this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1176 points (84.2% liked)

Memes

45718 readers
832 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZombiFrancis 63 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In the United States at least, your local government's public hearings for new housing developments kinda begs to differ.

People will demand the homeless be eliminated from their area while simultaneously opposing development of housing or shelters for the homeless in their area.

So maybe you're right though: they don't hate the apartments more, they simply can't make up their mind on which they hate more.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I agree but want to say everyone jumps to homeless. There are a ton of normal people that are suffering from high rent, lack of options, etc. We need to think about way more than homeless.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So it sounds like zoning laws are the problem?

[–] ZombiFrancis 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In some cases. But even proposed changes to zoning laws can get this kind of opposition.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aside from zoning laws, there's the lack of a unified federal intervention. This prevents any one area from addressing the local homeless issue because any area that takes steps to address it will consequently absorb more homeless individuals from other places in the country. For example, if a city in California develops a program to house any homeless individuals, then homeless individuals from other cities and states will be more likely to go to said city to get housed. Even worse, there are states that would actually pay for their transportation. What would happen is that either the city would have to solve a much larger homeless problem as new homeless move into town, or the initial wave of homeless people will be house while the new arrivals and homeless will stay homeless, leaving a continued homeless problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Succinctly put.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So conservative NIMBYs are the problem?

[–] ZombiFrancis 1 points 1 year ago

There's definitely an "I got mine, fuck you." component, yes.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it’s more so that people don’t want an apartment complex built in their backyard, not that they are opposed to them being built in an area where there is proper infrastructure

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

NIMBY!!

Where do you place the proper infrastructure then? It’s always going to be in someone’s “back yard” as you put it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Well there’s considerable difference between an apartment complex in a suburb not designed for heavy traffic and less developed areas where there’s room for expansion for infrastructure.

We can’t expand roads in my area, either for an extra lane (which I know is a sin) or for buses because it would be right up on houses at that point.

However, just a few miles down the road on the main drag, there’s undeveloped land that would be perfect. Build it there.

When I say “backyard” I mean literally in your backyard. Instead of name calling and downvoting, have a fucking conversation and ask in a respectful manner what somebody means. Stop being a douche because you automatically assume somebody who thinks slightly differently than you is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Well articulated. I'm not from the US, but I've seen housing developments go sideways when they built four 10-story blocks (not in somebody's back yard, but in an area without proper infrastructure) and after 1000ish people had moved in there were 1 hour long queues just to get out of the complex because there was only one road with one lane per direction. And the only bus stop was not really reliable.

This was not built in the middle of the city because of land availability (and huge prices even if there was land available - you're near the metro and tram and a bus stop? pay 50% more. oh, you're near a park too? pay 50% more on top of that). Should we just tear down old buildings in low density areas in the city to make room for big blocks? Some might be worth tearing down because of age and overall condition, but good luck getting people to move out.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

lmao make up your mind

do you want to have a conversation without name calling? Then leave out the name calling or kindly get fucked

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, "in stead of name calling, stop being a douche" is not the MOST consistent argument ever 😂

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tired of being nice. I do it all the time and it’s never returned in kind.

Lemmy users act like this is a different place, that it’s a more wholesome internet, what a joke. It’s as bad as anywhere else.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I wasn’t being mean spirited with my original comment, it was a legitimate question. Whenever I hear people say something like “I don’t want that!” I like to find out why. It’s just curiosity. Sorry if it came across mean.