I totally get that people want to live in certain areas and can't afford to do so. So what? You dismiss any negative impacts of up-zoning, waving them away because it's inconvenient for you to acknowledge the impacts. You basically argue like a fifth grader, stomping your feet when people don't agree with you. Don't like SFR neighborhoods? Great, don't buy in one.
So what that a shitload of people can't afford housing where people must live to be near enough to jobs and infrastructure such as healthcare and education? It takes a special kind of a-hole to be so cavalierly dismissive about that.
I don't dislike all SFH neighborhoods, and never said there shouldn't be any single family neighborhoods either, not even close to that, but I also dont' think they should be the de facto zoning as they are now either. Your solution of just don't buy one is really stupid. A childlike argument. And I did not buy a single family home, I live in a 3 story 3 unit condo building in an area with few single family homes. But that is completely irrelevant anyway. It's like talking about gun violence and gun control and someone saying there should be a conversation about some reasonable restrictions on gun sales and ownership, and you saying fuck off, just don't buy one. Very silly statement.
I never dismissed any negative impacts of upzoning, but you haven't really come up with any either, except for completely unplanned zoning, which I disagreed with already, so you have no point. I specifically said it should be done with planning - working with or improving the surrounding infrastructure if needed, pointed out how it could be done while still working with the neighborhood aesthetic (based on a link another poster used)etc.. I posted an article on how European cities are designed with public transport, avoiding as much sprawl while still not being these very dense cities and still having SFH neighborhoods. I asked you to put your money where your mouth is on Minneapolis and you refuse to do so. You have provide absolutely zero evidence that planned upzoning has these massive negative effects besides the fact they piss you off. Instead you make alarmist gibberish statements that allowing duplexes and triplexes will just destroy neighborhoods or we will have to raze Central Park for residential towers. It's an intellectual joke.
You ignore everything, refuse to be a part of any solution, keep saying the same things, not responding to any points with anything of substance except repeating this will be terrible, and you remind me of when me and my sister were like 4 years old. If we heard something we didn't like we'd cover our ears and move them about pointing at the person trying to talk to us and sing 'Na nee na nee poo poo I can't hear you' and repeat.
It's amusing but sad at the same time.
Also, btw, there are many articles how much it costs to subsidize purely suburban SFZ neighborhoods. You should start to volunteer to pay up if you want to continue to be so obtuse about this whole subject.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/
"What image springs to mind when you picture “federally subsidized housing”? Most people imagine a low-income public housing tower, a homeless shelter, or a shoddy apartment building.
Nope—
suburban homeowners are the single biggest recipient of housing subsidies. As a result, suburbs
dominate housing in the United States. For decades, federal finance regulations incentivized single-family homes through three key mechanisms:
- Insurance
- National mortgage markets
- New standards for debt structuring
The housing market hides these details from the typical home buyer. As a result, most people are unaware of these subsidies. But their effects are striking—they determined the location and shape of development across America for generations."
For most cities, the property taxes from single-family homes simply can’t pay the bills. One Minnesota mayor was remarkably blunt about that fact in a recent speech.
www.strongtowns.org
"The dirty little secret which nearly every municipal government in America must grapple with is that single-family homes are usually a money loser from the local government’s point of view. Especially if they’re on larger lots in
automobile-oriented neighborhoods, the services and infrastructure they demand will likely cost more, in the long run, than the tax revenue these properties bring in.
(Our friends at geoanalytics firm
Urban3 have been pioneers in demonstrating this fact, in such places as
Lafayette, Louisiana and, more recently,
Eugene, Oregon—where
a startling graph reveals that the 80% or so of the land within Eugene’s borders that is populated by single-family residences is essentially all revenue net-negative.)
Elected officials must often do a difficult rhetorical dance, because if they’ve spent time seriously contemplating their budget outlook, they understand this fact. And yet they must speak to a citizenry many of whom not only live in single-family homes, but ascribe a huge amount of cultural value to this living arrangement. In a place like Edina, Minnesota, the whole cultural identity is built around an archetype of the suburban Good Life. Detached home, big garage, big yard, quiet and leafy neighborhood full of prosperous families."
A new report finds that of the $450 billion the federal government spends on real estate each year, the lion’s share subsidizes suburban growth -- at the expense of both cities and the planet.
grist.org
"Starving the cities to feed the suburbs
A new report finds that of the $450 billion the federal government spends on real estate each year, the lion’s share subsidizes suburban growth -- at the expense of both cities and the planet."