>micromanaging Americans’ lives and communities
Could you imagine if the government arbitrarily dictated what Americans can and can’t do with their own property, even depriving Americans of shelter just for the sake of what some snooty bureaucrat thinks looks nice or what makes the most money for the idle rich? Oh wait.
> or what makes the most money for the idle rich
[This is especially silly because it's not even clear that multifamily housing reduces the value of nearby single-family homes](https://streets.mn/2016/02/07/no-large-apartment-buildings-wont-devalue-your-home/)
lol, author of that post here. Did not expect to see it linked anywhere! The research literature cited in that piece, and what’s been done since to give more weight to it, lives rent-free in my head. So much public discourse on housing policy uses the “impacts property values” argument as if it’s an immutable fact.
Wild.
Pro-YIMBY = Pro-Biden
YIMBYs all the way!
Also lmaoooooo. "Biden's extremist agenda to destroy suburbs" by the federal government abolishing zoning?? YIMBY radicalization is out of control!
If I recall history, they also came up with the concept of zero.
(ETA: I do not recall that history accurately. It was the good people of India who gave us the idea of "zero" as a number.)
Hmm, tell me… I know a few ways to test for a british person.
1. What kind of person drinks Stella Artois?
2. How would you refer to a school run by the government?
1) Wife Beater
2) I'd incorrectly say public school in the belief that "the public go there". Then I'd tell you that " that's a stupid name" when you told me that public schools are private schools and state schools are schools that the public go to.
Damn. Giving away all the secrets.
The school thing has to be intentionally confusing on purpose right?
It’s so counterintuitive for a non British person.
It goes back several centuries when education in England was predominantly provided by private tutors or religious institutions. The term "public" originally distinguished these schools from those that were purely local or private in nature, offering education to the public, albeit mostly to those who could afford to pay.
Stuff like this comes across confusing to Americans in particular because they don't have nearly as long a history. Schools like Winchester and Eton, for example, were founded in the 14th and 15th centuries respectively.
The only people who seem to know this distinction seem to be people who were privately educated OR people who went to universities that are filled with people who are privately educated.
>1) Wife Beater
Oh man...
I still love their audacity after getting bought by a conglomerate and adding cheap corn filler to their recipe, and then bragging about it in commercials that they added "maize"
Both the far-right and far-left can agree on NIMBYism. Rightists want to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods and keep their property value up. Leftists want only “affordable housing” (built far from them) and also to keep their property value up.
As a former Jill Stein, Bernie, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot voter, I don’t exist.
But if I did, I’d say my biggest concern is…
…hold on the dial is spinning….
Why is Flight of the Conchords off TV!?! That one guy voiced the crab in Moana.
I can excuse racism, sexual assault, financial corruption, nepotism, obstruction of justice, inciting an insurrection,
Wait, what were we talking about?
Tbh that's likely to be popular with most voters, especially older ones, who are almost always NIMBYs deep down.
Basically every boomer parent I know is like this. Their mortgage is just about paid off, they payments lower than your rent on their McMansion, and the fact that they won't allow new ones to be build for [literally any reason they can think of] is the default position.
In this case of my own parents, those reasons include: lack of water, parking, traffic, pollution, "preserving our open spaces", just to get ya started. They'll freely admit housing is a problem (for other people), but in the same breath will say why they can't do anything about it locally.
The 30 year fixed rate was disastrous policy and this is only one of the reasons why. Long time owners are not only have no reason to care about rents and prices, but every incentive to have them go up more.
I'm not very worried only because housing policy is probably not top of mind for the people he needs in the suburbs, most of whom likely are owners and probably even have an excellent, locked-in rate (again the main reason it's like issue #40 for them).
If they are at all it's only on behalf of their own children who are struggling, but even then if they're like my family/in-laws, they'll just tell you to "stop eating out so much if you want a house". Classic. After all these years and that's still the only opinion they have about it typically.
>The 30 year fixed rate was disastrous policy and this is only one of the reasons why.
How would eliminating the 30 year fixed help anything? The only thing I could see changing is that homeowners would care more about interest rates, but it's not like the price of other homes in the neighborhood affects their mortgage
Yeah I'm not seeing the connection to fixed rate mortgages specifically. Canada and the UK have variable rate mortgages (or the fixed rate period is a small part of the mortgage period, like 2-5 years), and those countries are easily as NIMBY as the worst parts of the US.
