Banea-Vaedr t1_j41ofhb wrote
If the legislature were to allow another city to develop, like Springfield or Worcester, it would alleviate this problem.
It might mean Boston losing its death grip on power, but it sure beats this.
Codspear t1_j41xvce wrote
If we just allowed developers to develop, we wouldn’t have this problem.
paganlobster t1_j437561 wrote
Developers only want to build "luxury" trash.
Codspear t1_j43hl9l wrote
Housing is housing and every extra unit is good. We don’t tell watermelon farmers they aren’t allowed to grow watermelons just because there’s a shortage of affordable wheat somewhere.
paganlobster t1_j43i2ob wrote
Not if no one can afford watermelons and so they just rot in the stands. These luxury units get built in droves, go for insane rates, and sit empty while people who could afford a cheaper unit are out on the street because there's not enough affordable supply.
[deleted] t1_j43oj45 wrote
[deleted]
GaleTheThird t1_j46tedc wrote
> These luxury units get built in droves, go for insane rates, and sit empty while people who could afford a cheaper unit are out on the street
[Citation Needed]
paganlobster t1_j480ykm wrote
lmao, how about you prove that the luxury units actually get occupied? or you could just google it
[deleted] t1_j48fu1m wrote
[deleted]
Rakall12 t1_j594e6r wrote
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of supply and demand. If there's less of the luxury units, then people will bid more for the limited available ones and the ones that get priced out will go down a tier. It just trickles down.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j41y1ks wrote
Not allowing people to have a voice is how you get domestic terrorism, something Massachusetts is very comfortable with.
Codspear t1_j41yqxi wrote
Why should a neighbor have a voice over property they don’t own? If you don’t want more housing within a mile of you, buy up all the property within a mile of you, but don’t tell other people what they can or can’t build on THEIR property.
Also, I’d love to see a NIMBY blow themselves up trying to rig an improvised explosive together. That’d be hilarious.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j41z0ff wrote
>Why should a neighbor have a voice over property they don’t own? If you don’t want more housing within a mile of you, buy up all the property within a mile of you, but don’t tell other people what they can or can’t build on THEIR property.
It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.
>Also, I’d love to see a NIMBY blow themselves up trying to rig an improvised explosive together. That’d be hilarious.
Codspear t1_j424ea2 wrote
> It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.
Better to have freedom than peace. I’d rather have property rights, affordable market-rate housing, and the occasional NIMBY terrorist than the status quo.
>brings up the killdozer
You’re just making a case for the 2nd amendment covering RPG launchers.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j424kco wrote
In fact, you will have the opposite because it's not occasional, it happens all the time.
Codspear t1_j4250yx wrote
So be it. I reserve the right to shoot terrorists that seek to do serious harm to my family and/or property.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j4259ii wrote
So did black Southerners. How'd that go?
If enough people hate you, you will lose. It's better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don't have the power to use force
Codspear t1_j426kb9 wrote
> So did black Southerners. How’d that go?
They’re free now, so apparently it worked. But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.
> If enough people hate you, you will lose. It’s better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don’t have the power to use force.
Lol. You greatly overestimate the number of people willing to commit violence against someone else over an apartment building. Even if they were willing, it’s better to die free than live on your knees.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j427824 wrote
>They’re free now, so apparently it worked.
They didn't do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don't have the force to back up your proclamations, they don't matter.
>But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.
History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia. It doesnt end. There are no "sides of history". If Hitler stayed out of France and we'd be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.
Codspear t1_j429772 wrote
> They didn’t do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don’t have the force to back up your proclamations, they don’t matter.
I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.
> History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m critiquing you from the right.
> It doesnt end. There are no “sides of history”. If Hitler stayed out of France and we’d be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.
There is a right side of history: The side that won.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42afn7 wrote
>I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.
Marches mean nothing when you don't have the guns to make it work. Selma was a tactical disaster, for example. What it did was draw support from people with guns who would otherwise not have been sympathetic.
>There is a right side of history: The side that won.
The side that won so far. There is no permanent victory. It's entirely possible that in 200 years, the fall of the nazi regime is discussed as the greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind.
