MyStackRunnethOver

MyStackRunnethOver t1_jdifzt1 wrote

Reply to Someone just crashed their car so hard right into Atwood’s by laflizzy

Once saw a Denny's with an old lady's Buick driven right through the wall, in the middle of a(n empty at the time, thankfully) booth. The place had parking spots perpendicular to the exterior wall - panic hit the gas instead of the brake, jumped the curb and drove it right over the sidewalk and into the restaurant

2

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j8p4e2h wrote

Reply to Gentrification by [deleted]

> market-rate housing (i.e., luxury housing)

"New" housing is not the same as "luxury" housing. By this logic every new car is a luxury car.

> 1. Why are many of you against rent control?

It is at best flawed, at worst actively harmful to the goal of letting more people afford to live in a given place

> 2. Are you aware that building luxury housing, especially in communities with marginalized or disadvantaged populations (e.g., Malden, Chelsea, Revere), is gentrification? Ultimately, the luxury housing will raise the prices of nearby properties and lots. It will also bring businesses that cater to those in luxury apartments and, subsequently, are not as affordable as neighborhood grocery stores, hardware stores, etc.)?

Neighborhoods change over time, whether or not housing is built in them. There are ways to support the people negatively impacted by gentrification, but "build no market rate housing anywhere" is not one of them. Note that a big driver of negative impact on the poor is that often poor neighborhoods are the only ones in which NIMBY's allow ANY housing to be built

> 2. Ultimately, the luxury housing will raise the prices of nearby properties and lots

And this specific bit ^ is at best hugely misleading. Building more housing reduces the cost of surrounding housing. The literature on this is clear. While the value of land and of existing commercial structures may go up as a neighborhood becomes more desirable, building more housing is going to lower the cost of surrounding housing

> 3. Would you be open to luxury housing that is initially rent-controlled for some years before it can become market-rate? This would be similar to 421-A in NYC.

> 4. Would you be open to luxury housing that is initially rent-controlled that can be sold to the renters there for a below-market-rate price? Essentially, the renters would get priority and could decide if they wanted to continue living there (buy) when the hypothetical rent-control period ends? The renters would then be on the path to homeownership, which has numerous benefits that I will not get into here.

I'm open to anything that increases the housing supply, but why complicate ourselves? Building just affordable housing ignores the majority of the housing scarcity problem, since most people don't qualify for it, whereas just building market rate housing drives down costs for everyone.

> Do you have another idea on how our state can build new housing to increase our stock while allowing for low-income - and really, middle-income - households to become homeowners (ideally) or be able to afford better housing? Better meaning closer to transit, no slumlord, no roaches, closer to parks, in better school districts.

Yes. Make it legal to build more housing. Lots of it. In every city, and every suburb. Current zoning rules make it illegal to build things that aren't single family homes in the vast majority of residential neighborhoods. This needs to end.

This country had about a four-decade run in which market-rate housing was affordable for everyone but the very poor. We've just zoned-away the market's capacity to balance supply and demand, and we're dealing with the fallout...

20

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j8oyxt5 wrote

Reply to Support more affordable housing in Cambridge: quick action, very long explanation by itamarst

Commenting because I'm generally a "just build more housing in general" person. This petition is about updates to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which I think is great even though I'm a "just build more housing" person. Why? Because:

  1. It removes a bunch of onerous restrictions when building affordable housing (which we should just remove in general). The proposed amendment, which is what this petition is about, removes even MORE requirements: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=4185&MediaPosition=&ID=17534&CssClass=

  2. It does not impose any additional restrictions on builders of market-rate housing (pour one out for Boston)

So basically, this is "in the right direction" regardless of whether you think that direction is "more housing" or "only more affordable housing". Sign it!

27

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j7rjsu2 wrote

Reply to comment by chocosunn in Commute from Boston by chocosunn

Nice! I strongly recommend simulating your potential future commute. If you can, do it on a weekday to actually experience commuting load. If not, then just do a weekend trip back and forth, keeping in mind schedule differences between the two

26

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2m323t wrote

Reply to immigrant family in Cambridge by edumeneses

The area is generally very diverse up and down the income ladder. Your kids will not stand out for being immigrants, and neither will you. Cambridge proper is quite expensive. You’re looking at $2.5k+ for a 2 bedroom. Rule of thumb is housing should be <30% of pre-tax income to not be financially constrained. Prices are somewhat lower as you move away from Boston, but stay surprisingly high on the commuting corridors. I.e. if you’re close to a highway or commuter rail line, it’s like you’re close to Boston.

As a place to live Cambridge is delightful, except for the housing costs which range from infuriating to life threatening depending on your income :)

6

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2ekrb6 wrote

Reply to comment by SoMuchJamImToast in This fight near Shawmut Station doesn’t bode well for easing Boston’s housing shortage - The Boston Globe by soxandpatriots1

I’m in favor of process reforms that reduce obstacles to building, those obstacles being silly regulations and tons and tons of public input.

I do not think homeowners who want to pretend they live in the country should be able to prevent densification of in demand areas. If they want to only have single family homes in their neighborhood they should move somewhere where a lot doesn’t cost $1mil. People get to control their property. They should not get to control everyone else’s.

This is the way the country functioned when the majority of our current housing stock was built, up through the 60’s. It’s the way every non-housing scarce major city in Europe still functions. It’s not dystopian, it’s just not absurd

9

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2dkq1w wrote

Reply to comment by SoMuchJamImToast in This fight near Shawmut Station doesn’t bode well for easing Boston’s housing shortage - The Boston Globe by soxandpatriots1

This would sound reasonable if not for the fact that there’s always someone willing to stonewall progress on ANY change to the status quo, and Boston NIMBY’s have a decades-long history of doing exactly that. The process is roughly: demand something you know is infeasible, promise that you’re only asking for small, reasonable things, then move the goalposts until the project is abandoned, all the while asking why people are so unwilling to compromise

For elaboration, check out “Public Input is Bad, Actually” in The Atlantic

33

MyStackRunnethOver t1_j2as8g2 wrote

Reply to comment by Funkybeatzzz in People who stop because they’ve missed their turn on a rotary- do you realize it’s a circle? by roadtrip-ne

And furthermore: you’re allowed to enter a multi lane roundabout with traffic coming in next to you because of the above. But when entering, you have to yield to ALL traffic already in ANY lane of the roundabout. You may not enter next to someone who’s coming around in the inner lane even if you’re entering in the outer. That’s because your entering may interfere with that person’s exiting if they want to exit before you do

30