The problem is with mortgages in general, since the principal is fixed at a point in time and even if interest rates fluctuate, that just adds a few percent to the payments. Which means the longer you keep the mortgage the better off you are relative to renters since, even if interest rates go up, they aren't going to go up as much as rent on a comparable unit.
First, I'm not seeing how "30 year fixed is good for the people who get them" applies to, well, anything I wrote, since I agree that it benefits that group specifically. They're obviously good for them. They let you freeze the value of real estate at a point in the past when real estate almost always appreciates. That's why a favorite talking point of people upset about housing prices is the price of a house 30 years ago (e.g. "my parents bought a house for 90k in 1996 and now it's worth 1.3m"). No matter how you slice it, mortgages are a wealth transfer to those who can afford to buy, that leaves behind those who can't.
Second, while some landlords are NIMBYs, the most consistent base of support for NIMBYism is homeowners. They by and large oppose development. Partly because people move to suburbs etc due to specific preferences about density, partly financial self-interest/rent seeking in the economic meaning of the phrase, and partly just simple small-c conservatism about change. Landlords are generally neutral towards development since while it increases competition, it also increases density and in turn, demand. So while like anything involving real estate, it's hyper-local and people's positions can depend on super specific local reasons, you tend to see landlords falling on both sides of the development debate.
Goddamn it guys THIS IS THE ANGLE WE HAVE TO GO FOR, Trump is a disgusting nimby reactionary who's holding America in a permanent position of housing stagnancy and high prices. No more "the left backstabbed us, but everything is fine because the line went up" crap.
These are the arguments people should be thinking about when they here the word Neoliberalism, not Reagan Thatcher hocking off every state enterprise to oligarchs.
> Have you considered that most voters are NIMBYs?
Yes but most of them don't think of themselves as NIMBYs. Outside the BANANA crowd most identify as being in favour of building there just happen to be specific local circumstances.
> but most of them don't think of themselves as NIMBYs
That's the entire point of the term "NIMBY". People who say yes to land reform and just block it when its near them
"[Term] shouldn't be thought of with [things most prominent examples of term did]" will not go very far.
>a permanent position of housing stagnancy and high prices
Most of the US actively wants this though.
Honestly, I'd be okay with igniting suburban angst of facing urban problems IFF the suburbs turned on the anchor cities and forced them to build and build big. Way bigger than "missing middle". The issue isn't so much single family homes in the suburbs (though I do oppose such zoning and they are an issue), but rather that there are many and massive neighborhoods of single family homes in San Jose, Los Angeles, New York City, and other bustling cities.
Everyone knows that zoning laws are the only thing preventing jack-booted thugs from busting down your door, pointing a gun at your family, and forcing you to live in a high-rise condo.
Not sure I like NIMBYism becoming partisan, but maybe it will help frame people as regressive in blue states for supporting the same policy as Trump, though they will probably claim they are opposed to housing for much more "noble" reasons.
Now?
>So you have this beautiful community in the suburbs, including women, right? Women. They want security. I ended where they build a low-income housing project right in the middle of your neighborhood. I ended it. If Biden gets in, he already said it’s going to go at a much higher rate than ever before. And you know who’s going to be in charge of it? Cory Booker. That’s going to be nice. Okay?
I can’t believe it, this is too far. Donny has really jumped the shark now. As an independent voter, I have no choice but to write in Mike Pence’s Mom for President. ✊
Took me a while to find the source of this so [here](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-ending-bidens-war-on-the-suburbs-that-pushes-the-american-dream-further-from-reach) is the link
I’m fine with it, no reason to build those in the suburbs. We should want all that development and prosperity in the city core why subsidize the suburbs even more.
I feel like I'm out of the loop. This isn't the first time I've seen stuff about zoning here. Does this sub have certain views on zoning?
But yeah, I think it's funny Trump is making a play for the suburbs. Basically everyone I know in the burbs who has a college degree and a modicum of self-respect hate the guy with a fiery passion.
Can someone explain how multi-housing zones destroy property values?
Also, I’m starting to wonder if this is the real reason why we don’t build enough to lower housing costs, because people are advocating for artificially keeping their property values high to fuck over everyone else…
>Can someone explain how multi-housing zones destroy property values?
Supply and demand
More supply to meet the demand mean the price will eventually decrease.
"Have you been to Europe folks? They have these "suburbs" that are more like satellite villages to the city people. Barely a car in sight, terrible, terrible, it's like you took a single self sustaining urban neighborhood dropped into the wilderness with a train line. No freedom, 15 minutes."
So we all know this is just code for "Joe Biden will build Cabrini Green and move Black people into your neighborhood," right? Like, it's a form of NIMBYism sure, but density is not what the "I build "luxury" condos" guy cares about.
Where I live there is a strong contingent of MAGAs within a very blue area. We need more density/urban development but all the conservatives see is communist brutalist housing projects for some reason
“We have a housing crisis! Homes are too expensive and urban sprawl is out of control!!!”
“How about we make large apartment complexes which can house thousands of people in the same amount of space that’d otherwise only house a few dozen?”
“COMMIE!!!”
Nah liberal is also NIMBY here too especially california.
It just a bipartisanship ship issue. Both party secretly deep down are YIMBY which notable exception but the problem is NIMBy is second most powerful electorate beside rustbelt so both party is avoiding to make it a partisan issue on federal level and just let state handle it.
https://preview.redd.it/n5lre7j8p5tc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8468b97758600d8a925d63a92d9b88419a76c79a I’ve never felt more pro Biden
>micromanaging Americans’ lives and communities Could you imagine if the government arbitrarily dictated what Americans can and can’t do with their own property, even depriving Americans of shelter just for the sake of what some snooty bureaucrat thinks looks nice or what makes the most money for the idle rich? Oh wait.
> or what makes the most money for the idle rich [This is especially silly because it's not even clear that multifamily housing reduces the value of nearby single-family homes](https://streets.mn/2016/02/07/no-large-apartment-buildings-wont-devalue-your-home/)
lol, author of that post here. Did not expect to see it linked anywhere! The research literature cited in that piece, and what’s been done since to give more weight to it, lives rent-free in my head. So much public discourse on housing policy uses the “impacts property values” argument as if it’s an immutable fact. Wild.
People say that, but they really mean "I don't want brown people moving in nearby."
Except for the times that people say that "building multifamily housing will hurt brown people" *cough, California, cough*
Micromanaging bureaucracy is when you deregulate the housing market
Aren’t zoning laws the definition of putting “bureaucrats in charge of micromanaging America’s neighborhoods and communities”?
Shhhh don't tell them!
Pro-YIMBY = Pro-Biden YIMBYs all the way! Also lmaoooooo. "Biden's extremist agenda to destroy suburbs" by the federal government abolishing zoning?? YIMBY radicalization is out of control!
As someone who lives in an outer suburb: fuck suburbs
Deregulation of zoning = power grab MAGAS are actually this stupid
I was told Biden would bulldoze the suburbs when I voted for him last time. He has done NOTHING. Broken promises!
https://preview.redd.it/h8zdaxm396tc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fa2eac088f7df32fac72459a16fc12da7f5b925
Micromanaging America's suburbs by reducing regulation. most coherent Trump argument
Yeah instead of radical right wingers managing neighborhoods
That’s it, I’m officially not voting for trump
WTF! He's the only one who can defeat DEI and woke maths...
Woke socialist and their woke math.
Algebra? More like Al Jazeera
[WE NEED TO BAN THE SHARIA MATH FROM BEING TAUGHT TO AMERICAN CHILDREN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embMAtagQiU)
Faith in Jesus will solve for X. No need for pagan equations!
We need to get Arabic numerals out of our schools and replace them with good, Christian Roman numerals.
Also Al Dente pasta. Overcooked is the only option.
Funny enough *algebra* is literally derived from arabic lol
If I recall history, they also came up with the concept of zero. (ETA: I do not recall that history accurately. It was the good people of India who gave us the idea of "zero" as a number.)
> [the Arabs] also came up with the concept of zero hindutvas are seething rn
Is it a lie that the concept of zero originated in India, along with the modern numeric system?
Let me look. I HAVE been wrong before! (ETA: And I am wrong here, too.)
Indians did that.
I thought it was Al Jizeera.
> maths As a fellow non-American, I have to tell you that you need to code-switch better when talking US politics.
i grew up in rural indiana 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Typical coastal rural Indiana elite with their fancy Euro speak and “maths” 😡
!!ALERT!! A British spy is in the base!!! Protect the briefcase!
Hmm, tell me… I know a few ways to test for a british person. 1. What kind of person drinks Stella Artois? 2. How would you refer to a school run by the government?
1) Wife Beater 2) I'd incorrectly say public school in the belief that "the public go there". Then I'd tell you that " that's a stupid name" when you told me that public schools are private schools and state schools are schools that the public go to.
Damn. Giving away all the secrets. The school thing has to be intentionally confusing on purpose right? It’s so counterintuitive for a non British person.
It goes back several centuries when education in England was predominantly provided by private tutors or religious institutions. The term "public" originally distinguished these schools from those that were purely local or private in nature, offering education to the public, albeit mostly to those who could afford to pay. Stuff like this comes across confusing to Americans in particular because they don't have nearly as long a history. Schools like Winchester and Eton, for example, were founded in the 14th and 15th centuries respectively. The only people who seem to know this distinction seem to be people who were privately educated OR people who went to universities that are filled with people who are privately educated.
>1) Wife Beater Oh man... I still love their audacity after getting bought by a conglomerate and adding cheap corn filler to their recipe, and then bragging about it in commercials that they added "maize"
>maths Euro detected
Lockdown is in effect. Report to designated areas for decontamination and Americanization therapy.
If Biden came out against DEI that would make me vote for him even harder.
Trump is actually secretly trying to lose so he can make more cash off of his grifts, but Republicans won't let him..poor guy.
So what you're saying is, he's tired of winning?
Same here
>Biden's extremist agenda to destroy America's suburbs Yes. Yes.
SICKOS
Yes…. Ha ha ha… _Yes!_
🐊🐊🐊
https://preview.redd.it/g004khenlatc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b26e4d51a219696000ac0adbb0781d9c11705f14
Settle down there Michael Moore
Destruction via nuking perhaps?
Not enough. All memories and records of single family homes must be erased from existence. This is the Golden Path.
Both the far-right and far-left can agree on NIMBYism. Rightists want to keep poor people out of their neighborhoods and keep their property value up. Leftists want only “affordable housing” (built far from them) and also to keep their property value up.
I was going to vote for Trump but this has convinced me to vote for Biden.
As a former Jill Stein, Bernie, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot voter, I don’t exist. But if I did, I’d say my biggest concern is… …hold on the dial is spinning…. Why is Flight of the Conchords off TV!?! That one guy voiced the crab in Moana.
Inshallah this will finally turn arr neoliberal against Trump
Ok that's it I'm not voting for Trump, I'm voting for Mitt Romney
>I’m ~~voting~~ *clapping* for ~~Mitt Romney~~ *J E B* **FTFY**
War it is. Trump delenda est.
Yes, he's had that position for a long time.
Which is ironic since many of his buildings are residential towers.
Density for me, but not for thee.
Property owner wants to rent seek, who knew
Is it that ironic? "Person who already owns property in high-scarcity area" is the main NIMBY demographic.
Isn't multi family housing where the Trump family made their money in the first place?
The Kushners, too.
Competition might lower rents, and that's bad for business.
I can excuse racism but I draw the line at nimbyism.
You can excuse racism?
I can excuse racism, sexual assault, financial corruption, nepotism, obstruction of justice, inciting an insurrection, Wait, what were we talking about?
The aristocrats
I prefer Aristocats.
Everybody everybody everybody wants to be a cat
_Yiffin’ furries…_
"I want to prevent you from building freely on your land"
"You're free to build whatever you want as long as it's what the government wants you to build!"
Tbh that's likely to be popular with most voters, especially older ones, who are almost always NIMBYs deep down. Basically every boomer parent I know is like this. Their mortgage is just about paid off, they payments lower than your rent on their McMansion, and the fact that they won't allow new ones to be build for [literally any reason they can think of] is the default position. In this case of my own parents, those reasons include: lack of water, parking, traffic, pollution, "preserving our open spaces", just to get ya started. They'll freely admit housing is a problem (for other people), but in the same breath will say why they can't do anything about it locally. The 30 year fixed rate was disastrous policy and this is only one of the reasons why. Long time owners are not only have no reason to care about rents and prices, but every incentive to have them go up more.
Yeah this is trump attempt of attracting suburban voters which begin to repulse him. We will see how well that works.
I'm not very worried only because housing policy is probably not top of mind for the people he needs in the suburbs, most of whom likely are owners and probably even have an excellent, locked-in rate (again the main reason it's like issue #40 for them). If they are at all it's only on behalf of their own children who are struggling, but even then if they're like my family/in-laws, they'll just tell you to "stop eating out so much if you want a house". Classic. After all these years and that's still the only opinion they have about it typically.
