Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbzcdhi wrote

Reply to comment by wuguwa in Petition: Save the Locust Point Community Garden! by elephantsandrainbows

“NIMBY” stands for “Not in my backyard,” i.e. people who do not want additional construction of housing or infrastructure in their communities. There are a lot of reasons for this, and one commonly cited one is “loss of community character,” which is most likely the OP’s reason for the petition here.

Even if OP’s commitment to preserve their community garden is admirable, the consequences of NIMBYism are extremely severe. The lack of affordable housing due to NIMBYs preventing construction (like the developers wanting to build townhouses here) is directly implicated in rising housing costs and homelessness rates across the country.

2

AngryGayZionist t1_jbzocfa wrote

LOL. Do you think they'll be building anything resembling or including one iota of affordable housing? No way.

5

ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbzppem wrote

Oh lookee here, a left-NIMBY out in the wild.

What happens is that people who can pay for new “luxury” housing can go live there instead of fighting with low-income residents over pre-existing housing. Simple supply and demand.

But what can I say, we live in a fucked up country where most people think housing gets more expensive the more there is.

6

AngryGayZionist t1_jbzqhmt wrote

Awww, I bet you also claim trickle down economics actually works. gifgif

−1

shrugsnotdrugs t1_jc0pwdo wrote

I think you’re conflating ideologies and positions. Someone (/u/ice_cold_fahrenheit) advocating for increasing housing density isn’t likely going to be a supporter of trickle-down-economics lmao.

5

wuguwa t1_jbzdzwb wrote

Got it. Thanks for the additional info.

3

CallMeHelicase t1_jc2i64q wrote

The housing put in would not be affordable, and we already have too many vacant houses in this city. There is NOT a housing shortage here, and I am surprised you don't understand that.

2

ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jc2sw5i wrote

Is there not? Looking at rents in Locust Point and Harbor East, it certainly seems like there’s one to me, even if it’s not as egregious as in other cities. After all it’s not like those particular places have vacant housing - it’s the blighted blocks people are moving out of that bring down the citywide average.

And even if there wasn’t a housing shortage per se, it would be good to build more housing anyways to bring prices even lower. And that can happen while the city gets rid of vacant housing at the same time.

3

rhymes_with_pail t1_jc3g72x wrote

Any additional housing increases affordability.

2

CallMeHelicase t1_jc40y8s wrote

Does it? There are so many houses for sale near me and they are all way more than I can afford. I would love for more houses to be available - I just want them to be rehabilitated vacant homes instead of wasting materials building overpriced townhomes that will fall apart in 10 years.

I personally want owners of vacant homes to be forced to sell them if they have been vacant for over two years. I worry that more home construction will lead to more homes that will just become vacant. I am sick of the fires and drug overdoses that happen in vacant homes. I think it is fair to request we fix the ones we already have before building more.

0

rhymes_with_pail t1_jc7gjis wrote

Yes it does. The more homes where people want to live the lower the costs of individual homes will be. You are conflating two different issues in housing affordability and vacant housing. Why don't you buy a vacant and fix it up if that is so cheap? Because it is not cheap and they aren't in places people want to live. People aren't wasting materials building overpriced townhomes. They are using materials building townhomes at prices people will pay. When those people move out their old cheaper homes become available for people who can afford at that level. ALL new housing lowers average home pricing in an area. The only thing this petition protects is increasing home values in the Locust Point Neighborhood. Do you want homes to be more expensive?

1

Dangerous_Wave t1_jc09ekp wrote

So explain why they just put 250k townhouses off Cedar Hill Rd in Glen Burnie, less than 2 miles from Church St. That's not affordable for 95% of Baltimoreans.

In addition, the so called "low income" apartments they stuck between Lidl (ritchie hwy) and Chesapeake Art center (hammonds lane) was, last I heard, $1000 for a one bedroom. Also not affordable.

They claim low income right up till it's time to cut the ribbon for real estate agents, then jack the price to the sky because "it cost more to build than expected."

0

ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jc0bea9 wrote

As I explained in my other comment, new development will make overall rents cheaper than what they would’ve otherwise been, regardless of if the new development is affordable, luxury, or anything in between. This article explains it in more detail.

If you suggest they should develop affordable instead of market rate housing, then that’s a fair sentiment, but even market-rate housing will be better than not building at all. If you are actually suggesting not building anything at all, well…

Also I do wonder how common the last thing you said actually is. The usual complaints I see online is about developers advertising “luxury” apartments when they’re just bog-standard 5-over-1s.

7