Submitted by elephantsandrainbows t3_11pokwr in baltimore
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbz9rwy wrote
This petition smells like NIMBYism
elephantsandrainbows OP t1_jc2dmy5 wrote
Hello, i respectively disagree. I would be happy to help any other community protect an asset that is important to them as well. I think green space preservation across the city is important.
I do not think this should only apply to my neighborhood! However, i do feel i’m properly situated to advocate for my own neighborhood, as I live there
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jc2rhu1 wrote
I do think it’s admirable that you’re passionate about your local community, and I also don’t oppose community gardens in general (see my quip about putting them in parking lots). But I do believe given the housing shortage around the country (and in the Northeast in particular) that building more housing is imperative, and I’ve seen a lot of instances nationwide where locals abuse the idea of “preserving their community” to block development, ultimately harming fellow community members for the reasons I stated elsewhere.
CallMeHelicase t1_jc2hwy8 wrote
We have too many houses in the city and not enough residents. Adding more houses benefits no one, and leads to more vacant houses that kill firefighters. It is so wasteful to build new houses when so many are being knocked down.
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jc2qkym wrote
> Adding more houses benefits no one
It would definitely benefit Locust Point renters who would have their rent prices decrease (unless you’re one of the people who thinks building new housing increases rents). It would also benefit people who would want to move there in the future (unless you think, for whatever reason, that more people shouldn’t move there in general).
> And leads to more vacant housing
How does that lead to more vacant housing??? If this was built in a blighted area sure, but I bet new housing in Locust Point would get snatched up like hotcakes.
> It’s wasteful to build more houses
Whose resources are being “wasted?” This is a private developer who will be using their own funds to build housing on land sold by Under Armor, none of whom would otherwise be using their resources to tear down vacant housing.
CallMeHelicase t1_jc418oa wrote
Natural resources matter. The plastics produced for these homes and the lumber that has to be harvested. I don't care if under armor spends money, I care about material waste.
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jc45ry9 wrote
New infill housing in a dense, walkable area like Locus Point will result in far less CO2 emissions than in a sprawled out suburb. If you want to criticize material waste in housing, criticize the suburban McMansion hell that characterizes most of America.
rhymes_with_pail t1_jc3f4ss wrote
LOL, we don't have too many houses in LP. This is NIMBY shit.
wuguwa t1_jbzb4yy wrote
Can you explain what time means?
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbzcdhi wrote
“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.
AngryGayZionist t1_jbzocfa wrote
LOL. Do you think they'll be building anything resembling or including one iota of affordable housing? No way.
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.
AngryGayZionist t1_jbzqhmt wrote
Awww, I bet you also claim trickle down economics actually works.
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbztpkj wrote
Uh yes, unlike Reaganomics building housing does indeed reduce rents and homelessness.
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.
wuguwa t1_jbzdzwb wrote
Got it. Thanks for the additional info.
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.
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.
rhymes_with_pail t1_jc3g72x wrote
Any additional housing increases affordability.
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.
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?
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."
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.
testy918 t1_jch2r8a wrote
This is YIMBY,
People want the garden the waitlist for it is like 50+ households.
dudical_dude t1_jbzhz3l wrote
Smells more like a quality of life thing.
ILikeBigBidens t1_jbzw54b wrote
NIMBYism usually improves or protects quality of life for existing residents or property owners, generally at the expense of potential new residents.
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_jbzzx6r wrote
It’s more NIMBYism protects the property values of existing homeowners (or they think it does) at the expense of both existing renters and potential new renters/homeowners.
rhymes_with_pail t1_jc3fi36 wrote
Which this petition is also trying to do by limiting space for housing.
PleaseBmoreCharming t1_jc0hhah wrote
How would one's quality of life be diminished by building additional housing? Lemme ask this, how are you defining "quality of life" here? If the public facilities and infrastructure is adequate for additional development to be approved, then theoretically quality of life should not be diminished, unless this is a personal preference in which that's not applicable as a reason to prevent the development.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments