ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqx8l8 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:27 PM

>Now you’re just ranting about nimbys.

Isn't that the whole reason we're voting on this?

banjomin t1_itqxuob wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:31 PM

Nah I think it's about whether or not it's a good idea to develop the area around sequiota park into a boutique apartment village so that a wealthy development company can make money and rich kids can have a scenic background for their apartment balconies.

Although yeah, there are reductionist assholes out there who are carrying water for the wealthy development company and the rich kids by pretending like anyone who doesn't love putting Sequiota park in the shade of a bunch of apartment buildings are only doing so because they are "galloway home owner nimbys".

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqype6 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:36 PM

As opposed to a bunch of rich old folks getting a scenic background for their homes.

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itro47v wrote on October 25, 2022 at 8:18 PM

TIL I'm old. Also, if I were rich wouldn't I be able to afford to move?

Believe me I will have my 40 acres one day hopefully before I'm REALLY old...

banjomin t1_itqyw6a wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:37 PM

Rich old folks live in the park? I think that's illegal. TRY AGAIN.

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqz1i0 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:38 PM

Ok, well you clearly don't want to have a thought out conversation. Thanks for the chat.

the_honeyman t1_itqvqqv wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:17 PM

Because it doesn't matter what is proposed to do with that area, the same group of wealthy nimbys come out in full force against it. The bike trails, several other proposals for that area, everything. Trying to argue its about this particular plan feels disingenuous, when everything meets the same level of opposition and the same arguments are trotted out every time.

The developer is looking towards mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and has plans to replace more trees than somebody like a subdivision developer would.

banjomin t1_itqwmht wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:23 PM

So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future?

That's a terrible argument!

And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on:

>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.

WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??

the_honeyman t1_itqxjlw wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:29 PM

>So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future? > >That's a terrible argument!

And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.

>And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on: > >>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess. > >WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??

Because mixed use, walkable development is objectively better than urban sprawl single family dwellings where everybody needs a car to do anything? Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.

banjomin t1_itqybo2 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:34 PM

>And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.

Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

>Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.

I'm just gonna go back and copy paste a previous comment I made towards you:

>Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.

the_honeyman t1_itr02e5 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:45 PM

I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there. The hypocrisy is real, is all.

If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."

banjomin t1_itr079y wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:46 PM

>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there.

Yeah of course, you're just here to spew a bunch of bullshit without knowing what you're talking about.

>The hypocrisy is real, is all.

This is just more bullshit.

>If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."

I'm just gonna copy paste this one from my previous comment:

>Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

Vote NO on Question #1

banjomin t1_itqs9aj wrote on October 25, 2022 at 4:55 PM