The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules.
SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community.
The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....
These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.
This is a wildly insane entitled NIMBY boomer tier take but I'm glad you said it because it's what a lot of property owners are trying to convince people of.
Artists, college students, young people getting started, older people, service industry people, quiet poor, etc, etc.
I can think of numerous types of people who would live in an SRO and be a net positive to the community.
Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables'.
I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences.
Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc.
"Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views.
People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
> People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
You made my argument against Nimby-ism better than I could!
I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems.
In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them.
Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.
Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.
There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.
That being said, what other incentives are there to eliminate affordable housing then other than property values?
The boomer NIMBY's are taking over regions by running local politics and enacting zoning ordinances that are out of control to keep their property values high.
The government is telling people what they can do with their own property to an insane degree.
I suspect at some point there will be a legal battle over this.
> Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.
> There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.
Right, yes, I agree with you.
The trouble is, the voters whose support is necessary to legalize SROs, do not agree and do not care how unfair we believe they are being.
So how does this get passed? Expressing anger at the ignorant hoping that they see the error of their ways?
There have been many legal values fought over this in the past. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that barring state laws to the contrary, it is entirely within the rights of municipalities to make these rules. So either the state needs to force the hand of the cities, or else the cities need to come around.
Zoning abuse is still at the periphery of the public conscious but as it get more exploitative and more brazen and people start realizing that a small set of property owners are capturing entire municipalities through zoning I suspect this will start to make main stream headlines regularly.
One activist's zoning abuse is a homeowner's "preserving the character and value of the largest investment in their life". Many people have chose to buy in single family zoned neighborhoods, neighborhoods with HOAs, communities that enforce anti-vagrancy statutes, etc.
As I said up-thread, a lot of people view these restrictions as a good thing for them and their community. The homeownership rate is 65%. The individual homeownership rate is 53% - it's not a small set of property owners capturing the entire municipality, but rather a literal majority of the population benefiting, and likely a majority of the population approving (- some liberal/anti-regulation homeowners, + people who prefer zoned communities even if they rent/don't own).
TFA doesn't discuss why cities widely banned boarding houses. The most commonly cited reason I've heard is the decline of state mental institutions. People who would otherwise be in those facilities fell to boarding houses, and the overall quality of these facilities went down.
I'm not trying to argue that this was an appropriate response, but we shouldn't act like these were banned for no reason at all.
This article was a good read and I am happy to read something from a person with a positive vision in the morning, for a change.
The welfare states in Europe also face difficulties, there will be no retirement money or housing for many people who struggled all their life and did everything they could to live a normal and productive life.
"The poor" for many people becomes very close to "those who are not rich" and/or gifted with a large social network of mutual care (financial, social).
Being single is expensive. There are more single person households than ever.
Care for sick elderly people will probably not exist anymore for the people who today pay for that of the elderly today, again, unless you are pretty rich.
We need a renewed culture of sharing things.
And regarding the boarding house threads:
I can imagine the dirt and filth around unchecked shared housing for sick people.
But why does it have to be this way? Why is it not possible for some people to choose living in a simple way, sharing some aspects of housing such as bathrooms and kitches, and still be safe? It's not a novel concept. People seem to be just to be very entitled nowadays.
It requires an authority in some cases, sure.
But many people around the world do live in lockable small rental units that share bathrooms with others, without being drug-addicted outcasts.
Sure, comfort and space and luxury is nice and I'm not a saint either, who chastices themselves into living from nothing. Not at all. But I think it's worth exploring other forms of living. We are clearly in a dead end. The standard of owning a house is not achievable for everyone, and renting an apartment as a single is not much cheaper in the long run either.
IMO, the demands of people are so high, and I for one would welcome more simple possibilities for people who live on their own to instead live in "managed" communities.
Love the concrete examples!
It is not possible for millions and trillions of people to all live like a duke in their own house, it is not sustainable, and not even desirable. At the same time, I hate the attitude that everyone without a caring family or lots of property and money should be an outcast. Or, in other words, society should provide some leeway for those who can't match the standard family-household-model, without pushing them on the street.
