Comments
Prodigal_Moon t1_j2eq3nm wrote
Yeah let’s live near MASS transit and complain about population density 😹
cozy_goth t1_j2esype wrote
Walking past an auto body lot isn't very pedestrian friendly in my experience.
People around here will complain about parking for everything, even in places clearly built for the convenience and comfort of train riders when they have better options not even far away.
SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2djkgr wrote
The residents pushed back against a 100-unit building and are asking for a compromise 27-unit building, since everything around it is beautiful old Victorians and the 100-unit building would be totally out of place. It's reasonable, you shouldn't misrepresent the argument for the sake of updoots.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2dkq1w wrote
This would sound reasonable if not for the fact that there’s always someone willing to stonewall progress on ANY change to the status quo, and Boston NIMBY’s have a decades-long history of doing exactly that. The process is roughly: demand something you know is infeasible, promise that you’re only asking for small, reasonable things, then move the goalposts until the project is abandoned, all the while asking why people are so unwilling to compromise
For elaboration, check out “Public Input is Bad, Actually” in The Atlantic
SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2dlews wrote
Would you be in favor of process reforms where these compromises can be reached earlier in the development process, as suggested in the article linked in this post?
I think people should have equity in the neighborhoods they live in, putting policies in place based on the premise that public input is bad, "Acutally," sounds dystopian. Just opening the door for developers to pave entire neighborhoods. Things can be done more thoughtfully and with better outcomes. Like compromise solutions that don't just put 100 unit glass towers in the middle of a quiet 2-lane road.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2ekrb6 wrote
I’m in favor of process reforms that reduce obstacles to building, those obstacles being silly regulations and tons and tons of public input.
I do not think homeowners who want to pretend they live in the country should be able to prevent densification of in demand areas. If they want to only have single family homes in their neighborhood they should move somewhere where a lot doesn’t cost $1mil. People get to control their property. They should not get to control everyone else’s.
This is the way the country functioned when the majority of our current housing stock was built, up through the 60’s. It’s the way every non-housing scarce major city in Europe still functions. It’s not dystopian, it’s just not absurd
FunctionalFox1312 t1_j2f38ti wrote
People having equity in neighborhoods is a very nice sounding principle until it causes a horrific homelessness crisis. Landowners should not be given free reign to strangle the economy & perpetuate a housing crisis in the name of a "neighborhood character" that doesn't even exist. We need to draw a line somewhere.
Trilliam_West t1_j2fijlr wrote
Do you think those Victorian houses sprung up from the earth like a rock formation?
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2b3c8y wrote
at the risk of being exiled from this group i am probably a little bit more “nimby” than most on this page, in the sense that i dont think we need to scramble to turn boston into a metropolis like new york but…this is a little ridiculous
shawmut is one of the least used stations and there really is no reason an auto body shops needs to be on a parcel literally next to t property
as for neighborhood character, theres a pretty large apartment building right on the corner of melbourne st and plenty along washington st/talbot, why are those fine but not this?
its too bad we couldnt reroute the tracks and place a station right in codman instead of nestled between million dollar homes on melville and ashmont hill
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2b7uzu wrote
Don't apologize because you want to keep your area the way it is!!!!
People buy homes not only for the home, but for the area too. There is NOTHING wrong with having neighborhoods where people can feel like they can walk, ride bikes, is safe for children, with some outdoor yard space and places to park.
Those who cry NIMBY are the ignorants who don't understand the word and throw it around like confetti thinking people will back down or change their minds. Screw that.
If people wanted to live in a congested area they would live in one. Absolutely nothing to feel ashamed about, and stop apologizing for wanting to live your life as you want.
dtmfadvice t1_j2bu7i0 wrote
Housing is a human right.
There are more people than there were fifty years ago.
There are more people living in Boston than there were 50 years ago.
We've been adding jobs faster than we've been adding homes for several decades now.
If we don't increase the number of homes, people with more money will outbid people with less money for the homes.
Your choices are "keep the buildings the same and have skyrocketing prices, homelessness and displacement" vs "build more homes and have density, so there's homes for everyone."
Keeping your neighborhood the way it used to be is not an option. Nostalgia is lovely but is absolutely poisonous as a housing policy.
ShawshankExemption t1_j2c61hf wrote
When you buy your house you get no covenants, no promises that your neighbors will change, that their houses wont change. It’s rights to that one property, it’s not rights to influence what your neighbors do and make demands of them.
