Regardless of any particular changes of these numbers, i.e. 25K private units rather than 30K, the questions still stand.
Mayor's $16-billion housing plan
- Thread starter armpitsOFmight
- Start date
Regardless of any particular changes of these numbers, i.e. 25K private units rather than 30K, the questions still stand.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
We could all only hope we find a place that would resemble the SHIRE the home of the Hobbits in our lifetime. Everybody treated equally until Bimbo used the RING.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,404
- Reaction score
- 457
The thread was designed to fail from the start. Just grab ahold of the anchor and enjoy the ride to the bottom. (Besides, it is fun exchanging ideas and arguments with friends.)
Alrighty then. I will consider myself a liberal fascist for generally supporting the city's affordable housing plans. Flame away.
This thread is actually pretty civil, despite being designed to become a shitshow. Before it devolves,
My thoughts on this are that instead of subsidizing people to live in the expensive parts of the city, allowing the market to dictate where they live could be good for the city as a whole. As rents continue to increase, I (as one of those who can barely afford to live in a shithole in Brighton) am strongly considering moving to Roxy. A shift in the population similar to me (those who want to work) to areas that are currently cheap would allow for those neighborhoods to organically improve without being detrimental to the existing residents as gentrification by the upper and middle class is.
The real trick would be encouraging landlords to fix up their properties to a serviceable state without raising rents to the point they are no longer affordable. Investment in existing housing stock, or small infill (such as the two floors added to a 'taxpayer' in Allston) is where this money should be going, not to new construction. New construction should be limited to those who can afford it.
My thoughts on this are that instead of subsidizing people to live in the expensive parts of the city, allowing the market to dictate where they live could be good for the city as a whole. As rents continue to increase, I (as one of those who can barely afford to live in a shithole in Brighton) am strongly considering moving to Roxy. A shift in the population similar to me (those who want to work) to areas that are currently cheap would allow for those neighborhoods to organically improve without being detrimental to the existing residents as gentrification by the upper and middle class is.
The real trick would be encouraging landlords to fix up their properties to a serviceable state without raising rents to the point they are no longer affordable. Investment in existing housing stock, or small infill (such as the two floors added to a 'taxpayer' in Allston) is where this money should be going, not to new construction. New construction should be limited to those who can afford it.
This is a good point. Although there has got to be a way to increase the accountability for being a leach.
That was a huge step, admitting your problem. Maybe in a few years when you've gotten that west coast dank out of your system and you've done sonething worth doing with your life, you'll understand that the world's problems can't all be solved by pissing away other people's hard earned money.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 482
... wishing really, really hard that the problems would just - poof! - disappear with no expense of funds or effort.
At least my problem isn't that I hide behind a keyboard typing shit I wouldn't say to someone in person, which seems to be yours. You've made quite a few assumptions about who I am and what I do, not the least of which is that I apparently have never had a job (which I'm guessing is what you mean by doing "something worth doing.")
Of course, the natural right-wing inclination is to first claim that someone who disagrees with them must be a bum collecting handouts. When the person proves that in fact they have a job and collect no welfare of any kind, then the goalposts move and suddenly the *particular* job that the person has is what's no longer good enough, and is worthy of ridicule. "You're a leech! Go get a job!" Umm, no, I work at _______. "Only losers work there! What a fucking loser!!"
In any event, the idea that I haven't contributed or done something of worth (which in your mind apparently equates entirely with $$$$) is surprising to me, as looking at my past tax returns it appears that I have in fact found gainful, full-time employment and pay a variety of taxes. Maybe it's all that dope I didn't smoke in Oregon that is clouding my mind and making me read things on tax returns that didn't actually happen. Maybe someone else did that work and paid those taxes? Or maybe whatever work I did was loser work, and maybe whatever organizations I worked at weren't of any "worth" to you, the arbiter of such things.
Since you've implicitly stated that you've done a lot more of value with your life than I have, I kindly request that you enumerate all the wonderful things you've done that make you a better and more worthwhile human being than I. And to avoid the inclination you have to making over-the-top, hyperbolic pronouncements from behind your keyboard, I welcome the opportunity to see what kinds of statements you make in person.
This is hardly a threat - I'm genuinely curious to see you in person and have you tell me that I'm worthless and that I enjoy pissing (your?) hard-earned money away. Feel free to post dates and times at which I can show up and receive my verbal thrashing from one of my betters.
But sociopathy and greed tell me that everyone who struggles is a "leech"!!
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,280
- Reaction score
- 9,354
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
That makes a lot of sense. But sometimes the demographic shift can itself trigger gentrification.
My ultimate worry about cities becoming chic again is that as the middle and upper classes move back into the cities, rents and mortgage costs rise, the working and lower classes are forced to move elsewhere. But where do a lot of the working and lower classes work? In the service sector in the city. So now you have your service sector employees forced to live farther away from their jobs and either take a much longer or more expensive public transit trip, or invest more of their already tight budgets into a personal vehicle, gas and parking. Obviously it's not going to completely flip from what it is now, but there will be a lot more lower class workers commuting long ways for crappy jobs than there are now.
I totally agree with that. Any building that can structurally support the addition of floors should absolutely be incentivized to do so. Of course, as we saw in Somerville this week, many of these old one story retail buildings are not structurally sound.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,827
- Reaction score
- 10,341
kmp's in private equity (hedge fund manager?) and since he inevitably makes more money than you he is categorically better than you. It's called Worthington's Law and it's a real thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbU4VRs2rro
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,404
- Reaction score
- 457
Gentrification isn't illegal or immoral, except in authoritarian social planning. It is a natural evolutionary process, just as the departure of the middle class was a natural evolutionary process.
Why is one cycle worse than the other? Because when the wealthier group left, it took with it the money that supported the infrastructure that benefitted the poorer. The city crumbled. Of course it would have been unconstitutional to keep them from leaving. So Boston socialist planners in the late 60's and 70's considered chasing the middle class through grand regionalization and annexations schemes.
Now that the refugees and their money wish to return to the city and provide the tax money that departed, we want to block them? It makes no sense... unless that sense is based on a propagandistic idealization of "working people" whom social authoritarians glorify to maintain a grip on power.
What is the proof that there isn't plenty of room for all if the city gets out of the way and relaxes height restrictions on residential structures? Once upon a time, it had almost twice the population!
Why is one cycle worse than the other? Because when the wealthier group left, it took with it the money that supported the infrastructure that benefitted the poorer. The city crumbled. Of course it would have been unconstitutional to keep them from leaving. So Boston socialist planners in the late 60's and 70's considered chasing the middle class through grand regionalization and annexations schemes.
Now that the refugees and their money wish to return to the city and provide the tax money that departed, we want to block them? It makes no sense... unless that sense is based on a propagandistic idealization of "working people" whom social authoritarians glorify to maintain a grip on power.
What is the proof that there isn't plenty of room for all if the city gets out of the way and relaxes height restrictions on residential structures? Once upon a time, it had almost twice the population!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
I don't disagree with that.
Cities have always been bubbling stews of different races and social classes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last fifty years of white flight/middle class abandonment of the city was not a permanent trend like planners thought it was. The change in patterns now though threatens to displace the people who need to be close to civilization so that they can better survive on the money they have.
I hate populism as much as the next guy. However, the inherent inequality of unaddressed housing prices driving out the people who arguable "need" the city the most is wrong and needs to be addressed.
Of course! If the city gets out of the way and reforms arcane provincial zoning rules we will be in a better position. My point stems from the fact that the problem is currently going unaddressed by our officials. "Lets build 30,000 units of housing" isn't even coming close to what it needs to be, and they're falling short of even that. It's just like how our officials are going "lalala I can't hear you!" with the transit crisis. It's all part of the same thing. Non-responsive officials who are elected by an insular, competitive population.
On the former population of Boston: wasn't that at a time when the average household size was MUCH larger than it is now? I mean, my mom lived in the bottom floor of an 3-decker in Cambridge with ten people. And they were fine, but that's just how families were in the past. Multi-generational, lots of children. Now that same apartment is housing maybe one or two people. Maybe up to four.
That's why the new construction needs to happen. People aren't going to start en masse cramming two or three times the number of people into an apartment.
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 1,558
Soylent Green!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Not entirely on topic, but then again... this thread...
armpitsOFmight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 12
Since this thread is about to die...I just want to say that coyote137 is a lame screen name.