Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3720-To-One t1_ixi2scp wrote

Reply to comment by itallendsintears in Here’s Gov. Baker’s plan for dealing with the influx of migrants to Mass. by bostondotcom

And you know what would help homeless?

By making housing cheaper by getting rid of all the NIMBY zoning restrictions, and letting more housing actually be built.

And then of course, conservatives will whine about socialism.

51

imanze t1_ixi8i61 wrote

I agree with your idea but I think it’s more than conservatives that are to blame for the zoning issues we see. Most zoning laws are set at the town level and some of the towns with the worst zoning laws are incredibly wealthy yet vote blue for major elections.

16

3720-To-One t1_ixianed wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

11

spg1611 t1_ixim10l wrote

Zoning laws are set by towns and cities mostly… and most of them around here vote blue.

But continue.

8

3720-To-One t1_ixioi71 wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

3

itallendsintears t1_ixi8yx6 wrote

Well maybe but I doubt that will solve it. And I’m hardly conservative so bring on the socialism

1

3720-To-One t1_ixiaup8 wrote

I didn’t say solve… but having cheaper housing across the board will help.

And you get housing cheaper by increasing supply.

And you do that by getting rid of a lot of the nimby bullshit.

5

Ilikereddit15 t1_ixjh8k9 wrote

Conservatives? In MA?

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjhlar wrote

Yes, they exist

2

Ilikereddit15 t1_ixjiosq wrote

A minority, for sure. But let’s not kid ourselves. Nimbyism is a class construct, not political

4

3720-To-One t1_ixjjw29 wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with them always screeching “what about the homeless?!” whenever someone suggests spending money on something that they don’t like, but then they start screeching about “socialism” when someone suggests doing something to help homeless.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjia27 wrote

This boils down to "you know what would really help, is giving one political side everything they want without restriction". It's very clearly helping by one political view and no other, while claiming anything else is the enemy. There are plenty of problems with housing and zoning restrictions but most people don't realize why a lot of them are in place - for better or worse. The housing stock that's built now is built by builders who have no real sense of architecture or planning. They'd rather build a McMansion if it got them paid more.

All of this is ignoring the silly claim that it's conservatives whining when MA is solidly blue, but most towns don't handle things like some sort of caricature people expect.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjikjz wrote

And why do you think they build those McMansions?!

Because all the damn NIMBY restrictions won’t let them build anything other than SFH!

And yes, a lot of the zoning restrictions are done out of 100% greed and selfishness of existing property owners, to artificially inflate the values of their properties by restricting supply, and keeping less affluent people out. That is literally why SFH-only zoning was created.

2

pillbinge t1_ixjlw4l wrote

If builders could come up with plans to make really good, aesthetic housing, that's build solidly and densely - like you'd find in Back Bay, Charlestown, or Beacon Hill - people would change their tune. They aren't. McMansions they're building are the result of a lot of things but they could always design them better. There's no legal requirement for them. Large housing isn't just a McMansion, and this part of the country can show that in older, wealthier areas.

0

3720-To-One t1_ixjmrgu wrote

What are you not understanding?

Many locations don’t allow anything other than SFH to be built, and in other locations, restrictive zoning makes it prohibitively expensive.

You’re putting the cart before the horse.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjona7 wrote

I don't get why you keep jumping tracks. They don't, so the effort should be put into places that do allow for it. They aren't putting that effort in either. I bike by more places in Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston that are newer but weaker, worse looking, and probably future tear-downs in my own life. The buildings that aren't are ones built a long time ago and with better materials.

Why aren't places that build for multi-family complexes building ugly, dogshit, and flimsy places when they don't have the restrictions you're talking about? There's a reason the three places I mentioned are all within the same city. Expand those and get a real movement going. Not the "movement" you're laying out here.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjrp1y wrote

Because those buildings STILL have to jump through tons of hoops to get built, because of all the restrictions, AND THAT MAKES EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE!

Why are you not understanding this?

When you have to go through a gazillion different zoning board meetings, and hire lawyers, and go through a long and convoluted approvals process, it makes everything more expensive.

2

pillbinge t1_ixkx1y5 wrote

You keep bringing up topics in some rapid-fire manner and asking why I don't get something, when you might be having a hard time explaining what you mean. I do understand this. I just don't have the bland approach that you do that clearly isn't working at all.

I never said we should keep bureaucracy around. I can't stand it. At this point, you're arguing something I haven't said like I'm someone else, but showing that the real thing you value is dirt-cheap housing, when valuations in housing have primarily been hurt by financialization. Housing might have to get a bit more expensive at first. That's true of anything new that you start building. We need to build it back up again though.

1

seanwalter123 t1_ixiqqp8 wrote

Complaining about conservatism in the bluest state in the country right now.. makes sense.

−2

3720-To-One t1_ixir8ba wrote

Imagine thinking that conservatives don’t exist in a state simply because there is a solid majority of democrats.

6

seanwalter123 t1_ixiui8k wrote

I’m just confused when a state and the majority of towns have democrats running but somehow it’s “conservatives” fault for zoning laws? Conservatives don’t have a say in the governing body of this state anywhere. Clearly you want to blame republicans for faults not of their making which I get but they don’t even exist here. You’re blaming a group of people that are 100% irreverent to decision making in Massachusetts.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixius4o wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

3