Safe neighbors, walkability, outdoor space, arent contra more housing, they aren’t contra apartment buildings.
Quite literally people do want to live in these ‘congested’ areas. That’s why there is demand for housing in them. Hell 20-30 years ago and before dorchester was considered a congested area compared to the suburbs. There is a damn mass transit station across the street.
NIMBY is ‘not in my back yard’ its someone who thinks their property, their yard, extends to their neighbors, and down their street. It’s someone who thinks they have a right to dictate to others what they can do with their own property simply by having been in the general area first. By preventing these condos/apts they are preventing families from safe shelter, people from moving out in their own for the first time, from downsizing in old age to housing they can manage.
Codspear t1_j2d6oq6 wrote
> There is NOTHING wrong with having neighborhoods where people can feel like they can walk, ride bikes, is safe for children, with some outdoor yard space and places to park.
Density and people don’t make neighborhoods dangerous, cars make them dangerous. Even the densest parts of NYC were perfectly safe to do all those things in 1900. Who knew that crisscrossing the human environment with fast-moving heavy machinery would be so dangerous? Especially for children.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2d240q wrote
Here, have another downvote
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2d9pas wrote
Thank you. It just outs people who have zero regard for neighborhoods, and are just sellouts to developers who don't care about it either. We can see how many people support developers who come into neighborhoods to make their millions.
People have rights to decide how their area is developed. Many more are starting to speak up against over building.
There is no need to turn Boston/MA into a large city/cities. Supporters are destroying the area in some delusional thinking that more building will bring prices down.
MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2ddle6 wrote
“Delusional thinking” -> all the papers published about housing costs
theliontamer37 t1_j2df894 wrote
Lol building will bring prices down. You’re from New Hampshire too. Lmfao can’t make this shit up
Prodigal_Moon t1_j2e7wss wrote
Holy shit, you debunked supply and demand? I can’t wait to read the paper.
3720-To-One t1_j2e1vsk wrote
Please enlighten us as to where everyone is supposed to live?
Somehow I doubt you get this bent out of shape every time there’s some new office or lab space built downtown.
Guess what, each new lab or office space just further increases demand for housing.
“I got mine, fuck anybody else.”
No, you are not entitled to have your neighborhood never change. Your neighborhood was not ordained by god, and at one point, it was probably farmland.
Codspear t1_j2ee8r9 wrote
> We can see how many people support developers who come into neighborhoods to make their millions.
Yes, I support people who provide a human necessity, shelter. I’m also a sellout to farmers who plant and harvest thousands of acres of land to make their millions too. I’m also a sellout to biotech companies that develop new ways to treat and cure illnesses to make their millions as well.
It’s almost as if people who do things that are necessary should get paid for it. Crazy thought.
> People have rights to decide how their area is developed. Many more are starting to speak up against over building.
Why should you have more of a right to determine how a property is developed than the owner of the property itself? If I and a few neighbors think your property should be an ice cream shop, should we be able to force you to bulldoze your house to provide us an ice cream shop?
> There is no need to turn Boston/MA into a large city/cities. Supporters are destroying the area in some delusional thinking that more building will bring prices down.
It’s already a large city and should organically get larger if the demand is there to do so. Building more is the only way to drop prices and allow more people the opportunity to live in the area. Also, Boston was destroyed when it passed 10k people, and then again when it passed 100k people, and then again when it passed 500k people. It’ll be destroyed again when it passes 1 million people and then again when it hits 1.5 million. Boston is always dead and always dying, ever since the Puritans first arrived. Hell, even the Massachusett tribe probably destroyed it after taking it from some other tribe a century earlier. Places change, just accept it.
huron9000 t1_j2f7nob wrote
Yes! Really like the way you put this all.
drowsylacuna t1_j2di9qy wrote
One of the complaints is limited parking for the new development. I don't think the neighbors are too concerned about walking and riding bikes.
3720-To-One t1_j2e1d9m wrote
“I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
Yeah, except that your NIMBYism screws over everyone else, when there’s a massive housing shortage because everyone thinks that they are entitled to never have their neighborhood change, ever, and that everyone else looking for a place to live needs to go somewhere else.
Well guess what, somewhere else is also filled with NIMBYs with your exact same attitude.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2bazf8 wrote
its an understandable argument
most people on here didnt grow up here and dont have the same reference for their neighborhood as maybe you and i did, they just want their rent to go down, which is fair
i just dislike the notion around here sometimes that we need to become this super high density city for…some reason
liberal_hack t1_j2cosgr wrote
Because there is huge demand to live in this city? We could continue to grow our economy and provide high quality of life to lots of people.
