this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
1910 points (97.7% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27179 readers
4199 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"deregulation" detected. ready the down votes. /s

Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can't with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects

Still we do need zoning laws. I don't think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I think there's a blind spot on the left for this one. Opening up zoning for higher density is effectively a giveaway to local developers, who are invariably shitbags. It'd be preferable if solutions like banning corporations from owning housing could be enacted.

That's based on the theory that there are enough houses and flippers and hedge funds are just sitting on them in order to rake it in later as property values are driven up. If that were true, we'd expect to see large vacancy rates in cities. Problem is, we don't. My city has <4% vacancy for rentals and <1% for home ownership. This seems to be similar to the numbers in many other major cities in North America. If we got rid of every corporation that was sitting on a house unused, the available housing would go up by 4% or so, at most.

We need more housing stock. As it stands, the only way to do that is a giveaway to shitbag developers. They're the ones that hold the capitol for building more housing.

This could be mitigated by city councils also encouraging/mandating those developers to have unionized staff.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I know this is quite a bit later, but this comment confused me. I do not see how loosening zoning laws that limit density and banning corporations from owning houses are mutually exclusive.These policies can and should work together as part of a bigger urbanist policy. I also don't see how supporting local developers is that bad of a thing. I'd rather have the money stay in the community and go to a community member than some multinational corporation who owns thousands of homes across the country. Still it isn't the best. Cooperative housing or need based housing who is better, but realistically those can't fill up the excess of stock that we need. We will need input from private developers, as well as a big government housing initiative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They aren't mutually exclusive. Many of the proposals out there treat it as if it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How many are in cities people want to live?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If you can't answer that question, then you can't decide on the correct course of action.

Vacancy rates in cities suggest the answer is that the empty homes are someplace else. The correct course of action, therefore, is building more in cities.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But if you do build them in cities, the investors simply come and snap them up. Then you're back to square one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If that were true, we also wouldn't see a low vacancy rate. It does happen, but not at a high enough level to substantially effect prices. I'd still totally support a law limiting how corporations can buy and flip homes. There's just not much evidence that it's widespread.