Red Mosquito

B wrote:You have that power. I cede to you.

:fistbump:

tragabigzanda wrote:Oh god has bammer been modded

Wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

4/5 wrote:It also sounds like making it more difficult to build housing leads to housing becoming less affordable and contributes to some real problems.

Yeah, this is an unending debate here in Chapel Hill, NC.

You should see how angry all the old white people get over 35 acres that the town bought. The Town wants to combine it with an existing park to make a 30 acre park and use 10 acres of the new land for housing. Oh man, the screaming over the loss of those 10 acres .... oh man!

For the bottom 2/3 of earners, the overwhelming majority of their net worth comes from their primary residence. It makes sense that any perceived threat would be defended against no matter the benefit to the state

Well, I'll say this ...
- This would benefit the community. I guess you could argue it benefits "the state" in that they would have some taxable homes, but given they'd be lower value, and I expect Chapel Hill to spend that money on town services, I'm not sure I care.

- Average home price is over $500,000 and we're all VERY liberal (supposedly), I'd think a minor drop in home value to benefit those serving your food or the environment wouldn't cause vehement hate.

You're wrong about that last part

The Argonaut wrote:You're wrong about that last part

Well, obviously.

My house has gained exponential value the past ten years, as has every house in my neighborhood. Because scarcity.

But I certainly do not begrudge developers from getting a variance when ol’ grandma down the street moves off to a nursing home, they tear down her ancient house, and put up 2-3 new townhomes in its place. I don’t fear that the additional housing units in my neighborhood are going to cripple my equity position. Because I’m not insane. We need more Bammer types, honestly, not all these NIMBYs.

Bammer wrote:My house has gained exponential value the past ten years, as has every house in my neighborhood. Because scarcity.

But I certainly do not begrudge developers from getting a variance when ol’ grandma down the street moves off to a nursing home, they tear down her ancient house, and put up 2-3 new townhomes in its place. I don’t fear that the additional housing units in my neighborhood are going to cripple my equity position. Because I’m not insane. We need more Bammer types, honestly, not all these NIMBYs.

They're not even tearing down homes here. The two biggest fights are over that before mentioned property that the Town bought from the VFW and a wooded plot owned by the Town and County where people with $2000 mountain bikes like to ride.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bammer wrote:My house has gained exponential value the past ten years, as has every house in my neighborhood. Because scarcity.

But I certainly do not begrudge developers from getting a variance when ol’ grandma down the street moves off to a nursing home, they tear down her ancient house, and put up 2-3 new townhomes in its place. I don’t fear that the additional housing units in my neighborhood are going to cripple my equity position. Because I’m not insane. We need more Bammer types, honestly, not all these NIMBYs.

Uhh…if yours is a single family house, then that townhome only increases your value.

I don’t agree. Dense housing crowds roads and schools, brings crime and lowers neighborhood stability, and I suspect it rarely performs as well as folks think beyond like 2-5 years.

Crime and low neighborhood stability are often used as a proxy for race

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bammer wrote:My house has gained exponential value the past ten years, as has every house in my neighborhood. Because scarcity.

But I certainly do not begrudge developers from getting a variance when ol’ grandma down the street moves off to a nursing home, they tear down her ancient house, and put up 2-3 new townhomes in its place. I don’t fear that the additional housing units in my neighborhood are going to cripple my equity position. Because I’m not insane. We need more Bammer types, honestly, not all these NIMBYs.

Uhh…if yours is a single family house, then that townhome only increases your value.

I don’t agree. Dense housing crowds roads and schools, brings crime and lowers neighborhood stability, and I suspect it rarely performs as well as folks think beyond like 2-5 years.

Hmm... Certainly not the case where we are. Maybe that's true in more heavily urbanized areas? There's probably an inflection point at which the density becomes a net-loss for the marketplace. Here in my town, single-home home have skyrocketed because they're not being made any more; townhomes and condos are springing up everywhere, and the market there is volatile. But this is not a place prone to violent crime.

This would depend on the homes’ proximity to a major city center or other desirable area. Tons of condos being built in my Chicago neighborhood, and the single family homes aren’t getting any cheaper. Inching closer to unicorn status really.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bammer wrote:My house has gained exponential value the past ten years, as has every house in my neighborhood. Because scarcity.

But I certainly do not begrudge developers from getting a variance when ol’ grandma down the street moves off to a nursing home, they tear down her ancient house, and put up 2-3 new townhomes in its place. I don’t fear that the additional housing units in my neighborhood are going to cripple my equity position. Because I’m not insane. We need more Bammer types, honestly, not all these NIMBYs.

Uhh…if yours is a single family house, then that townhome only increases your value.

We’ve established that I’m not insane so I don’t go nimby over it.

Not a fan of the idea of a ton more vehicle traffic though.

tragabigzanda wrote:If only Campbell Scott could’ve realized that supertrain in Singles

I was just talking about this like 2 weeks ago

He was so far ahead of his time

B wrote:Crime and low neighborhood stability are often used as a proxy for race

This presents a problematic but real world choice then. Integration and victimization vs segregation and safety. Nice job Scott Adams.

well, that's just about the saddest thing I've seen in a while

Department of Children's Services + Shitty parents is a great recipe for homelessness

BurtReynolds wrote:

This fits here, too.

One of the things that stands out to me is the gal working on her GED and she has SIX kids.

This is one way to do it:


Oregon bill would decriminalize homeless encampments and propose penalties if unhoused people are harassed or ordered to leave

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/us/orego ... index.html