Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Codspear t1_j41xvce wrote

Reply to comment by Banea-Vaedr in In MA, single women over 65 are more economically vulnerable than in any other state. Housing cost is a major factor. by Creative_Law_1484

If we just allowed developers to develop, we wouldn’t have this problem.

15

paganlobster t1_j437561 wrote

Developers only want to build "luxury" trash.

6

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.

12

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.

0

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]

4

paganlobster t1_j480ykm wrote

lmao, how about you prove that the luxury units actually get occupied? or you could just google it

0

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.

0

Banea-Vaedr t1_j41y1ks wrote

Not allowing people to have a voice is how you get domestic terrorism, something Massachusetts is very comfortable with.

−14

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.

10

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.

Here you go

−6

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.

3

Banea-Vaedr t1_j424kco wrote

In fact, you will have the opposite because it's not occasional, it happens all the time.

−2

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.

1

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

0

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.

1

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1