Then how about you allow your in-demand cities to build more housing so us “dumb hicks” from red states can move into your fancy pants progressive cities? I’d love to live in NYC and be relatively confident I don’t run into a chud.
Sorry, they're too busy gentrifying everywhere between NYC and Albany so the whole state becomes as unaffordable as the city and increasing the police budget
In what spaces do you get yelled at for this take? Like I understand that NYC and LA both have a big influx of wealthy transplants who move here to "make it" or whatever and just suck up all the resources, pour all their money into chic businesses but thats not the same as building housing for poor people that need it.
Probably because of the misunderstanding that we dont need more housing and not to just expropriate what already exists and also just turn office towers into high density housing.
It's thrown around a lot, but it comes off more uninformed than the outright liberal YIMBYs imo.
The things also is that liberal YIMBYs are generally all in favor of a steep vacancy tax which would directly impact this issue. This isn't a particular point of division between the two groups I don't think.
The main split has more to do with the role social housing would play in the future (near and distant).
Well they didn't say anything about deregulation so idk. It is a short-sighted take in regards to the housing/housless crisis already effecting locals in those urban centers.
“We support progressives in red states.”
Then how about you allow your in-demand cities to build more housing so us “dumb hicks” from red states can move into your fancy pants progressive cities? I’d love to live in NYC and be relatively confident I don’t run into a chud.
Sorry, they're too busy gentrifying everywhere between NYC and Albany so the whole state becomes as unaffordable as the city and increasing the police budget
Is this a yimby take on Hexbear? Are the tides finally shifting?
The "yimby" take is not mutually exclusive with he socialist take on housing
I agree but I still get yelled at for it a lot in leftist spaces.
I see, to me it's like getting yelled at for being pro "single payer" in the US cause it's too liberal.
In what spaces do you get yelled at for this take? Like I understand that NYC and LA both have a big influx of wealthy transplants who move here to "make it" or whatever and just suck up all the resources, pour all their money into chic businesses but thats not the same as building housing for poor people that need it.
On here and in the FB group NUMTOT. Lots of folks have the take that any and all for-profit housing is to be opposed.
The general arguments that are made are:
For profit housing takes a lot that could be used for public housing
New housing typically targets the top of the market and entices high-earners who speed up displacement
The idea that new condos are bought primarily to sit as empty investments in expensive areas
I don't agree with all or parts of most of these.
Probably because of the misunderstanding that we dont need more housing and not to just expropriate what already exists and also just turn office towers into high density housing.
It's thrown around a lot, but it comes off more uninformed than the outright liberal YIMBYs imo.
The things also is that liberal YIMBYs are generally all in favor of a steep vacancy tax which would directly impact this issue. This isn't a particular point of division between the two groups I don't think.
The main split has more to do with the role social housing would play in the future (near and distant).
Well they didn't say anything about deregulation so idk. It is a short-sighted take in regards to the housing/housless crisis already effecting locals in those urban centers.