It doesn't have to be this way. I've lived in these types of housing in college and it was completely fine. I've also live in artist studios with this kind of arrangement that were also fine.
The key seems to be a more attentive landlord or property manager than at a regular apartment complex.
That's all.
Additionally if I want to make my house a boarding house or rent a room in my house out why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to?
Zoning has gotten WAY out of control in this country. It's a serf/vassal relationship except the government has become the vassal.
The people in these threads are doomering in these threads because they're worried about their property values.
> NIMBY blocks some nursing homes, but another barrier is that 34 states require a Certificate of Need just to add nursing home beds. You need state approval to build supply. Sixteen states go further with outright construction moratoria.
What kind of communist shit is a "Certificate of Need?"
It was surprisingly hard to find an answer to this, as most sources did not appear unbiased. One source mentioned that in the past there were cost plus billing schemes instead of pay for service schedules. So unnecessary capital expenditures could be profitable, not sure how true this is.
oh, it's really cool bullshit, really. you can file a CON for your healthcare facility and then surrounding healthcare facilities that failed to provide proper service to the community can challenge the CON and get it denied!
local hospital system tried building a whole new freestanding healthcare center including outpatient surgery and the failing hospital 30 miles down the road filed a CON objection and killed the whole project so it had to be half-ass converted into "just a bunch of doctors offices". at least they committed to paying property taxes on the land they bought even though they're a nonprofit that was exempt on it!
two years later, the local hospital system acquired the hospital that filed the objection. embarassing, really.
The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules.
SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community.
The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....
ok, so let them sleep on the streets
These communities would likely prefer they not be present at all, but sleeping on the streets is the most common compromise on a spectrum ranging from incarceration and institutionalization, bus tickets out of town, shelters, SROs, and paid-by-taxpayers full-fat apartments given to them.
This is a wildly insane entitled NIMBY boomer tier take but I'm glad you said it because it's what a lot of property owners are trying to convince people of.
Artists, college students, young people getting started, older people, service industry people, quiet poor, etc, etc.
I can think of numerous types of people who would live in an SRO and be a net positive to the community.
Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables'.
I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences.
Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc.
"Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views.
People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
> People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.
You made my argument against Nimby-ism better than I could!
I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems.
In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them.
Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.
Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.
There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.
That being said, what other incentives are there to eliminate affordable housing then other than property values?
The boomer NIMBY's are taking over regions by running local politics and enacting zoning ordinances that are out of control to keep their property values high.
The government is telling people what they can do with their own property to an insane degree.
I suspect at some point there will be a legal battle over this.
> Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.
> There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.
Right, yes, I agree with you.
The trouble is, the voters whose support is necessary to legalize SROs, do not agree and do not care how unfair we believe they are being.
So how does this get passed? Expressing anger at the ignorant hoping that they see the error of their ways?
There have been many legal values fought over this in the past. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that barring state laws to the contrary, it is entirely within the rights of municipalities to make these rules. So either the state needs to force the hand of the cities, or else the cities need to come around.
Zoning abuse is still at the periphery of the public conscious but as it get more exploitative and more brazen and people start realizing that a small set of property owners are capturing entire municipalities through zoning I suspect this will start to make main stream headlines regularly.
One activist's zoning abuse is a homeowner's "preserving the character and value of the largest investment in their life". Many people have chose to buy in single family zoned neighborhoods, neighborhoods with HOAs, communities that enforce anti-vagrancy statutes, etc.
As I said up-thread, a lot of people view these restrictions as a good thing for them and their community. The homeownership rate is 65%. The individual homeownership rate is 53% - it's not a small set of property owners capturing the entire municipality, but rather a literal majority of the population benefiting, and likely a majority of the population approving (- some liberal/anti-regulation homeowners, + people who prefer zoned communities even if they rent/don't own).
