Speaking of dreaming, it sounds like you fell asleep in 2016 and just woke up if you think there are good houses going for $250k in Elmhurst.

In this country, which we call the “United States” for a reason, we allow all citizens to move freely between the states. Why do you hate America so much?

Fun fact: home prices in Rhode Island fell about 25% between 2008 and 2013. And that was the result of a historic recession caused by massive failures in the banking and lending industry, coupled with an extreme subprime mortgage crisis.

You’re not gonna get the banks failing this time. There is no subprime mortgage crisis. What we have is a lot of demand and not very much supply, because as much as everybody talks a big game about lowering housing prices, nobody wants a bunch of duplexes or triplexes or townhomes or condos built in their own neighborhood.

So everybody is fighting over the same houses, many of which were literally built 100 years ago, because no matter what anybody tells you, the people in this state value living in a museum more than they care about making housing more affordable.

The long-term solution is the solution that nobody wants, which is to allow a whole bunch more housing of all types and forms. I’m not talking about an “affordable housing project” here or there. I’m talking about permitting the construction of tens or hundreds of thousands of new market rate units of all shapes and sizes. Allow SROs. Allow triple-deckers again. Allow dense, small, cheap housing.

Do you want this on your block? Do you want somebody to tear down the single family home on the lot next to you and build a 50 unit apartment on it? Do you want your block of single-family homes to be demolished and turned into triple-deckers?

Everybody says they want to do something about the cost of housing, but nobody wants it on their street. Nobody wants it on their block. Nobody wants it in their neighborhood.

Imagine you’re a 46 year old guy with a criminal record and a manageable heroin addiction. Realistically, where are you going to live? Where people like this lived in the past is an SRO. Cheap, single rooms often with shared kitchens and bathrooms. It’s not luxurious, but it’s better than the street.

And it’s basically illegal to build. And if somebody proposed one on your block, the statistical likelihood is that you would oppose it. So people talk about cheaper housing, but for the most part, they are not at all serious about doing what it would take to make that happen over time.

This sophomoric anti-Americanism really has no place here and it’s going to have the opposite of its intended effect, anyway. You’re not going to get literally anybody more interested in helping the homeless with this trite rant.

> …the whole point of the interstate highway system is to connect the capitals and major commerce centers of all the states.

Yes, that's right. The last mile through functioning urban cores wasn't necessary to that project and it wasn't even part of the original idea. It got added on as the project unfolded, because the gov guaranteed funding and every city wanted to get in on it:

> [Eisenhower] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

As for this:

> Could you imagine if it just dipped into Olneyville and everyone wanting to get downtown or through the east side had to finish through backroads? Then multiply that by every commerce center in every state in the country.

Of course I can imagine it. It would be great. The only possible way to think that outcome wouldn't be better is to believe that the efficient movement of people in automobiles though urban cores is the most important thing about a city, which is in my view basically absurd. In fact, you have to think it's important enough that it's literally worth tearing down the city that already exists, because moving people through the city is even more important than having a city at all!

It's important to remember that this is basically what people really thought when the highways were built. People thought cities were filthy, dirty, and inhumane, and that it would be an unalloyed good to tear them down so that people could move to the open spaces and fresh air of the suburbs.

At least they were consistent. They weren't afraid to literally say that. I think their values were wrong, but at least they had a logic to them.

Most of the arguments for highways today don't really demonstrate the courage of any such convictions. They're just arguments for the status quo, because people are used to cities with highways and can't imagine anything else.

Then don't open a supermarket there.

I believe it should be legal for private parties to purchase private property and build apartments on the land they own, but assuming that were legal I have no problem with the government acquiring land on which to build housing themselves.

The only downside is that it can become a bit of a political football deciding where to put that housing. If the government is going to do it, it would be best if they did it by seamlessly integrating into existing neighborhoods, which sort of seems like what’s in play here, anyway, so I don’t have any big problem with that.

In general, though, I would rather the government simply give money to those who need it. That’s a simpler, more straightforward way to approach the problem.

You live your whole life surrounded by the existence of low-end goods marketed to poor people -- McDonald's, Wal-mart, Champion, Dollar Tree, Hyundai -- and then you conclude that we shouldn't let developers build housing because no company would ever make something marketed to the low-end of the market -- there's just no money in it!

How can you square this? You already know that when companies are allowed to produce to abundance that they do indeed try to sell to every market segment. You just have to let them do it!

Of course companies only sell to the high end when there are limits on how much they can produce. You have to let them produce to abundance before they'll start targeting the low end.

If we put caps on how many new cars could be produced next year, the very first thing that would happen is Kia and Hyundai would stop existing, because when you are only allowed to make x number of cars, you're damn sure going to make sure you're getting the most profit out of them. But if you're allowed to make as many cars as you want, then once you've sold a car to all the rich people you still want to sell more cars! That's why every single automaker has both luxury and affordable brands. It's the same company selling to both market segments.

Banana Republic, The Gap, and Old Navy are all the same company! Why do they even have Old Navy when they can sell much more expensive clothes with higher margins to rich people at Banana Republic? Because they want to profit off everybody!

I mean, if this is true, then surely it means we should eliminate single-family-only zoning and let people build what they want to without the no-good-very-bad-government getting in their way?

Can't argue with this!

> I had the asbestos removed two years ago and need to insulate them before winter sets in.

I had mine removed just before last winter and the difference was noticeable. My bill went way up without the insulation. I'm about to tackle this project on mine, too. As I mentioned in another comment, I think I'm going to order from https://www.buyinsulationproductstore.com. Home Depot doesn't have as much of a selection.

I'm about to do it myself, too, and this is the website that keeps popping up. I can't vouch for it, but this is probably where I'm going to order from.

> You are a licensed professional and yet you are just giving away our work saying false shit, fuck is wrong with you?