Dickheads that already got theirs and want the state to arbitrarily restrict housing to pump up their property values are a blight on this and every city.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2cp3zz wrote
my point being we dont need to be a massive metropolis city
we are and can be a good mid sized city, we dont need to be continually outpacing our housing stock by bringing in high paying tech jobs and squeezing out the middle class
liberal_hack t1_j2cph62 wrote
Building housing helps the middle class. Restricted housing just leads to highest bidders getting limited stock, pricing out people down the income scale disproportionately.
We shouldn’t arbitrarily decide what size city we want, we should just build enough housing to meet the demand. Otherwise people end up priced out and suffering low quality of life with long commutes.
We could build 150,000 units and still be nowhere near a “metropolis”. If every one of those got filled we’d still only be the 18th most populous city in the country.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2cpv89 wrote
because city land is far smaller than most other cities in the country, we are like the 8th biggest metro
i never said that i am against building housing, just that a blanket “build” policy is not conducive to building neighborhoods and communities. the seaport is a perfect example of building soulless neighborhoods
take care of boston residents before enticing more and more biotech and life science startups here
Codspear t1_j2d7es4 wrote
> i never said that i am against building housing, just that a blanket “build” policy is not conducive to building neighborhoods and communities. the seaport is a perfect example of building soulless neighborhoods.
Nearly all of Boston was built out under a blanket build policy. Ever notice how cities in the Northeast suddenly had housing shortages and stopped growing right after they instituted zoning laws? What if zoning laws were implemented in 1890 instead and Boston was stuck at half its current size but at twice the price? What if everything south of Melnea Cass was single-family housing only instead of the neighborhood you know now? Would that have been better? And if it wouldn’t be, how do you know that where your neighborhood is now is the best it could be? Why wasn’t it better when it was only farms?
Also, the Seaport was centrally planned by the city under community-directed zoning. Boston prioritized jobs back then because it was still largely working class in the 90’s. Seaport is intentionally a second downtown. That’s what was voted for.
dtmfadvice t1_j2dy9zl wrote
You don't get to pick where other people live. You don't get to limit the population. You can't prohibit people from doing work and getting paid for it in the name of keeping your hometown from changing.
China's hukou system, which requires permits for rural people to move to cities, is a dystopian nightmare and it doesn't even stop people from moving to cities illegally.
Yak_Rodeo t1_j2dz3xe wrote
deciding on the direction the city goes is literally what voting is for lol
ill keep voting the way i want, thanks though
just_planning_ahead t1_j2du0e1 wrote
I grew up here though this shouldn't matter. You don't need a lifetime of living here to recognize "character of the neighborhood".
If your statement is "I don't want Boston to become Manhattan", I think most wouldn't disagree with that. The downvotes reflects not a desire to turn Boston into Manhattan, but to try to stop Boston from becoming San Francisco***.
I'm seeing more and more people in my life moving out to stupidly far locations out of Boston. I bet you would just say they are just "reaching that phase of life", but that ignores my friend's words that a lot would pick something closer - if they can afford it. The only people in my life who been avoiding that so far are people-living-with-their-parents or techies - and even some of the techies moving out
What good is "preserving the neighborhood" if the people you know and care about can't afford to stay in the neighborhood?
And that's the thing with your argument. Regardless of what your claims, the results mean you're advocating to become SF. A city where the 6-figure income techies only really afford apartments reminiscent to your college years and a constantly-under-siege class of essential workers essentially winning the lottery through one of the affordable housing programs.
***It is notable that latest news that Boston has surpassed SF in rent prices. But what the news haven't cover as much is SF's rent prices has been decreasing lately rather than we finally catch up.
3720-To-One t1_j2e3ej9 wrote
“What good is "preserving the neighborhood" if the people you know and care about can't afford to stay in the neighborhood?”
As far as NIMBYs care, “I got mine, fuck everybody else.”
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j2bdmty wrote
This is the new Manifest Destiny attitude, and I bet most of the people are the ones who think they are so socially aware about everything.
Then of course there is the aspect that the proposed design of areas by Climate Changers, think we all need to live in high rise apartments on top of each other so they can get live their dream of everyone abandoning their cars and use public transportation.
