What do y'all think will happen when NWA gets too expensive? (centers, areas)

[Suesbal]

Originally Posted by vcvs

I doubt it. The folks coming from CA have money. Many are paying cash.

Yes, but California’s turning to a dust bowl - droughts and wildfires.

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Where are the majority of newcomers to NWA coming from? Other parts of Arkansas? Neighboring states? Southern States? California?

Most from California, Florida, South and Central Texas (and yes, Austin), Arizona, North Carolina and similar places, where people are fleeing the wreckage the Leftists (they are not liberals any more) have foisted upon major swaths of the US. Also a fair number from Central America (I think we get the best of the Central Americans, so far).

There are many who will assimilate here and be good conservatives, even Patriots. But there are also insurgents who come here to make us like the places people are fleeing. Those are the ones we are worried about. And many of them come with a lot of money.

[MarcBetrus]

Is NWA getting really expensive? I saw them in concert years ago and the tickets weren't that expensive. Can't believe 'Straight outta Compton' came out 33 years ago.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by TRex2

The only question will be:
Where to build it?
NIMBY

I live in a high cost area (SF Bay Area) and I can tell you for certain the whole model of "bulding low income housing" doens't work very well. All it does is create a lottery like system where some people are able to get it and others can't. If you think about it, it makes sense. If you price housing below the market rate, then of course, there are going to be more people wanting it than there are units available.

What actually works:

--Reasonable zoning rules that don't make housing unnecessarily difficult or expensive to build.

--Building enough housing so that supply and demand reach an equilibrium.

--Building all kinds of housing (both single family and high density) and making sure it's profitable to build all kinds of housing (i.e. smaller homes and apartments that are affordable to lower income people). Zoning out things like smaller studio apartments makes housing more expensive. I get that not everyone wants to live in a small apartment, but smaller housing units (apatments, condos, townhomes) are one piece of the solution.

--Pushing innovation in home building to keep costs down. A lot of housing can be semi pre-fabricated, which dramatically brings down the labor cost involved. Productivity in the home building industry is about the same as it was in the 1940s. That's insane and needs to change.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...rdable/382045/

The above article from a few years ago pretty much covers it. It looks at the housing issue from a political lens--Liberal metro areas put more restrictions on housing supply, which creates affordability issues for the poor and middle class as well as exacerbate income/wealth inequality. (And The Atlantic isn't a right wing publication).

TL;DR: If supply doesn't keep up with demand, housing will be more and more unaffordable. Designating certain housing as "affordable" doesn't fix the underlying supply/demand imbalance. It feels good, but doesn't actually do much good.

[ColoradoOnMyMind]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Where are the majority of newcomers to NWA coming from? Other parts of Arkansas? Neighboring states? Southern States? California?

I’ve seen a lot of Colorado plates around, not surprising given the home prices on the front range. I’ve met several people that came from Chicago. Of course a lot of people migrate from in state but Walmart and Tyson bring people in from all over.

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I live in a high cost area (SF Bay Area) and I can tell you for certain the whole model of "bulding low income housing" doens't work very well. All it does is create a lottery like system where some people are able to get it and others can't. If you think about it, it makes sense. If you price housing below the market rate, then of course, there are going to be more people wanting it than there are units available.

...

The above article from a few years ago pretty much covers it. It looks at the housing issue from a political lens--Liberal metro areas put more restrictions on housing supply, which creates affordability issues for the poor and middle class as well as exacerbate income/wealth inequality. (And The Atlantic isn't a right wing publication).

...
If supply doesn't keep up with demand, housing will be more and more unaffordable. Designating certain housing as "affordable" doesn't fix the underlying supply/demand imbalance. It feels good, but doesn't actually do much good.

You have a point. A lot of this boils down to the definition of "affordable." I don't know the definition used by city councils and zoning boards, but a lot of what that article promotes is what I call affordable housing.

OTOH, they continue to bring up a point about zoning laws that prevent builders from building "affordable" housing, and this comes in multiple flavors.

One is the NIMBY problem I mentioned before. People who live in $Million homes with 2 acre lawns don't want a 200 unit apartment building next to them. And I can see that, but, when faced with the question, the city council needs to find a place to put such an apartment complex, and it can't be too far from where people can find jobs and get groceries.

However, just saying the city council needs to address that will bring questions of "central planning" unless you have a lot of developers on the city council, which can bring a host of other problems.

[RisingAurvandil]

Originally Posted by TRex2

Most from California, Florida, South and Central Texas (and yes, Austin), Arizona, North Carolina and similar places, where people are fleeing the wreckage the Leftists (they are not liberals any more) have foisted upon major swaths of the US. Also a fair number from Central America (I think we get the best of the Central Americans, so far).

There are many who will assimilate here and be good conservatives, even Patriots. But there are also insurgents who come here to make us like the places people are fleeing. Those are the ones we are worried about. And many of them come with a lot of money.

The real issue is that metro growth eventually causes human issues. Voters start to look for answers and proactivity. Conservative politicians never have proactive answers, so metro voters start to drift left. This has occurred in almost every growing metro in America.

The liberal politicians at least have answers...even if they are the wrong answers.

Unfortunately, the right has never been able to articulate solutions to the heaviest urban issues, which inevitably come with huge populations.

[vcvs]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

The real issue is that metro growth eventually causes human issues. Voters start to look for answers and proactivity. Conservative politicians never have proactive answers, so metro voters start to drift left. This has occurred in almost every growing metro in America.

The liberal politicians at least have answers...even if they are the wrong answers.

Unfortunately, the right has never been able to articulate solutions to the heaviest urban issues, which inevitably come with huge populations.

Translation…

Conservative politicians don’t bring forth “solutions”. They leave governing to the people. Liberals want big government, therefore bring forth solutions to issues that don’t exist.. or create issues to solve issues that didn’t exist.

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by vcvs

Translation…

Conservative politicians don’t bring forth “solutions”. They leave governing to the people. Liberals want big government, therefore bring forth solutions to issues that don’t exist.. or create issues to solve issues that didn’t exist.

Yes, this is true. The poster above you seems to have lived in an environment where self reliance, liberty and self control have been forgotten and forfeited to a nani state for so long they can't remember what true liberty is.

And I am not talking about anarchy. As Robert C. Winthrop said:

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.

Not really an issue in his day, but Religion must not only support the state in Right mindedness, they must rebuke, and even defy the state, when it is wrong minded (as they did in 1776). Liberty minded people understand this. Liberals forgot it. We need a distinction though. It isn't liberals who are in charge in the big cities, they committed political suicide, as they always do, and gave their game over to Leftists. It is the Leftists who we object to. Liberals can be reasoned with, sometimes. Leftists cannot.

[vcvs]

TRex2.. Ditto.