mshelikoff t1_j6is4mq wrote on January 30, 2023 at 5:08 PM

This opinion piece gets almost everything right by providing realistic appraisals of a complex system, unlike a huge number of braindead morons with overly simple agendas who post here. This opinion:

is anti-NIMBY. The basic solution is simple: build more housing, in line with the economic theory that increased supply will bring down the cost of buying or renting...[by] reducing the power of local officials to thwart development. If you're anti-NIMBY, be happy about that.
is anti-YIMBY. “We don’t start from the premise that adding housing is a negative,” said Driscoll. “That doesn’t mean build anywhere, any how, any size.” If you're anti-YIMBY, be happy about that.
identifies who is genuinely at-risk. In an ideal world...low-income tenants in triple-deckers benefit from new housing construction too; build enough new housing and the economic incentive for landlords to evict tenants and turn their homes into condos disappears. But it will take years or decades for the market to stabilize. In the meantime, the state will need to take steps to protect those low-income renters and provide more rental assistance and subsidized rental housing. If you're against the people who believe government should never do anything to protect voters against unstable markets, be happy about that.

ik1nky t1_j6j1yfv wrote on January 30, 2023 at 6:09 PM

You seem to have a grudge against YIMBYs that you're making part of all of your comments. But you're continually misstating YIMBY beliefs. YIMBY is not "build anything, anywhere". Some YIMBYs believe that, while others do not. Look at how prevalent the idea of Japanese zoning is in the YIMBY world or missing middle zoning. None of the YIMBY organizations in MA(Abundant Housing MA, ABC, Somerville YIMBY, etc.) that I know of are pushing for build anything, anywhere.

> 2) is anti-YIMBY. “We don’t start from the premise that adding housing is a negative,” said Driscoll. “That doesn’t mean build anywhere, any how, any size.” If you're anti-YIMBY, be happy about that.

Kim Driscoll is famously a YIMBY.

WinsingtonIII t1_j6j7m7g wrote on January 30, 2023 at 6:44 PM

Yeah, Driscoll was very big on development in Salem (a good thing IMO).

brufleth t1_j6jvzqd wrote on January 30, 2023 at 9:15 PM

That's typically the attitude on Reddit, but that doesn't really represent much relevant to those involved here.

The state could certainly start by expanding their existing rules on numbers of certain priced units. Make it price, density, proximity to public transit, etc. Unfortunately towns still fight it tooth and nail, but there's some foundation to work from there. Of course, that public transit needs to be come a little more useful too.

mshelikoff t1_j6juxj5 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 9:08 PM

I have a grudge against simpletons.

I've been living in the Boston area for over 30 years and seen how some places have changed, other places haven't changed, and who has and hasn't profited. My view is that "Build that here" and "Don't build that here" are both stupidly simplistic tropes.

I'll support or won't support a particular development based on its alignment with principles of intelligent urbanism or another rational urbanist school of thought. Just because the basic solution is to build more housing, that doesn't mean we have to increase inequality and decrease equitable access to opportunities to achieve that solution.