Is this good or bad?
If you’re a developer, it’s definitely bad. I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well. The way the article is written, they call everyone nimbys that don’t want to build luxury homes that might sit empty so I’m thinking that the housing wasn’t for the mid to low income people. I could be corrected though.
Minneapolis is always interesting because it’s so close to St. Paul, how do they mingle these housing laws?
Except that luxury housing and Single Family houses is still being built, mid income housing is what’s on pause in Minneapolis
eradicate single-family zoning that spanned half the city, promoting multi-family units across all areas.
Multi-family housing does not equal mid income homes, just an FYI. You have to specifically mandate that. I’m not saying that they aren’t, but from what you said they aren’t necessarily.
I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well.
Even if building exclusively “luxury apartments”, it’s going to help the housing market by upping total supply and pushing older apartments to lower income tenants.
But does the supply matter if nobody is moving into the luxury apartments?
If nobody is moving into luxury apartments, why would they get built? It makes no economic sense for developers to build something they can’t sell/rent.
In theory sure. But there would need to be constant new construction for this to be the case. And that’s assuming no remodeling construction.
As we’ve seen, when investment blocks are allowed to own large segments of supply they’ll happily let units sit empty to artificially protect or inflate the price on the rest. Nimbys accomplish the same thing but voting down new development to protect the value of their homes.
Exactly the same way ghost hiring works to keep employees in line. And why the unemployment goal is 5% not 0%. It’s not about building self sufficient people, it’s about having just enough threat to be replaced to corral dignity, demands for decency and suppress wages. It’s “sustainable” exploitation.
The efforts of our labor, our vitality, which we substitute money for to make trade easier, is being systematically farmed away from us, with just little tweaks to increase efficiency in the operation
Ah. Capitalism.
Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
The article is weak and just a bunch of bullets points without much info. But that website is pretty weird. The about page is full of concern about demographic changes, dog whistles about only poor people procreating, and immigration being concerning. Some decent points about healthcare privatization though. Pretty sus overall.
deleted by creator
I seen this style on a few other sites, and where did you see those dog whistles becuase from the text it talks about how people can’t afford kids and thats a problem?
I’m going to use “=” as a shorthand that means what the statements are dog whistling. These are statements from their about page
Declining fertility rates more prominently among the affluent = the poor shouldn’t be reproducing, and we should encourage only rich babies (this one sounds alot like those silicon valley pronatalists). Also “affluent” is usually code for white.
Forced migration and places being “unable to take care of their own” = anti-immigrant, isolationism.
Demographic changes = tied closely to the last one, but typically also related to domestic racism and almost always bigoted against nonwhite people. Never seen someone worry about demographic changes without a racial element.
NIMBY regulations = deregulate housing market and allow developers to build whatever. Given all the other things and the fact they don’t mention affordability makes me think they just want to make developers rich.
The interesting thing here is they mention austerity and privatization a couple times. These are typically left wing critiques. So honestly it’s pretty confused. It’s possible it’s left wing trying to propagandize to the right. Could be vise versa. Seeing population decline (especially since it’s mostly majority white nations that have declining populations) as a bad thing gives me fascist impressions.
I think you are reaching
They also talk about “increasing social spending, improving social systems, or promoting better and more flexible work conditions can start the process of reversing this trend.” That doesn’t really sound anti poor, along with the fact the site published multiple articles praising democrats, and attacked Tories (https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/tories-and-local-government-refuse/), GOP (https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/republicans-shut-down-gov-evers-special-session/), and Elon Musk (https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/silicon-valley-pronatalists-against-wfh/)
Forced Migration can also mean, being forced to leave California because you can’t afford rent
Demographic changes can refer to the fact we are dying younger and younger
“Deregulate housing market and allow developers to build whatever. Given all the other things and the fact they don’t mention affordability makes me think they just want to make developers rich.” Except they published an article attacking Sunak for trying to deregulate with a title called “Sunak’s Ploy Pretending to be Pro-House Affordability fails” (https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/sunaks-ploy-house-affordability-fails/) and does talk about in their articles https://www.stoppopulationdecline.org/tories-and-local-government-refuse/
Damn, okay. I take it back. I guess I’m just so used to seeing fascists use terms like population decline, etc. that I’m pretty jaded. I don’t personally agree with the proposition that we should prevent population decline, but respect where they’re coming from otherwise. Thanks for the links
