Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2dlews wrote

Reply to comment by MyStackRunnethOver in This fight near Shawmut Station doesn’t bode well for easing Boston’s housing shortage - The Boston Globe by soxandpatriots1

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.

−22

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

9

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.

2