• Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      2·
      7 hours ago

      Nah, I want infill development and densification. Currently, NIMBY land use policies such as single-family zoning make it literally illegal to build anything denser than a detached single-family house on the majority of urban land in the US and Canada, which leads to endless suburban sprawl, a severe housing crisis, and a near-complete dependence on cars.

      Get rid of these NIMBY land use policies, and people will be able to build denser, less sprawling, more transit-oriented cities.

      Today the effect of single-family zoning is far-reaching: It is illegal on 75 percent of the residential land in many American cities to build anything other than a detached single-family home.

      That figure is even higher in many suburbs and newer Sun Belt cities, according to an analysis The Upshot conducted with UrbanFootprint, software that maps and measures the impact of development and policy change on cities.

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html

  • halyk.the.red
    7·
    21 hours ago

    There are already millions of empty homes. How about make it illegal to hoard housing and make shelter a right? How about making it illegal to artificially drive up demand by creating false scarcity?

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    10·
    23 hours ago

    Who are these people in the crowd supposed to represent? I can’t figure out who would celebrate affordable rental pricing and also get angry about new construction

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    71·
    1 day ago

    Even taking you at your word, just building more houses wouldn’t solve the problem unless the other existing issues are solved first. There are already more than enough houses, several times more unoccupied houses than there are homeless people in fact. If you just make it easier to build more, those new houses will just end up in the same situation as the existing lot: bought up by corporate groups as investments, held ransom by landlords, and generally NOT made available to consumers who want to buy a home.

    So yeah. You’re gonna see some pushback if you’re only making that second argument, all that will do is make the investor class richer without solving any problems.

    • JamesFire@lemmy.world
      2·
      16 hours ago

      There are already more than enough houses, several times more unoccupied houses than there are homeless people in fact.

      A huge chunk of them are not where people want/need to live though.

      Vacant housing in Detroit doesn’t help people living in SF