3720-To-One t1_j427ka0 wrote
The problem is that NIMBYs prevent developers from developing and building new housing all over the state.
Everyone thinks that their precious little neighborhood was ordained by god and that they are all entitled to never have their neighborhood ever change, and that new housing should be built somewhere else.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j427wwq wrote
The key is to link it to something else. Want rail service? Allow this housing. Want a road repair grant. Allow this housing. You know. Negotiate.
Or, you build an alliance against them, like how WMA was brought on board for a law requiring places with MBTA service to allow higher-density housing because it protects WMA from further encroachment.
WinsingtonIII t1_j42rey2 wrote
I mean, that's basically what this new law is: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities
The question is whether the penalties on the towns who don't comply actually get enforced.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42sibb wrote
That is the law I was referring to with my comment. That solves one problem, but not others. You still need to negotiate
GigiGretel t1_j42tp2l wrote
and a high speed rail between these cities and Boston
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42tsuo wrote
Fuck that. High speed rail to Boston would just continue enlarging Boston. Independent development is key. Making Boston larger is what's causing this issue, killing civil society and making things worse for everyone
WinsingtonIII t1_j42rbwj wrote
The state literally passed legislation to force communities with or near MBTA access (including CR) to loosen their zoning laws: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities
I really don't think it's accurate to present it as if the state government is preventing other municipalities from developing, generally zoning laws are local so its the municipalities themselves who are preventing the development. The state government is far from perfect, but on this issue they are pushing municipalities to loosen their zoning restrictions, not the other way around.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42tf1p wrote
>The state literally passed legislation to force communities with or near MBTA access (including CR) to loosen their zoning laws:
Forcing people to comply only works if you're able to make it work. They can force Lowell to follow that law, but that law doesn't apply outside of the zones.
>I really don't think it's accurate to present it as if the state government is preventing other municipalities from developing,
Massachusetts has an illustrious history of crippling local economies to benefit Boston. The most famous example is Shays' Rebellion, where wealthy Bostoners elected to use militia instead of stop scamming farmers. More recently, the tolls on I-90 that were definitely certainly temporary to repay installation costs fund the big dig~ ~fix the budget hole from the big dig fund Boston.
WinsingtonIII t1_j42ux4j wrote
I mean, fair, but I just think it's weird to say the state doesn't want to allow Worcester to develop when Worcester is literally one of the municipalities impacted by that law who is being told "you have to allow development."
I'm fine with more development in Springfield too (is the state gov preventing that?), but prioritizing the Boston metro area towns with transit access for more development arguably does make a lot of sense given Boston is where a lot of jobs are and people need to be able to live commuting distance to those jobs. The housing crunch is a problem across MA, but it is much worse closer into Boston than it is in Central or Western MA, the prices are significantly higher in the Boston metro.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42vhp5 wrote
Worcester isn't really impacted by the law because the requirements are already met in Worcester. The stuff that stops Worcester and Springfield from growing is shit like shuttering a major manufacturer out of hate and putting 550 people out of work, or putting tolls on the only major east-west highway (which turns a 45 minute drive between the two into a 2 hour drive),
The bigger issue is that policies are enacted that benefit Boston at the cost of harm to smaller cities. Boston alone can no longer deal with the issue. They need to play ball.
WinsingtonIII t1_j42wc7i wrote
The fact Worcester already meets the requirements is not "not allowing" Worcester to develop.
I agree that development needs to happen outside of Boston too, but I'm not in agreement that the state government is preventing that development. Local municipal zoning laws and NIMBYs at town meetings are far more likely to be preventing development in individual municipalities than the state is, the state isn't really directly involved in local zoning decisions.
The traffic issues here are hardly just due to tolls, pretty much all of which are automated with EZPass at this point here anyways. Worcester to Springfield is roughly an hour drive as it is 50-55 miles, the issue is more than once you get inside of Worcester the population density goes way up so the traffic goes way up. Getting rid of every toll on the Pike wouldn't change that population density and traffic problem.