Time to recycle this trash and tell them there are plenty of places in the country they can go to live out their utopian society
ShawshankExemption t1_j2c6gol wrote
Half of your posts are about traffic in NH. Go move to your perfect utopia there if you think someone should move and if you hate the idea of more people moving into your neighborhood, practice what you preach and leave.
3720-To-One t1_j2e3mo7 wrote
I swear to god, conservatives LOVE to complain about a problem, while also scoffing at the very things that would alleviate said problem.
And of course, it’s always everyone else that’s the problem that needs to leave or change, not them.
[deleted] t1_j2bsx9s wrote
[removed]
king_fishy t1_j2cbfwq wrote
This is shawmut. I grew up 2 blocks away, and knew it was (is) even more of a dump. What do they even mean pedestrian friendly? My friends lived there and getting jumped and mugged by other high school kids was a fixture for them during the school year. Don’t believe me? A rabble of kids mugged a 69 yr old outside the train station just this May. Any development is welcomed.
Junior-Arrival6299 t1_j2dt3cp wrote
Actually there’s pretty nice houses over there. Dorchester is weird like that, 2 city blocks makes a huge difference lol
soxandpatriots1 OP t1_j2b20mx wrote
Key points:
> Objections to Trinity’s original plan focused mostly on density, limited new parking, and the impact on traffic, according to interviews with abutters and other residents.
> They also said a five-floor apartment block would not fit with the city’s Neighborhood Design Overlay for the area, one of 19 in Dorchester intended “to protect the historic character, existing scale, and quality of the pedestrian environment” of the designated districts, according to the Boston Planning and Development Agency.
> “There was no effort done in terms of the scale or architectural style to make any sort of concession to the neighborhood overlay district,” said Andrew Saxe, whose 1895 Victorian home sits across a narrow street from the Fitzpatrick site. “The people here don’t feel like they’re protected,” he said, when a developer can come in with a plan that far exceeds zoning limits.
> Trinity now envisioned a four-story building with about 80 units. The concession wasn’t enough to change many minds.
> “We want housing that looks like what we have: smaller, more home-like,” said Vicma Desir, who lives up the street from the site and is a board member of the Codman Square Neighborhood Council.
> The letter of intent calls for 74 units — mostly one- and two-bedroom apartments and nine studios — and 39 off-street parking spaces. It would set aside 45 apartments at rates affordable for low- and middle-income tenants.
> Both sides will now face off in the city’s formal review, which could take a year or more to complete.
Maxpowr9 t1_j2bh2nl wrote
Ah gotta love shitty NIMBYs. My solution, start raising property taxes and they NIMBYs will move away.
RoaminRonin13 t1_j2e2yia wrote
Are there images anywhere? I looked around a bit and couldn’t quickly find anything.
I know this sub is overrun by “NIMBYs bad, blindly build housing everywhere” types, but I really don’t know how people are so full-throated in their support of this project at its original 100 units without seeing the renderings and plans. It might be fine, and it might also be a travesty.
The answer to Boston’s housing woes isn’t to just let developers build whatever they want on every lot they can find. Projects should be contextual, and increased density (meaning things like 100 unit condo buildings, not simply any kind of multi family) should probably be reserved for certain parts of each neighborhood. Parking (less so “traffic”) should also not be dismissed, as in a neighborhood like Dot I think it’s safe to assume a decent chunk of these people will have cars - not 100%, but not zero either. We can argue about whether or not people should need them, but can’t ignore the reality that plenty of people have a vehicle.
Regardless, I don’t see how we can be out here making an informed decision based on this less then substantial write up by the Globe. Renderings and drawings or we don’t know what we’re talking about.
ImpressiveEffect8212 t1_j2e4k3z wrote
> increased density should probably be reserved for certain parts of each neighborhood
Hmmm…you mean like across the street from a subway station next to a school with different/out of place architecture relative to the rest of this neighborhood?
Gee, that sounds a lot like, idk, this project lol
RoaminRonin13 t1_j2e69w6 wrote
And so maybe this project should be built - I didn’t say it shouldn’t be.
Do you know the area? And have you seen the project proposal? I haven’t seen the proposed building, so I’m reserving judgment - since the average person on this sub couldn’t even find this neighborhood other than on a Red Line map, I’m not sure we’re dealing with informed opinions. Everyone’s just screaming “NIMBYs bad” for fake internet points.
Nobel6skull t1_j2e4qfp wrote
Removed wrong project.
Here the letter of intent for the 140 / 150 center st project which seams to be the only thing public right now. And here is the Boston plans link for the project. Still just a letter of intent right now. So hopefully they plan to build something pretty.
RoaminRonin13 t1_j2e569u wrote
That’s in Mattapan.
Edit: One of these projects in Mattapan by the Fairmount line is under construction, off Morton Street. Looks like a lot of units going in, I’m curious to see how it turns out.
I’d also suggest, with no disrespect meant, that not knowing where these projects even are should give people pause in having such energetic opinions.
Nobel6skull t1_j2e90kr wrote
No one here has anything that could accurately be described as energetic opinions. I mistook the plans because the opposition to the 140/150 center st project comes from the “Codman square association” according to the globe and the first link was submitted by the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation thus the confusion and why it’s always import to tripple check which obviously I didn’t.
taguscove t1_j2bsqn0 wrote
Buy Boston real estate if you possibly can and enjoy as you get rich. Seems too good to be true, but it really is that simple. You have an horde of NIMBYs who will ensure that meaningful housing supply is strangled
TakenOverByBots t1_j2bvzub wrote
If we could afford to buy in Boston don't you think we would? That's the whole point of why we need more housing.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_j2dt2t5 wrote
Maybe you should have thought of that before being born not rich.
TakenOverByBots t1_j2dyy0x wrote
I kick myself for this foolish mistake every day.
3720-To-One t1_j2e3t8t wrote
I kick myself for not being born 5 years sooner, so I would have been in prime position to buy real estate in 2008-2009.
TakenOverByBots t1_j2e4zyb wrote
I was in my late 20s and had the money, I even took a homebuying course..and yet was afraid to pull the trigger. It's tough when you're single and don't have any family to counsel you either....I feel like if I had had even one person to ask "hey, is this a good idea?", I would have done it. Sadly, no reddit to ask back then either. It sucks that I STILL don't have anyone to talk to about this but reddit.
3720-To-One t1_j2e7xb9 wrote
To be fair, sounds better than graduating college and starting your adult working life in the worst recession since the Great Depression
That was NOT fun trying to start a career back then.
taguscove t1_j2c1pg8 wrote
Yeah, it pisses me off as well.
Schismatist7 t1_j2c26m2 wrote
The new apartment building on the corner of Mass and Columbus is a good example of how you can maintain neighborhood character while building new housing. There are multiple brick low income housing buildings throughout the south end many 6 or so stories tall.
I don’t think glass towers belong, but that’s just aesthetic preference.
Nobel6skull t1_j2e52bp wrote
People like to act as though giant 50 story glass and concrete monstrosities that destroy quality of life are the only way to build housing despite living in a city, full of examples of beautiful, dense housing.
3720-To-One t1_j2eixjp wrote
It blows my mind how much people seem to think the only options for housing are single family homes or Kowloon city.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_j2dtnut wrote
I get NIMBYs not giving a shit about people who aren't them needing housing. They got theirs and fuck everyone else.
Are all these people childless misers? Do they realize that by shutting out new housing stock they are all but guaranteeing that their children will have to move away once they are grown? I don't want to hear them whine about never seeing their kids or grandkids because their offspring had to move to the far flung exurbs, if not out of the area entirely, in order to find an affordable community.
We really need to start talking about NIMBYs with the same scorn we talk about dirtbike douches or graffiti vandals, because these people are absolutely anti-social assholes deliberately making the community a less pleasant place to live.
RoaminRonin13 t1_j2e52l6 wrote
I mean, what evidence do we have that their stance is “I got mine, fuck you”?
This sub is full of people who are a) lying to themselves about how they would react in similar situations (big condo building next door, homeless shelter next door, whatever), and b) vilifying anyone who says “wait a minute, this building might suck in this location”.
Honestly, did you find plans for this project? Assuming no, how do you know these neighbors are being assholes? How do you know fewer units than the developer started with us worse? Just because of our housing shortage? So we should just jam high density shit everywhere, when there’s actually plenty of developable land for housing that isn’t in established neighborhoods?
NIMBYs are a fundamental problem with housing development throughout the greater Boston area - in my own neighborhood (suburb) I am someone defending increased density from NIMBY attacks. That doesn’t mean the developers should get to do whatever they want, or that the maxed-out site is always the right answer. You can be a YIMBY and still fight for appropriateness in these project.