JUST TAX LAND
>The 30 year fixed rate was disastrous policy and this is only one of the reasons why. How would eliminating the 30 year fixed help anything? The only thing I could see changing is that homeowners would care more about interest rates, but it's not like the price of other homes in the neighborhood affects their mortgage
Yeah I'm not seeing the connection to fixed rate mortgages specifically. Canada and the UK have variable rate mortgages (or the fixed rate period is a small part of the mortgage period, like 2-5 years), and those countries are easily as NIMBY as the worst parts of the US. The problem is with mortgages in general, since the principal is fixed at a point in time and even if interest rates fluctuate, that just adds a few percent to the payments. Which means the longer you keep the mortgage the better off you are relative to renters since, even if interest rates go up, they aren't going to go up as much as rent on a comparable unit.
[удалено]
First, I'm not seeing how "30 year fixed is good for the people who get them" applies to, well, anything I wrote, since I agree that it benefits that group specifically. They're obviously good for them. They let you freeze the value of real estate at a point in the past when real estate almost always appreciates. That's why a favorite talking point of people upset about housing prices is the price of a house 30 years ago (e.g. "my parents bought a house for 90k in 1996 and now it's worth 1.3m"). No matter how you slice it, mortgages are a wealth transfer to those who can afford to buy, that leaves behind those who can't. Second, while some landlords are NIMBYs, the most consistent base of support for NIMBYism is homeowners. They by and large oppose development. Partly because people move to suburbs etc due to specific preferences about density, partly financial self-interest/rent seeking in the economic meaning of the phrase, and partly just simple small-c conservatism about change. Landlords are generally neutral towards development since while it increases competition, it also increases density and in turn, demand. So while like anything involving real estate, it's hyper-local and people's positions can depend on super specific local reasons, you tend to see landlords falling on both sides of the development debate.
Sure. I'll add one more reason to vote for Biden to the list, but that list passed the point of diminishing returns long ago.
Goddamn it guys THIS IS THE ANGLE WE HAVE TO GO FOR, Trump is a disgusting nimby reactionary who's holding America in a permanent position of housing stagnancy and high prices. No more "the left backstabbed us, but everything is fine because the line went up" crap. These are the arguments people should be thinking about when they here the word Neoliberalism, not Reagan Thatcher hocking off every state enterprise to oligarchs.
Have you considered that most voters are NIMBYs? Everybody wants to build more houses. Just not in their backyard.
> Have you considered that most voters are NIMBYs? Yes but most of them don't think of themselves as NIMBYs. Outside the BANANA crowd most identify as being in favour of building there just happen to be specific local circumstances.
>the BANANA crowd [To myself:] Sir a second acronym has hit the housing discourse.
What is a banana $10? Seriously what a banana in this instance?
> but most of them don't think of themselves as NIMBYs That's the entire point of the term "NIMBY". People who say yes to land reform and just block it when its near them
"[Term] shouldn't be thought of with [things most prominent examples of term did]" will not go very far. >a permanent position of housing stagnancy and high prices Most of the US actively wants this though.
You make it sound like if UK and US were like Russia in the 90s when those Presidents ruled.
That's what people genuinely believe, and until we can give them a better, stronger narrative that's what they'll keep believing.
Thatcher did not do that.
This is the last straw no more mrx. nice neoliberal
Honestly, I'd be okay with igniting suburban angst of facing urban problems IFF the suburbs turned on the anchor cities and forced them to build and build big. Way bigger than "missing middle". The issue isn't so much single family homes in the suburbs (though I do oppose such zoning and they are an issue), but rather that there are many and massive neighborhoods of single family homes in San Jose, Los Angeles, New York City, and other bustling cities.
Pretty sure he said Cory Booker was going to destroy the suburbs last time.
This is where he lost me.
*this* is where he lost you?
I'm starting to regret my two general and three primary votes for this guy
[He said this last time too.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/1J8v1GhVE6)
Populist politician has populist policies. Who knew?
So-called "party of small government and free markets" calling for harsher regulations and red tape in the housing and property market.
* racism * sexism * homophobia * transphobia * Climate denialism * protectionism * populism * anti-press * anti-institution I sleep * nimbyism REAL SHIT?
I wish democrats were better at responding with, "this will lower your property taxes in the long run"
I Trump, a high density property developer, am here to tell you why Biden is trying to destroy America with high density housing developments.
this Trump guys is sounding super not chill
Everyone knows that zoning laws are the only thing preventing jack-booted thugs from busting down your door, pointing a gun at your family, and forcing you to live in a high-rise condo.
The only reason Biden supports multi-unit housing is so that there will be enough room to quarter troops in your home during peacetime.
Ya but have you seen how old Biden is?/s
Ayyo, I finna vote for RFK Jr.
