Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxgo11 wrote

Reply to comment by johnsonutah in How can we incentivize real discussions around solutions to home affordability in CT? by otter_spud

If they're defending a racist strategy, and it's not even subtle, we should kowtow to their feefees?

2

ertebolle t1_ity5sgb wrote

It’s not about feefees, it’s just that antiracism isn’t a project they’re particularly invested in (or feel any sense of obligation to assist with). The tax / cultural benefits to adding new residents are a much better carrot than earning KendiBucks.

3

Whaddaulookinat t1_itybe0f wrote

But not calling out clear dog whistles isn't a viable strategy either, nor is ignoring the clear economic and cultural alliances that can be formed at the state and federal level. The "selfish" case has been made: density helps property value and increases economic vitality, asymmetry issues over changes of taste, etc...

Those that are really against change are against it because they feel demographic threat. Most people are in favor of moderate change in zoning restrictions, those that are opposed should be called out to defend their positions

4

johnsonutah t1_itxiwxg wrote

Living in the suburbs, and wanting to live in the burbs, doesn’t mean you’re racist

2

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxkaiw wrote

But almost to a person anyone that is opposed to any density is racist as shit. Think tunxis Hill in Fairfield is awful? Just cause minorities have the ability to afford there. I live there we have a ball, no matter what Go fuck yourself, I'm done with kid gloves on obvious racist tropes that are trying to be sly. Just had to use that trope didn't you?

Oh and btw where is the source of economic activity? Not in the suburbs nothing happens there. You just want an urban life without the give of living in a community. So again go fuck yourself

2

johnsonutah t1_itxlr67 wrote

Idk what trope you are talking about lol wtf. CT cities are barely sources of economic activity - there are loafs of businesses located outside of CT cities in the burbs. Nobody wants an urban life in CT because most of our cities are underinvested in.

I’m actually in support of investing in our cities, infrastructure and public transportation so that we have improved economic growth and more housing options. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

Also minorities don’t have the ability to afford whatever you are talking about - lower income folks do. Race isn’t a factor to income qualified housing.

2

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxo7p3 wrote

>Idk what trope you are talking about lol wtf. CT cities are barely sources of economic activity - there are loafs of businesses located outside of CT cities in the burbs. Nobody wants an urban life in CT because most of our cities are underinvested in.

The "we want suburbs to stay suburbs" is a constant trope which makes no sense, and often when pressed those that day that nonsense end up showing racist and classist colours

And remember CT is largely urban. The inner ring municipalities are all also urban in form and function. Between the core and inner ring that's 75% of CTs population.

>I’m actually in support of investing in our cities, infrastructure and public transportation so that we have improved economic growth and more housing options. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

And all I'm arguing is we should go back to allowing more pre 1970s style development, like the old trolley towns in more affluent municipalities. Not having every house being a 4000sqft behemoth on an acre isn't a bad thing. No one is calling for turning west Hartford into Blade Runners LA

>Also minorities don’t have the ability to afford whatever you are talking about - lower income folks do. Race isn’t a factor to income qualified housing.

And honestly that's why this zoning pattern emerged, the supreme court said it was allowed and not directly racially motivated (even if it clearly was) and the trend caught on like wildfire. You honestly can't defend the accent of this more recent development mandates and try to uncouple it with racism.

3

johnsonutah t1_itxq3x8 wrote

There’s a myriad of reasons for people saying they want the suburbs to stay the suburbs, the chief ones being they don’t want more neighbors, want a small school system, don’t want additional traffic. It’s no more complicated than that lol.

I already said my piece - I support mixed use development in the burbs especially around train stations.

4

Whaddaulookinat t1_itxrfcg wrote

>the chief ones being they don’t want more neighbors, want a small school system, don’t want additional traffic. It’s no more complicated than that lol.

But ok my family has been in CT for at least a millennia... The suburbs as they are now are very new it's just a silly mindset. And if there was more activism against new sfh on large lots (the number one source oh school children) construction there'd be a point but there isn't which tells us everything.

It's not like these communities have just came to this issue, it's been ongoing since the 70s... No real reason to allow a state power to give selfishness more weight than it deserves frankly

2

johnsonutah t1_itxwy95 wrote

CT has always been a large collection of quiet towns. Our cities used to be meaningful economic centers.

There’s no activism against single family homes cause they ain’t bringing many homes, and there ain’t many being built give. How developed our burbs are (unless you want to clear the woods I guess)

1