Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those who don't know. It's the types that say Not In My Back Yard.
Essentially they rally against development.
It's an issue in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Most blame "NIMBYs" for the skyrocketing housing prices because they refuse to allow development.
On the other hand, NIMBYs state that development is the cause for traffic and that we should not build more instead somehow bar people from moving in.
In many ways, folks state that the issues everyone complains about with our city such as traffic are really because of policies NIMBYs wanted. The very nature of Los Angeles being the majority full of Single Family Homes is the reason for this. So continuing the trend is like walking on an already broken leg and wondering why it hurts.
Sprawl and housing scarcity is due almost entirely to immigration.
Just the facts.
Consider how many housing units would be available if JUST the illegal aliens were removed. There are over 2M of them.
So what effect would that vacancy rate have on the prices of housing?
And there would be no NIMBYism since there would no need to build additional housing with all those available units.
At the same time, would it be better to build Los Angeles in a more vertical dense compact nature in order to prepare for an inevitable population increase? Regardless of legal or non legal immigration or transplants moving in?
Building rail early on and so the city can be "future proof", so to speak.
I'm all for building for the future, building vertically as they say, but NIMBY. Meaning, no, I don't want to see occupies and usable SFH's and low rise buildings torn down to create space for this, nor do I want them to be in the shadows of "the high rise next door". There needs to be both, and most people will prefer space and privacy at some point in their lives. I'm ok carving out areas for these different type of places to exist within the same city or area, but it's got to be done smart so regulations must exist. Any oh yeah, not everyone can or will get to live wherever they want.
This is what happens in any popular and growing area. We see it in Seattle too and it's to the point where people ask about Seattle and we tell them how terrible it is. We actually try to discourage people from moving there (even though they still come). We don't have enough houses for the people that want to buy them and yet hundreds are moving here every week.
So my thoughts are, I see how packed San Francisco is. It's a beautiful city, I've flown over it hundreds of times but I don't want my city to become like that so I'm pretty much as NIMBY as anyone. By the way, Seattle is terrible and it rains constantly.
Sprawl and housing scarcity is due almost entirely to immigration.
Just the facts.
Consider how many housing units would be available if JUST the illegal aliens were removed. There are over 2M of them.
So what effect would that vacancy rate have on the prices of housing?
And there would be no NIMBYism since there would no need to build additional housing with all those available units.
That is a really dumb argument. For every illegal that you kick out, there is one new legal transplant ready to take his/her place. In the end, it's a wash. All you do is substitute an illegal for a legal; and housing remains expensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.