Профиль

How many people are going to be displaced by owner-use eviction in the meantime of figuring out the perfect plan to build any new homes?

I don't know how ABC thinks they're appealing to anybody instead of alienating everybody

This is such a BS framing. The need for more housing is pretty concrete, and many of the worries about infrastructure are not.

Baz Luhrmann's The Odyssey

They've basically gone full-PHIMBY, and are opposing any residential development without required IZ too

Funny they think they need help being discredited when they bring out the creme-de-la-creme themselves (Whoops, it was actually their legitimate allies on this topic)

VanPoli: "This is a false flag by YIMBYs to discredit opposition" The YIMBYs that suffered sitting through the filibuster for the second call for speakers:

(a cake shop moved two blocks when its strip mall was redeveloped into mixed-income apartments) (there is a No-Frills grocery store 5 blocks away)

Me being a weirdo: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!! Me being around all these other weirdos: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

I'd say even in that quote they're denying recruiting others, which doesn't match with them signing up in a row and applying strategy familiar with the city's hearing process. On the next night, after providing that quote, the same person was confrontational answering council's questions.

And they were filibustering zoning changes that would allow replacing the city's most expensive and lowest density housing, with many more homes that would have lower costs and reduce pressure to redevelop older low-rise apartments in central areas with new towers.

I'm all for disruption, love a good malicious compliance, but they don't even want to own it. It would be a different story if they said they were calling in solidarity for the impact it has on their fellow union members, but they were evasive, confrontational, and lying.

Me being a weirdo: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!! Me being around all these other weirdos: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

They could have just gone with $4.50 is too much, we want to lower them, then pivot to the city better funding community centres so user fees don't increase.

This is a whole new flavour of weird Liberals unaffiliated with all the other weird Liberals

I think "interesting" here is just that it is getting people's attention, which is not incompatible with it being ineffective, possibly counter-productive, but definitely detrimental to the processes of local democracy.

I'm partial to the intent of my city's requirement for 2+ bedroom homes in new buildings to ensure housing diversity under current circumstances, but this level of intervention didn't appear necessary pre-1970 when apartments were still allowed in much more of the city.

Localized issues of too many studios seem tied to not being able to build apartments and studios in other locations while there is pent-up demand for them, so developers build for the most constrained market segment rather than need to balance for what demand in an unconstrained market would be.

There are limits to how many people are willing and able to pay for a brand new studio and continued demand for larger homes, so building nothing else will shift the equilibrium towards larger homes being the more profitable option.