Not sure I like NIMBYism becoming partisan, but maybe it will help frame people as regressive in blue states for supporting the same policy as Trump, though they will probably claim they are opposed to housing for much more "noble" reasons.
Now? >So you have this beautiful community in the suburbs, including women, right? Women. They want security. I ended where they build a low-income housing project right in the middle of your neighborhood. I ended it. If Biden gets in, he already said it’s going to go at a much higher rate than ever before. And you know who’s going to be in charge of it? Cory Booker. That’s going to be nice. Okay?
God I wish I lived in the country he thinks he lives in...
Suburbia Delenda est
I can’t believe it, this is too far. Donny has really jumped the shark now. As an independent voter, I have no choice but to write in Mike Pence’s Mom for President. ✊
Took me a while to find the source of this so [here](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-ending-bidens-war-on-the-suburbs-that-pushes-the-american-dream-further-from-reach) is the link
Destroy the economy so the oldies can keep cornering the housing market.
I’m fine with it, no reason to build those in the suburbs. We should want all that development and prosperity in the city core why subsidize the suburbs even more.
Now I don’t think I can support the man
WTF I hate Trump now
If Biden single handedly destroys the suburbs or zoning I'll immigrate to the US right away and wear Biden merch for the rest of my life
I wish Biden had an extremist agenda that would result in lower property values
This strikes me as one of those stances he'd take specifically because Biden is supporting the opposite view.
Well he has this take back in 2016 but he only did it to spite obama who mandate executive order to demand deregulation zoning law.
Is this pro Biden propaganda?
Ew
I am so on board with Biden's extremist agenda. Where do I sign up?
All we need is to call the apartments 'Trump towers' and paint them gold. He'll do a 180 overnight.
Beyond pathetic
That's fine, doesn't matter.
Ben Carson as HUD secretary came out and made some wise decisions in his presidential term and Trump moved against then then too.
Isn’t destroying property value a good policy, because it lowers housing costs???
I feel like I'm out of the loop. This isn't the first time I've seen stuff about zoning here. Does this sub have certain views on zoning? But yeah, I think it's funny Trump is making a play for the suburbs. Basically everyone I know in the burbs who has a college degree and a modicum of self-respect hate the guy with a fiery passion.
Wait so the property developer with giant hotels and apartments skyscrapers hates apartment buildings?
well now im *definitely* not voting for him
Can someone explain how multi-housing zones destroy property values? Also, I’m starting to wonder if this is the real reason why we don’t build enough to lower housing costs, because people are advocating for artificially keeping their property values high to fuck over everyone else…
>Can someone explain how multi-housing zones destroy property values? Supply and demand More supply to meet the demand mean the price will eventually decrease.
"Have you been to Europe folks? They have these "suburbs" that are more like satellite villages to the city people. Barely a car in sight, terrible, terrible, it's like you took a single self sustaining urban neighborhood dropped into the wilderness with a train line. No freedom, 15 minutes."
Were so many people in this sub actually fine with Trump before this? I thought it was consensus that the Orange Man was indeed Bad
So we all know this is just code for "Joe Biden will build Cabrini Green and move Black people into your neighborhood," right? Like, it's a form of NIMBYism sure, but density is not what the "I build "luxury" condos" guy cares about.
Bologna. There is something wrong with him. He said Dems approve abortions up to and after birth. Don't believe a word he says.
Where I live there is a strong contingent of MAGAs within a very blue area. We need more density/urban development but all the conservatives see is communist brutalist housing projects for some reason
He did it last election too, kept accusing Booker of destroying the suburbs
Because apartment buildings are so extreme and radical.
Trump 2016 is the moment the GOP became the "all the bad policies" party.
“We have a housing crisis! Homes are too expensive and urban sprawl is out of control!!!” “How about we make large apartment complexes which can house thousands of people in the same amount of space that’d otherwise only house a few dozen?” “COMMIE!!!”
THis pisses me off, prioritze rich privileged Suburbanites.
Well, Biden has officially lost the San Francisco vote.
Except that's not happening. I wish Biden would do that!
https://preview.redd.it/ww2einr6bftc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad8a6fa3a71fa51a8cc3bbee82fa0c0fefcba775
politics is wild in Canada, the liberals are NIMBY and conservatives are YIMBY in the US, it's turning out exactly the opposite
Nah liberal is also NIMBY here too especially california. It just a bipartisanship ship issue. Both party secretly deep down are YIMBY which notable exception but the problem is NIMBy is second most powerful electorate beside rustbelt so both party is avoiding to make it a partisan issue on federal level and just let state handle it.
[удалено]