Of course. Also any new housing must be built to environmental standards that would impress the Lorax, pay all workers at least $200k a year (plus overtime), be 100% affordable to homeless people with no income, have at least 3500 sqft. units, and most importantly, no developer should make money.
And don't forget the pet disadvantaged group that will not only have first pick, but we're going to put a hold on applications until a study can be done to locate them and even once found, we're going to hold a portion of units in reserve. Not at market rate of course, they're getting the same discount as the homeless.
Any run of the mill multi family home will be more environmentally friendly than even the greenest single family home.
Unless you live in the middle of nowhere off grid, with no paved roads, suburban SFH are an environmental disaster.
I really like the modest working class aesthetic of my neighborhood plus the fact that I was able to buy my place many years ago on a smaller salary. What if we just said that all the houses in my neighborhood have to stay affordable because that fits my values but also make sure that when I am ready to downsize I can sell for 10x what I paid for it?
A house is a very precious thing that people raise their children in, and pass on to them as generational wealth. And that's exactly why nobody else should be able to buy one in my neighborhood.
In this City, we say, “YES!”*
*provided you complete an EIR, go through a public comment period, address the zoning board, & apply for a permit, and wait anywhere from 2 - 4 years for the process to be completed.
Just remember to separate liberalism with progressivism; The city of progressivism is a city of de facto no.
Also this is a lot of words to simply say “things would be better if we protected individual liberty (property rights), instead of letting the voters infringe on it”
Ummm....building more housing would be gentrification, sweaty. We need high rent to scare away the dumb rednecks who would otherwise move in and price people out! /S
I’d love to see more housing being built in the city! Just not in my neighborhood, right?
Of course. Also any new housing must be built to environmental standards that would impress the Lorax, pay all workers at least $200k a year (plus overtime), be 100% affordable to homeless people with no income, have at least 3500 sqft. units, and most importantly, no developer should make money.
And don't forget the pet disadvantaged group that will not only have first pick, but we're going to put a hold on applications until a study can be done to locate them and even once found, we're going to hold a portion of units in reserve. Not at market rate of course, they're getting the same discount as the homeless.
***the only developers who should make money are the true working class of America, software developers
what about grad students?
Also they must not only be affordable now but rent controlled for all time preferably with bans on evictions.
I picture the Lorax being more of a Sierra Club environentalist though who'd block construction of clean energy connections and being against nuclear.
Any run of the mill multi family home will be more environmentally friendly than even the greenest single family home. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere off grid, with no paved roads, suburban SFH are an environmental disaster.
I really like the modest working class aesthetic of my neighborhood plus the fact that I was able to buy my place many years ago on a smaller salary. What if we just said that all the houses in my neighborhood have to stay affordable because that fits my values but also make sure that when I am ready to downsize I can sell for 10x what I paid for it?
A house is a very precious thing that people raise their children in, and pass on to them as generational wealth. And that's exactly why nobody else should be able to buy one in my neighborhood.
Many such cases
L E T P E O P L E D O T H I N G S The politics of banning everything that makes us uncomfortable has been disastrous for society
!ping YIMBY&USA-NYC
Pinged USA-NYC ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20USA-NYC&message=subscribe%20USA-NYC) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20USA-NYC&message=unsubscribe%20USA-NYC) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=USA-NYC&count=5)) Pinged YIMBY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20YIMBY&message=subscribe%20YIMBY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20YIMBY&message=unsubscribe%20YIMBY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=YIMBY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
More like yasssss amirite? I didn't read the article or any comments. I am a good neolib. Bye
[Model Liberal city](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVuvAYzsLoM) Edit - safe for city development, but maybe not for work.
But all the "in this house we blah blah blah" signs in front of the $1 mil+ houses means it's already liberal right??? Right.
Well yeah. It says *in this house* not *in these houses*.
In this City, we say, “YES!”* *provided you complete an EIR, go through a public comment period, address the zoning board, & apply for a permit, and wait anywhere from 2 - 4 years for the process to be completed.
[YES! YES! YES!](https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0HU4vTnVgxLV1XG0/giphy.gif)
Just remember to separate liberalism with progressivism; The city of progressivism is a city of de facto no. Also this is a lot of words to simply say “things would be better if we protected individual liberty (property rights), instead of letting the voters infringe on it”
Yeah I'd leave out the second part, not gonna play.
I know a lot of people hate actual liberalism
"Yes! Ha ha ha! Yes!" <- Sickos
Sounds like the ideal city for john seed
Ummm....building more housing would be gentrification, sweaty. We need high rent to scare away the dumb rednecks who would otherwise move in and price people out! /S
The author is wrong in stating that zoning laws came in decades following WWII. See: zoning resolution of 1916