Just so everybody is clear, it's totally fine to run your own data cables. It's not dangerous. The licensing is just a protection racket, as this comment demonstrates.

> it can interact with the high voltage system

To the extent this is true it's just going to mean interference on the data lines. It's not a danger and anybody should be able to pull these cables. The licensing is a protection racket.

I can't imagine anything more cucked than not running a low-voltage wire in your own house because you're worried about the licensing. Just do it. There's no danger. The licensing is a protection racket.

I own a duplex in Elmhurst and it honestly is pretty frustrating that every time the cable company comes out for a new resident they pay absolutely no attention to anything that's already been run and just plow right into making some new exterior holes that they don't properly seal and then run the 20th piece of sloppily-installed coax up the side of the building, just generally making the whole side of the house look like complete shit.

And then, inside, the real fun begins. Let's put some holes in 100-year-old oak baseboards. Let's ram that wire through plaster and crack it everywhere. Hey, maybe we'll just go right down through some hardwood floors!

Those cable installers are honestly the worst.

However, the landlord shouldn't leave their tenants high and dry. I fished coax and ethernet to most of the rooms in each unit and finished them off with wall plates.

Just to try to leave with a practical tip here, there were two ways I got cables to the second floor: 1) there was an old doorbell on the second floor and I was able to pull new wires up to that location from the basement along the path the doorbell wires had taken; 2) each unit has a small closet/pantry in the kitchen and I pulled some wires up though there to get to each floor. This is really common in old multi-families in Providence. You might have a similar situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqZMcvd0yjo

Newsflash: people are selfish and irrational. And selfishness is just as likely to take the form of, “I don’t want a bunch of people living around me” as it is “I want to make a profit on my home.”

I feel like we're talking across each other here. Of course the government could literally mandate desegregation and the government could literally force people to allow a bunch of new construction in their neighborhood. Of course that's something that could happen.

The point is that at this exact moment in time the vast majority of Americans oppose that and they don't oppose it only because of the "profit motive." They oppose it because they fear crime, because they don't want more traffic or noise in their neighborhood, maybe because some of them are racist. They have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with capitalism. Not all of those reasons are good. It's just that a lot of them have nothing to do with capitalism.

So, I'm sorry, but it's just extremely naive and unserious to say that it's all about capitalism.

Yes, I don't know if people maybe have the impression that I'm defending the opinions of homeowners, but I am not. I am an urbanist. I like living in cities and I would like to see a lot more building around me.

But most people are not me! Most people oppose new construction in their neighborhood and the notion that the only reason they do this is the "profit motive" is the opinion of someone who has never been to a community meeting. It boggles the mind, actually. It's a completely absurd proposition. People don't want density around them and they don't want noise and they don't want traffic and they don't want crime and they associate all this stuff with cities. It's just totally absurd to say that it's entirely the "profit motive."

The people who live in suburbs aren’t going to be like, “well I guess now I have no reason not to allow a bunch of new housing in my neighborhood” if you take away the profit motive. Get real!

> How does building new apartments affect someone whose life doesn't revolve around property value? I think any rational person would want a society where affordable housing is plentiful.

If you don't know the answers to these questions, then I'm not sure what I can do for you. People don't only oppose construction in their neighborhood because of "property values." "Property values" is a proxy for all kinds of things that make a neighborhood more or less desirable and people care also about all those things.

Again, I think this isn't merely true, it's extraordinarily obvious, so I'm not sure what I could say to someone who doesn't believe it.

If you could flip a switch and tomorrow we became a fully communist country with no private property where nobody owned their own home and nobody could profit financially from land, do you really think people would suddenly be just fine with a whole bunch of new buildings in their neighborhood? Of course not! Even in that communist utopia local residents are going to oppose a bunch of new apartment buildings in their neighborhood and they're going to oppose it for all the same reasons people oppose it today, which is just to say it's not primarily a "capitalist" position.

That's not to say that there aren't people who oppose supply for purely capitalist motivations, but for every landlord and developer there are 100 ordinary Americans who don't want to see changes in their neighborhood for reasons that have nothing to do with "capitalism."

People who live in suburbs today aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and say, “well, I guess I have absolutely no reason to oppose the densification of my neighborhood now that the profit motive has been removed.” Get real! They have tons of other reasons.

There is unfortunately a lot of confusion about these words. People use the term Socialism to mean "the existence of social programs paid for with taxes" and they also use the term Socialism to mean "a planned economy." This means in practice that "socialism" isn't always the opposite of "capitalism."

Some examples:

• When the government pays for your health care that can be "socialism," but it's not anti-capitalist.
• When the government makes it illegal to own private property that can be "socialism" and it is more or less anti-capitalist.
• When the government raises your taxes to spend more on welfare programs that can be "socialism," but it's not necessarily anti-capitalist.
• When the government makes it illegal to make a profit selling widgets that can be "socialism," and it's explicitly anti-capitalist.

When people say they want to "capitalism is the problem" often what they are really thinking is that the government should provision more services. What they want is universal healthcare or increased spending on other social programs. But that's not in any sense anti-capitalist. That's just taxing economic activity to pay for the social programs you want.

That's what Denmark does.

They are a capitalist country with high taxes that spends a lot on social programs. Some people call that increased spending "socialism," but crucially they still allow markets. You can still be a capitalist in Denmark. Most people there work for private corporations/businesses. Etc, etc.

Some people insist that restricting free markets isn't Socialism, it's Communism, and such people get very upset if you don't use the correct term. But the point is that there is not widespread agreement about how to use these terms and, further, people deliberately deploy these terms in ways that advance their political goals (whether pro- or anti-socialism/capitalism), so it's important always to be clear about what you're saying.

Thanks for clarifying. :)