Either way, though more development in Springfield would obviously be great, I really don't think it would make much of a difference for metro Boston housing costs. Springfield is 90 miles from Boston, that's too far away to be a viable alternative for people who work in and around Boston and need to commute. Worcester is indeed a viable alternative, not so much Springfield.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42xayi wrote
>The fact Worcester already meets the requirements is not "not allowing" Worcester to develop.
These are two different issues:
-
Worcester meets the requirements, so the law doesn't help anybody.
-
State policies have only further perpetuated the issue you're seeing in most of Eastern MA, which is that regular people can't afford to live so that Boston can fuel its lust for lab workers and support staff. It destroys the local economies and displaces more people from Blacstone or wherever else when the real solution is to fix Watertown and Peabody.
>I agree that development needs to happen outside of Boston too, but I'm not in agreement that the state government is preventing that development.
The decisions the state makes are all based on what benefits Boston the most. However, those things frequently harm other areas with fewer resources. Instead of, say, supporting Springfield's arms manufacturers to provide jobs, the State has been trying to force them out.
>I have no idea how you expect removing tolls to magically turn Springfield to Boston into a 45 minute drive. It's 90 miles! Are you driving at 120 mph?
Firstly, I'm talking the drive from Springfield to Worcester. It's 45 minutes on I-90, and 2 hours on US 20. I've taken both. Slap tolls on 495 or something, where people have other choices. Don't hold independent development in the West back in exchange for a tidbit of money.
WinsingtonIII t1_j42z8y0 wrote
I would absolutely support more development in Springfield, but does Springfield itself have a housing crisis? I just checked zillow and there are many houses in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in and around Springfield, it doesn't exactly seem like housing prices there are out of control. The issue seems to be more that there aren't enough good-paying jobs in Springfield, not housing.
Does Springfield need more economic development? Sure. More housing? That's not really clear looking at the current housing availability and prices there.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j4348y7 wrote
>I would absolutely support more development in Springfield, but does Springfield itself have a housing crisis? I just checked zillow and there are many houses in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in and around Springfield, it doesn't exactly seem like housing prices there are out of control. The issue seems to be more that there aren't enough good-paying jobs in Springfield, not housing.
There's not enough economic development in Springfield. A few labs or expanding the armored would solve that issue pretty quickly. Economic development there would solve some of the issues for people further East and put a solid dent in homelessness.
GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j44jxpa wrote
Fuck S&W, they chose to shutter the factory instead of simply complying with a very reasonable law.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j44ki6y wrote
"Reasonable" my ass. A law that bans manufacture of guns to be sold out of state is not reasonable. Imagine telling a lab in Boston they cannot do research for use out-of-state and see how quickly they'd run away.
cajloapo t1_j42dqlx wrote
Yeah! Jusssss wan more city! 🥴 More toxic capitalism will fix it!
Or you know, just basic safety nets and social services
You’re all that brainwashed aren’t you 🙄 boomer mindset go home. Ya done.
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42dyy7 wrote
Breaking news: building new housing associated with more housing construction
cajloapo t1_j42hpxx wrote
Why do you all act like piddly housing will even touch the monstrosity that is wealth inequality and systemic greed?
Extra housing is good but you’re chasing your tail by focusing primarily on that as a solution
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42hutx wrote
Empty housing units are a drain on resources, landlords like renting them out.
cajloapo t1_j42jpak wrote
It’s piddly twiddly widdly winks
Festering capitalism and wealth inequality blow that out of the water, you’re just spinning wheels on bandaid concessions. It helps maybe short term but not much overall
Bernie was right
This is is hostile society that half of the people here push forth just because they bought into the idea that they need to hollow their humanhood out so the wealthy asshole can get 5 more jets or sports cars
Banea-Vaedr t1_j42jtrg wrote
Enjoy supporting an inefficient system and stagnating economically and technologically.
cajloapo t1_j42le6k wrote
OkBoomer
Social safety nets and capping obscene inequality isn’t that but we all know hyperbole is all you enablers have
You’re your own captives. But hey at least your feelings feel special when you say that emotional stuff right?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments