Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

itallendsintears t1_ixi1u1w wrote

How is there homeless on every freaking corner of every intersection in mass but we are allocating all this money for people that aren’t even from here?

This is utterly ridiculous. We aren’t the saviors of the world. Let’s help our neighbors before we start just throwing money into the ether and seeing what sticks.

−23

3720-To-One t1_ixi2scp wrote

And you know what would help homeless?

By making housing cheaper by getting rid of all the NIMBY zoning restrictions, and letting more housing actually be built.

And then of course, conservatives will whine about socialism.

51

imanze t1_ixi8i61 wrote

I agree with your idea but I think it’s more than conservatives that are to blame for the zoning issues we see. Most zoning laws are set at the town level and some of the towns with the worst zoning laws are incredibly wealthy yet vote blue for major elections.

16

3720-To-One t1_ixianed wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

11

spg1611 t1_ixim10l wrote

Zoning laws are set by towns and cities mostly… and most of them around here vote blue.

But continue.

8

3720-To-One t1_ixioi71 wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

3

itallendsintears t1_ixi8yx6 wrote

Well maybe but I doubt that will solve it. And I’m hardly conservative so bring on the socialism

1

3720-To-One t1_ixiaup8 wrote

I didn’t say solve… but having cheaper housing across the board will help.

And you get housing cheaper by increasing supply.

And you do that by getting rid of a lot of the nimby bullshit.

5

Ilikereddit15 t1_ixjh8k9 wrote

Conservatives? In MA?

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjhlar wrote

Yes, they exist

2

Ilikereddit15 t1_ixjiosq wrote

A minority, for sure. But let’s not kid ourselves. Nimbyism is a class construct, not political

4

3720-To-One t1_ixjjw29 wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with them always screeching “what about the homeless?!” whenever someone suggests spending money on something that they don’t like, but then they start screeching about “socialism” when someone suggests doing something to help homeless.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjia27 wrote

This boils down to "you know what would really help, is giving one political side everything they want without restriction". It's very clearly helping by one political view and no other, while claiming anything else is the enemy. There are plenty of problems with housing and zoning restrictions but most people don't realize why a lot of them are in place - for better or worse. The housing stock that's built now is built by builders who have no real sense of architecture or planning. They'd rather build a McMansion if it got them paid more.

All of this is ignoring the silly claim that it's conservatives whining when MA is solidly blue, but most towns don't handle things like some sort of caricature people expect.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjikjz wrote

And why do you think they build those McMansions?!

Because all the damn NIMBY restrictions won’t let them build anything other than SFH!

And yes, a lot of the zoning restrictions are done out of 100% greed and selfishness of existing property owners, to artificially inflate the values of their properties by restricting supply, and keeping less affluent people out. That is literally why SFH-only zoning was created.

2

pillbinge t1_ixjlw4l wrote

If builders could come up with plans to make really good, aesthetic housing, that's build solidly and densely - like you'd find in Back Bay, Charlestown, or Beacon Hill - people would change their tune. They aren't. McMansions they're building are the result of a lot of things but they could always design them better. There's no legal requirement for them. Large housing isn't just a McMansion, and this part of the country can show that in older, wealthier areas.

0

3720-To-One t1_ixjmrgu wrote

What are you not understanding?

Many locations don’t allow anything other than SFH to be built, and in other locations, restrictive zoning makes it prohibitively expensive.

You’re putting the cart before the horse.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjona7 wrote

I don't get why you keep jumping tracks. They don't, so the effort should be put into places that do allow for it. They aren't putting that effort in either. I bike by more places in Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston that are newer but weaker, worse looking, and probably future tear-downs in my own life. The buildings that aren't are ones built a long time ago and with better materials.

Why aren't places that build for multi-family complexes building ugly, dogshit, and flimsy places when they don't have the restrictions you're talking about? There's a reason the three places I mentioned are all within the same city. Expand those and get a real movement going. Not the "movement" you're laying out here.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixjrp1y wrote

Because those buildings STILL have to jump through tons of hoops to get built, because of all the restrictions, AND THAT MAKES EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE!

Why are you not understanding this?

When you have to go through a gazillion different zoning board meetings, and hire lawyers, and go through a long and convoluted approvals process, it makes everything more expensive.

2

pillbinge t1_ixkx1y5 wrote

You keep bringing up topics in some rapid-fire manner and asking why I don't get something, when you might be having a hard time explaining what you mean. I do understand this. I just don't have the bland approach that you do that clearly isn't working at all.

I never said we should keep bureaucracy around. I can't stand it. At this point, you're arguing something I haven't said like I'm someone else, but showing that the real thing you value is dirt-cheap housing, when valuations in housing have primarily been hurt by financialization. Housing might have to get a bit more expensive at first. That's true of anything new that you start building. We need to build it back up again though.

1

seanwalter123 t1_ixiqqp8 wrote

Complaining about conservatism in the bluest state in the country right now.. makes sense.

−2

3720-To-One t1_ixir8ba wrote

Imagine thinking that conservatives don’t exist in a state simply because there is a solid majority of democrats.

6

seanwalter123 t1_ixiui8k wrote

I’m just confused when a state and the majority of towns have democrats running but somehow it’s “conservatives” fault for zoning laws? Conservatives don’t have a say in the governing body of this state anywhere. Clearly you want to blame republicans for faults not of their making which I get but they don’t even exist here. You’re blaming a group of people that are 100% irreverent to decision making in Massachusetts.

1

3720-To-One t1_ixius4o wrote

My comment about conservatives had more to do with conservatives always being like “why are we spending all this money on (thing I don’t like)?! Why don’t we take care of the homeless?!”… but then when someone actually suggests spending money to help homeless, conservatives whine about “socialism”.

3

squannacook t1_ixi59fe wrote

Rent starting at $1,500 for a studio... new mortgages averaging nearly $3k a month in Massachusetts... and outdated, privileged zoning laws.

And those people at the intersections, without homes... are your neighbors.

17

Horknut1 t1_ixibmt9 wrote

These are all people. We can work on more than one problem at a time.

11

[deleted] t1_ixijaad wrote

Right--no need to view the world in such a zero sum "I win-you lose" kind of way. We can care about both issues/groups of people at the same time.

5

pillbinge t1_ixjig10 wrote

Where's that getting us?

1

[deleted] t1_ixjiu62 wrote

I don’t really know what answer you’re looking for. But it honestly is just the right thing to do—doesn’t have to “get us somewhere.” I know there’s a place for zero sum thinking, but I think we should try to make it the exception rather than the rule.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjm7eh wrote

The right thing, in these cases, is either subjective, or it's the answer to a question framed in a way to get a specific answer. For the basic type of person who thinks efficiency is a humanist value, but hasn't looked at the world around them, I can understand that.

But the main answer is that it isn't getting us anywhere. We can talk about having some sort of system that helps anyone who needs help, if they show up from another country, but rightly so, that system should benefit people already in the area. That's what was said, with the urge that we do this so that people on somewhere like Mass and Cass get help. The problem is that we'll always end up inducing demand or extending this fight.

This isn't zero-sum thinking. It's the fact that when it comes to dividing things, you could always not divide things. Whether or not there's a hypothetical or theoretical sum at the end doesn't matter.

1

[deleted] t1_ixjmyzn wrote

I hear your point. I think we fundamentally disagree on the idea that someone “in the area” should get preference over someone who isn’t or who just arrived. I tend to think of all humanity as equally worthy of aid/help/compassion. That may be a lofty way to look at it, but I’d like to think at least starting from that outlook is important as we get into the nitty gritty of what needs to happen.

1

pillbinge t1_ixjoe6d wrote

We do fundamentally disagree, respectfully, but I'm very invested in this as of the past few or so years, when I put the views you have to the test. Views I had as a college student and a little after.

It's what I refer to as numbing, and it doesn't answer any real questions. Like you said, it's lofty, but that's antithetical to the nitty gritty. It's why I think of a book about how politics don't really affect local areas, because local areas have to deal with real, material issues. Republicans and Democrats might disagree on how to handle some things, but they have to keep the trash trucks moving. They have to keep the water flowing.

The idea that we're all equally worthy of aid and help is separate from compassion, which is immaterial, and autonomy, which is another topic. The insinuation that these people need something other than aid or help was never there. I never implied we shouldn't have compassion. I have tons of it. I'm insulted by the insinuation that I'm suggesting something else. Of course I treat people I physically meet respectfully.

I just no longer recognize this bland, post-WW2, grand view that doesn't work. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now. It's a continuation of imperialism since you rarely see the West or developed nations changing. It's always "the other". It just sounds a lot nicer now that it's been workshopped and forced to work - especially when our country started selling off its industry and labor. That's why pro-labor people eventually get met with claims of xenophobia.

In this case, why shouldn't our borders matter? They keep us in just as much as they keep others out, and we would be able to help in the abstract more if we had a functioning society. We'd help more people if we helped them where they were. We help fewer people by being lazy and waiting till they get here, telling them good job, and convincing ourselves we did something.

1

[deleted] t1_ixjq8lt wrote

There’s a lot to unpack here (for eg the reason asylum seekers have to come here is partially bc of US foreign policy decisions in the past leading to unstable societies in a lot of places).

But I’m going to respectfully decline to further engage bc it’s thanksgiving eve and I don’t think either of us is going to be convinced via Reddit comments. :) We can agree to disagree on a lot of the beliefs, assumptions, and values we hold. Have a safe and happy holiday!

1

irishgypsy1960 t1_ixi8mo9 wrote

Sorry you’re getting downvoted. I have a brother who is homeless in boston for many years. He now has an advocate helping him apply everywhere for over a year. He’s mentally unable to handle a shelter. I’m unable to help due to being on assistance myself and other health issues. He has lived in mass his entire 63 years. Until one has experienced this with a loved one, don’t be so quick to judge this stance. He and I both feel the same and, didn’t use to.

8

itallendsintears t1_ixi9c6k wrote

Absolutely this. I’m sorry for your struggles and your brother as well. Unfortunately, since we love to jump on the “next big thing” without solving current issues, I don’t expect this to change.

And I’m hardly a conservative…though I’m sure I’ll get lumped into a group for not going “all-in” to every feel good stupid idea

5

irishgypsy1960 t1_ixi9zbc wrote

Neither am I, not by a long shot. But he worked and paid both mass and us taxes for decades before he fell on such hard times. It’s not right.

8

itallendsintears t1_ixiaqk9 wrote

I was a homeless heroin addict in Boston for nearly a decade I completely get it trust me. I feel for both of you. Sincerely.

2

irishgypsy1960 t1_ixicw9e wrote

For him,, it began with trauma, which we share, and mental illness, then drugs. He’s not on drugs anymore. I’m glad you made it out. These Down voters, maybe they’ve never had these experiences. Also, it’s just easier to help people from a different culture. It’s less complicated and doesn’t demand examination of our fake meritocracy nor question one’s own good fortune.

7

itallendsintears t1_ixidjv1 wrote

You hit the nail on the head exactly. It’s easier, ultimately. And that’s why it’s preferred. Because they don’t have to get to close or look to deep.

4

irishgypsy1960 t1_ixie923 wrote

Have a happy thanksgiving. I’m grateful for this exchange.

4

feliscat t1_ixihkrh wrote

The emergency shelter system is not exclusively for people that aren't from here - it is for the people on the street corner too.

7

Another_Reddit t1_ixin79t wrote

I don’t think we need a “this or that” approach here. Every time the government proposes to do something to fix a problem, people tend to jump to “well what about this other thing!”

In this bill, Baker is proposing some measures to help with this immediate need for the sudden influx of migrants. Doing nothing would put more strain on our already stressed system. But that doesn’t mean we can’t ALSO do more for the homeless, right? Just because the government is trying to address one problem, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ALSO push them to solve others.

6

coral15 t1_ixk3pdk wrote

Who are all these people downvoting this?

A verious serious question. I’d like to read their stance.

2

itallendsintears t1_ixk5jte wrote

We have such major issues in our own state with persons who directly impact our lives and who I gladly pay taxes to help support. Hell, I was one of them at one point!

This isn’t a universal charity I mean wtf are we doing here?

Help people from Massachusetts. That should be our states only priority. Let the feds deal with this shit but even then my stance remains.

This IS NOT anti immigration. In fact, due to COVID immigration restrictions we have a labor shortage and are in need of immigrants.

No, in essence in many cases we are sadly taking in other countries homeless people. Other counties.

Has anyone driving around a town in Massachusetts lately? Serious question. We have a very immediate problem RIGHT HERE not getting addressed.

3