Exactly! We’ve gotten into this weird feedback loop where NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and parking minimums and setback requirements have made there be a systemic shortage of housing in total, but particularly a shortage of dense, walkable housing near transit. This has warped the market such that large houses on large plots of land – which are objectively the luxury housing option – are cheaper than apartments or condos in a dense, walkable community near transit. This makes people think density = expensive, which makes people think we need to get rid of density for the sake of affordability, which just makes the shortage even more severe!
Can you elaborate? What about stating that I do not have the choice for noise isolated apartments demonstrates that I object to good, affordable apartments near me ?
There’s nothing that differentiates “affordable” apartments those at that aren’t except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren’t a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.
No, hence my utter confusion at being associated with NIMBYism or being oblivious to the feedback loop or contributing to the problem out of ignorance. I’m stating that the only choice in a lot of places where I live in the US is a shitty, loud apartment/condo or a house with peace and quiet.
I don’t object to apartments but I do object to the general concept of apartments always being superior to the general concept of a house and that anyone who objects is part of the problem. Bad solutions, like shitty apartments, aren’t solutions. They can actually push people away from real, good solutions.
Ultimately it comes down to Capitalism Bad, even more Bad with (inevitable) regulatory capture. I don’t think “the powers that be” are interested in providing good solutions so we aren’t going to use “market forces” to make things any better.
If you agree that well-constructed apartments/condos should be part of the solution, then you’re not a NIMBY. Unless you’re saying they should be the solution somewhere away from you(r backyard) of course.
I understand the dilemma between a bad apartment and a good house, but that shouldn’t be the dilemma, and more housing helps prevent that. Better regulation too.
![[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f6ec67a5-2636-4875-8dd4-fa5241a3083c.jpeg){kind=link}
This is the shit that exhausts me about NIMBYs. They have cause and effect totally reversed and I don’t know how that myth got so ingrained.
Exactly! We’ve gotten into this weird feedback loop where NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and parking minimums and setback requirements have made there be a systemic shortage of housing in total, but particularly a shortage of dense, walkable housing near transit. This has warped the market such that large houses on large plots of land – which are objectively the luxury housing option – are cheaper than apartments or condos in a dense, walkable community near transit. This makes people think density = expensive, which makes people think we need to get rid of density for the sake of affordability, which just makes the shortage even more severe!
Utter insanity
I’m sorry, did you just actually call me a NIMBY?
Yeah, by proxy
Can you elaborate? What about stating that I do not have the choice for noise isolated apartments demonstrates that I object to good, affordable apartments near me ?
There’s nothing that differentiates “affordable” apartments those at that aren’t except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren’t a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.
Do you? Object?
No, hence my utter confusion at being associated with NIMBYism or being oblivious to the feedback loop or contributing to the problem out of ignorance. I’m stating that the only choice in a lot of places where I live in the US is a shitty, loud apartment/condo or a house with peace and quiet.
I don’t object to apartments but I do object to the general concept of apartments always being superior to the general concept of a house and that anyone who objects is part of the problem. Bad solutions, like shitty apartments, aren’t solutions. They can actually push people away from real, good solutions.
Ultimately it comes down to Capitalism Bad, even more Bad with (inevitable) regulatory capture. I don’t think “the powers that be” are interested in providing good solutions so we aren’t going to use “market forces” to make things any better.
If you agree that well-constructed apartments/condos should be part of the solution, then you’re not a NIMBY. Unless you’re saying they should be the solution somewhere away from you(r backyard) of course.
I understand the dilemma between a bad apartment and a good house, but that shouldn’t be the dilemma, and more housing helps prevent that. Better regulation too.