Coming this hard at anyone who speaks up and trashing them as a NIMBY is also just the other side of the same “housing extremist” coin. NIMBYs are, yes, assholes who only care about themselves and their weird fantastical sense of their communities - but as I said, not everyone questioning development is actually a NIMBY. Screaming about it isn’t going to help solve the problem, it’s only going to further alienate these people as individuals who are not from their communities stomp their feet about forcing through multi family residential.
3720-To-One t1_j2ej6w0 wrote
Except every NIMBY has some excuse as to why anything more dense than SFH can’t possibly built there bad needs to go somewhere else.
It’s always somewhere else.
And in the end, nothing gets built as a result.
[deleted] t1_j2f6sr1 wrote
[deleted]
hemingwai t1_j2cc70t wrote
When will the suburbs with T/commuter rail access start doing their part? Why does the need for so much density and congestion have to fall on the city exclusively? Until the T is reliable, people are still going to need cars to practically live their lives.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j2bv5u3 wrote
Just going to leave this NYT piece on how liberal hypocrisy is fueling inequality in America here:
Lemonio t1_j2c17ag wrote
This was an interesting video, but it’s kinda light on data and heavy on opinion Do you know if there’s any good written content related to housing that makes similar points but with more data?
Chippopotanuse t1_j2dffqq wrote
The old conservative ethos of “we have lots of theories but no proof!”
Take those 18 states. The thesis of the video is “well, those states ought to show us what happens when republicans can’t obstruct things! But Dems are full of shit because they say they want more equality, better health care, blah blah blah, and those states are shitholes.”
But for those 18 states:
-
how does their life expectancy compare to the red/mixed states?
-
how does their median income compare?
-
how does their teen pregnancy rates compare?
-
how does their auto fatality and overdose rates compare?
-
what about women’s rights?
-
voting rights?
-
LGBTQ rights?
-
Legalized weed?
-
how does any other public health metric compare?
Because it isn’t really a burn to say “hey…these BLUE states that have their act together…hmmm, everyone seems to have higher incomes, folks live longer, they do better…and woah - what’s this - the land and houses cost more because MORE folks wants to live there than the shitty Red states…”
There’s a reason the video skimps on data.
Because it wouldn’t support any thesis that California, NY, NJ, CT, or MA is “worse off” or “promotes inequality” more than Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, West Virginia, or Alabama. Those states have shit tons of broke ass sick people who are suffering and dying of very preventable causes at ages far younger than they should be.
Lemonio t1_j2dmqe9 wrote
I mean on the topic of this thread, it is true that there are issues with not enough housing and that zoning is often a problem
I’d like to be able to share some data when people I know oppose nearby housing projects
Obviously a video like this isn’t convincing if it just talks about like two examples
dtmfadvice t1_j2do84d wrote
Here's a collection of citations for you:
https://www.zotero.org/groups/4878123/yimby_references/library
Dukeofdorchester t1_j2dmobq wrote
Let me just start by saying I don’t vote because I’ve accepted we live in an oligarchy and both parties are set on keeping it that way. I’m just speaking strictly on the cost of housing. The most expensive places to rent are mostly in Democratic areas. You’re right about the good things about those areas. That being said, the solution to make it affordable so more people can make a go at having a great life is to build more housing. My point is: the Republicans say “pull up your bootstraps”, the Democrats say “not in my backyard”. It’s two sides of the same coin when it comes down to it.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_j2dqihq wrote
>I don't vote
Stopped reading right there. Your opinion literally does not matter if you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is. Non-participation in democracy is why we can't have nice things.
Dukeofdorchester t1_j2dylwy wrote
We don’t have a democracy when the two ruling parties only serve wall st, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the military industrial complex and special interests. I’ve just accepted it and have stopped pretending my vote matters and these politicians are actually going to do something for the common good.
[deleted] t1_j2e5t3i wrote
[deleted]
RoaminRonin13 t1_j2e36dr wrote
I don’t think that at this point very many people deny that “liberal hypocrisy” is contributing to inequality.
AutoModerator t1_j2b1qi1 wrote
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles here.
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
spedmunki t1_j2b9q8h wrote
They should make Saxe and Desir’s yards “designated gang shootout zones” to fit with neighborhood character
BackBae t1_j2c7mlf wrote
I can’t believe tearing down an unused auto body shop on top of a T station and replacing it with housing will destroy character…
The neighbors want to preserve a “pedestrian friendly environment” by… vehemently opposing high density housing? Things need to look “more home like”- because single family homes are the only type of home…
That’s a damn high parking ratio for being- again- directly on top of a heavy rail station, and people are still complaining about parking??