TFA doesn't discuss why cities widely banned boarding houses. The most commonly cited reason I've heard is the decline of state mental institutions. People who would otherwise be in those facilities fell to boarding houses, and the overall quality of these facilities went down.
I'm not trying to argue that this was an appropriate response, but we shouldn't act like these were banned for no reason at all.
This article was a good read and I am happy to read something from a person with a positive vision in the morning, for a change.
The welfare states in Europe also face difficulties, there will be no retirement money or housing for many people who struggled all their life and did everything they could to live a normal and productive life.
"The poor" for many people becomes very close to "those who are not rich" and/or gifted with a large social network of mutual care (financial, social).
Being single is expensive. There are more single person households than ever.
Care for sick elderly people will probably not exist anymore for the people who today pay for that of the elderly today, again, unless you are pretty rich.
We need a renewed culture of sharing things.
And regarding the boarding house threads:
I can imagine the dirt and filth around unchecked shared housing for sick people.
But why does it have to be this way? Why is it not possible for some people to choose living in a simple way, sharing some aspects of housing such as bathrooms and kitches, and still be safe? It's not a novel concept. People seem to be just to be very entitled nowadays.
It requires an authority in some cases, sure. But many people around the world do live in lockable small rental units that share bathrooms with others, without being drug-addicted outcasts.
Sure, comfort and space and luxury is nice and I'm not a saint either, who chastices themselves into living from nothing. Not at all. But I think it's worth exploring other forms of living. We are clearly in a dead end. The standard of owning a house is not achievable for everyone, and renting an apartment as a single is not much cheaper in the long run either.
IMO, the demands of people are so high, and I for one would welcome more simple possibilities for people who live on their own to instead live in "managed" communities.
Love the concrete examples!
It is not possible for millions and trillions of people to all live like a duke in their own house, it is not sustainable, and not even desirable. At the same time, I hate the attitude that everyone without a caring family or lots of property and money should be an outcast. Or, in other words, society should provide some leeway for those who can't match the standard family-household-model, without pushing them on the street.
It doesn't have to be this way. I've lived in these types of housing in college and it was completely fine. I've also live in artist studios with this kind of arrangement that were also fine.
The key seems to be a more attentive landlord or property manager than at a regular apartment complex.
That's all.
Additionally if I want to make my house a boarding house or rent a room in my house out why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to?
Zoning has gotten WAY out of control in this country. It's a serf/vassal relationship except the government has become the vassal.
The people in these threads are doomering in these threads because they're worried about their property values.
Make America SRO-Compatible Again.
MASCA has a ring to it!
> NIMBY blocks some nursing homes, but another barrier is that 34 states require a Certificate of Need just to add nursing home beds. You need state approval to build supply. Sixteen states go further with outright construction moratoria.
What kind of communist shit is a "Certificate of Need?"
It was surprisingly hard to find an answer to this, as most sources did not appear unbiased. One source mentioned that in the past there were cost plus billing schemes instead of pay for service schedules. So unnecessary capital expenditures could be profitable, not sure how true this is.
Zoning has gotten WAY out of control in this country. It's a serf/vassal relationship except the government has become the vassal.
oh, it's really cool bullshit, really. you can file a CON for your healthcare facility and then surrounding healthcare facilities that failed to provide proper service to the community can challenge the CON and get it denied!
local hospital system tried building a whole new freestanding healthcare center including outpatient surgery and the failing hospital 30 miles down the road filed a CON objection and killed the whole project so it had to be half-ass converted into "just a bunch of doctors offices". at least they committed to paying property taxes on the land they bought even though they're a nonprofit that was exempt on it!
two years later, the local hospital system acquired the hospital that filed the objection. embarassing, really.
"Abundance" is retreaded neoliberalism, not progressive. Sigh.
- instead of the 50 fixable things, have you considered that one thing?
- like changing the culture of the country where people start taking care of old people
- they did take care of you when you were a kid, it is only fair you reciprocate no?