 million in 50 years (so an increase by 192 million). Is your "not skyscraper" upzoning enough to house another 192 million? Don't forget that migrants typically move to big cities.

As you seem to be fond of Paris, let's take it for this example. Paris has a population of 2.161 million, so you'd need to build 88 Paris in the US in the next 50 years. Good luck with that.

(Also your polls showed support for duplexes up to sixplexes. That's far less dense than the 5-story vision that you have.)

"American birth rates are above replacement rate, and even if they were below replacement rate, population growth would still continue for a while because of new generations being born."

US birthrates are below replacement levels. Look it up. The last time it was above the 2.1 births per woman (i.e. replacement level) was in 1972. 50 Years ago. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate

"population growth would still continue for a while because of new generations being born."

That's not how it works. If you have below replacement level birthrates the population will decline without external influence.

"Who are really the tyrants?"

If you were in charge, I'm pretty sure you'd be a tyrant as you operate based on

- ignorance (e.g. misunderstanding of replacement levels as a concept, and not knowing that US is below replacement level for 50 years),

- tunnel vision (e.g. blaming a very big, complex problem on a certain group of people. Completely dismissing other factors and solutions.)

- dishonesty (e.g. using a poll that supports duplexes to sixplexes, as support for 5-story downtown apartment blocks)

- and quite frankly malice (as you blame NIMBYs (just regular people, who are happy with the state of the community they are living in) for housing prices. And you sound very, very, very angry at them.)

I would never vote for you - as long as you have that kind of worldview. Have you even calculated it out? How much cost will your "88 Paris in 50 years" plan have? How many roads will you have to widen? How much infrastructure do you have to upgrade? Is infrastructure even upgradeable to that degree? What about services? What kind of economy will fuel all of that(can't be services as they are just internal circulation)?Are there even enough natural resources to fuel your vision of so much more upgrading? How do you avoid intensifying e.g. water shortages? What about energy?

Have you even looked at other places where some massive building spree has been done in the recent past? Have you looked at China and how their construction&housing industry do now after they were doing that kind of construction spree?

I think it is good that you want to improve the world, but I think you should expand the breadth of problems which you are considering and tackle the issues with a more holistic approach. Society is very, very complex and we had enough social engineers and tunnel-visionaries trying to do heavy handed improvements to one thing, which caused a bunch of other problems simply due to "unforeseeable" (i.e. dismissed) consequences.

Try to expand your knowledge in all directions. Always(!) listen to constructive criticism against your current positions. Always ask yourself: What are the underlying causes of the problems. Sometimes it might be sufficient to solve these underlying causes.

penguincascadia3 years ago (3 edits)

Politicians doing things that voters want is not a divide and conquer tactic.

Okay. So what? You don't have to live in a city if you don't want to. People are living on homes on their own land or other people's land that they mutually agreed to use. They are not living with you.

Besides, people are already here. Plus, there's children growing up and splitting off to start their own households, which will create more demand for housing. We still need to build much more housing.

There's also the fact that much of the demand in cities is from native born Americans moving back into cities. We would still need to build more housing in cities if we take into account just them.

Also, my point about population growth not being infinite and not everyone is moving to America still stands.

Other countries have built densely with mostly only five story buildings and below, and they are much more dense then the urban parts of the U.S. So yes, we can have low rise density to meet housing demand.

The polls I posted were in support of upzoning in general being a decently popular concept. I did not make any claims about them supporting specifically five story buildings (but there are polls out there showing support for low rise density like that).

Lisa the nurse from Colorado thinks that NASA's budget makes up 10% of the budget, when it really is much less. Does that make her a tyrant? No, it does not.

We know that a lack of housing is the primary factor behind America's housing and homelessness crisis: https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem/

We also know that NIMBYs blocking new housing is the main reason for the housing shortage.

Other things we have tried, like rent control and vacancy taxes, have only helped a little bit with housing. There's no other way to fix most of the housing and homelessness crisis without

So, we have examined all the options, found most of them not sufficient, and arrive at building much more housing as the solution. That's taking a broad view of things and examining all the options.

Regular people are the ones who are suffering from high rents and homelessness because of a lack of housing. Regular people are being made unhappy by shelling out huge parts of their income to landlords and struggling to find housing. No wonder why ordinary people are angry at NIMBYs, because NIMBYs are making them miserable by blocking new housing.

So, we can conclude that on my end, there has been no tyranny.

Also, NIMBYs blocking housing are preventing ordinary people from exercising their property rights. They are also blocking ordinary people from getting cheaper housing and blocking ordinary people from getting out of homelessness. In short, they are reducing ordinary people's rights.

Ordinary people working for more housing are expanding ordinary people's property rights. They are also helping ordinary people get cheaper housing and getting ordinary people out of homelessness. They are expanding ordinary people's rights.

Tyrants are typically considered to be reducing ordinary people's rights. Who are the tyrants, the NIMBYs who are reducing ordinary people's rights or the ordinary people for more housing who are increasing ordinary people's rights?

Also, a lot of what you originally brought up does not relate to the actual topic, the lack of housing for people. Could you please try to keep to the actual topic?

You'll note that we've been discussing market rate housing. The free market, if unburdened by NIMBYs, will build it for us. There's no cost to you for the housing.

It turns out that density costs less then sprawl: http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Halifax-data.pdf So, we are saving taxpayer money in the long run with density.

Plenty of other countries have densities at that level, like most European cities. So, yes, it is very possible to upgrade infrastructure to and have an economy that supports that level.

Ditto for resources- other countries do it fine. And density is a savings on resources: https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-sa... Denser areas use less resources per capita then sprawling areas.

Besides, the people are already here. They're going to be using the resources anyway. We're just building more housing to meet their needs. And as above, density saves on those resources.

More housing and more density:

-Lowers rents and housing prices

-Reduces homelessness and all the negative effects from that

-Reduces poverty and inequality stemming from high rents

-Reduces sprawl and its negative impacts on the environment

-Reduces resources use

-Uses less taxpayer money per capita then sprawling

-And more!

So, building more housing and allowing more density is a holistic solution that addresses a lot of society's problems. The underlying problem is that people don't have enough housing, and that is causing all sorts of other issues.

Other "solutions" like not building housing and forcing ordinary people to pay very high rents and driving ordinary people to homelessness are heavy handed in their effects. Still other possible solutions like rent control solve only a little of the issue. Building more housing is the solution that fixes most of the issue.

We have considered the housing and homelessness crisis from a wide variety of views (it's negative impact on ordinary people's lives, it's negative impact on ordinary people's finances, it's negative impact on the environment, it's negative impact on city finances), etc.) We have gotten a lot of information about it that expands our knowledge in all directions, and found that building more housing has a lot of positives for ordinary people. We have found that not enough housing is the underlying issue, and building more housing fixes that.

Building more housing is the best solution for a lack of housing for people.

Ravery (Ravery.net)3 years ago

You are starting to become quite incoherent. ("Lisa the nurse from Colorado thinks that NASA's budget makes up 10% of the budget, when it really is much less. Does that make her a tyrant? No, it does not." Not only does it not make sense, it also doesn't reference anything.)

When I ask how you imagine to build these 88 Paris over the next 50 years and you respond that population growth isn't infinite, then it's quite obvious that you haven't even considered the scale of things and now simply hide behind vague generalities and deliberate, ridiculous exaggerations.

So, just tell me how you'll build these 88 Paris. How will you do it?

How many millions of people will you force out of their houses each year, just to move them into some smaller apartment, while bulldozing their garden "for the greater good"?

How. Will. You. Build. 88 Paris? How?

Just answer specifics instead of that wall-of-text that is just vague and ridiculous debate tactics ("we do not have INFINITE population growth", yeah, duh).

View more in thread

itch.io

Viewing post in Sim Nimby comments