AdamN wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:00 pmTired of seeing comedians as "truth tellers", this is all Bill Hicks fault. Bill said a lot of shitty things too about women and gay men. He'd be palling around Austin with Alex Jones and Joe Rogan if he was still alive.

Have you ever seen Bill Hicks and Alex Jones in the same place at the same time? [cue X Files music]

The guy came right out and said "Trump is my President. He isn't looking out for you..."

For good or for bad, the guy has been pretty on the level about exactly who he is.

One other thing...

As soon as the guy was dumb enough to cough this garbage up in public?

All I could think of was Brad Wesley in Road House. Was just about waiting for his enforcer and the cute blond to turn up and start peeling a dress off.

Ok, first of all, I am not a fan of Mr. Chapelle, but I am a even lesser fan of shitty tract housing developers. Yes, I am turning this into a thunderdome.

Like most news stories these days, the headlines are way off base, and people bring out the pitchforks right away.

I'm just going to leave this development plan here for your perusal. Everything that's not in section 5 is priced at $250,000 to $600,000,

It sounds like his opposition had way more to do with traffic and aesthetics than most of the housing not being that affordable. And as already pointed out, his actions didn't undo the worst parts, only the semi-affordable multi family units and the land set aside for (presumably) public-private affordable housing.

Not that Dave is alone in this fight. Honestly it's usually NPR-tote carrying liberals who worry about aesthetics and historical preservation in the face of a housing crisis.

penningtron wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 8:09 am It sounds like his opposition had way more to do with traffic and aesthetics than most of the housing not being that affordable. And as already pointed out, his actions didn't undo the worst parts, only the semi-affordable multi family units and the land set aside for (presumably) public-private affordable housing.

Not that Dave is alone in this fight. Honestly it's usually NPR-tote carrying liberals who worry about aesthetics and historical preservation in the face of a housing crisis.

I don't know any place that doesn't have a aesthetics and historical preservation mandate (except maybe Texas where your Strip Club and Church regularly share a parking lot) but I don't think I can blame anyone for wanting to avoid urban sprawl. Pretty sure FM gonzochicago might be a little deflated if they put a Culvers on the adjoining plot to his.

zorg wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:41 am Ok, first of all, I am not a fan of Mr. Chapelle, but I am a even lesser fan of shitty tract housing developers. Yes, I am turning this into a thunderdome.

Like most news stories these days, the headlines are way off base, and people bring out the pitchforks right away.

I'm just going to leave this development plan here for your perusal. Everything that's not in section 5 is priced at $250,000 to $600,000,

Yes, and they've approved and are getting everything there, except the #2, 3 and 4 areas become #1s , and the park, greenspace and wetlands go away. They still end up getting literally the worst form of sprawl, without any of the advantages of density and affordability, or even the greenspace and wetlands that lessen the environmental impact of said development.

This is the type of maneuvering that exacerbates affordability. Now without an additional 70+ units of $250k-350k housing here, demand will rise for those units elsewhere, resulting in bigger offers, bidding wars and cost escalation overall.

As much as I share your dislike of tract housing developers: People like new things, even if they are uglier and less blended into the community than vintage housing. The demand for new housing will keep prices of existing housing more stable, and that can be a good thing. This country needs a lot of cheaply built housing to take the pressure off existing stock. Boomers aren't dying fast enough to take care of that turnover alone. If housing can't be built for less than $150/sqft. this problem is never going to find a solution.

I live in a house that was built in 1932 as part of a development in the late 20s and early 30s at what was at the time the very edge of development in Portland. It was the very type of housing and neighborhood that Sinclair Lewis set 'Babbitt' in, in an imaginary city that was as accurate a description of Portland at the time as it was of Minneapolis, Des Moines and dozens of mid-sized fast-growing cities of bungalows and tudor revivals in conforming street scenes that he deplored and excoriated in the book. Now, of course, these neighborhoods are 'historic', charming, full of large trees and close-into the city in a way that feels very urban now. Even the ugly postwar neighborhoods of Cape Cod and ranches have evolved into heavily landscaped mature neighborhoods of continuous improvement and additionals over the years. As ugly as they may be today, new development still offers the possibility of evolving into attractive neighborhoods of well cared for homes that develop their own character over time (assuming the HOA doesn't keep everything beige-i-field, at any rate).

Geiginni wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:59 am As much as I share your dislike of tract housing developers: People like new things, even if they are uglier and less blended into the community than vintage housing. The demand for new housing will keep prices of existing housing more stable, and that can be a good thing. This country needs a lot of cheaply built housing to take the pressure off existing stock. Boomers aren't dying fast enough to take care of that turnover alone. If housing can't be built for less than $150/sqft. this problem is never going to find a solution.

Yes, this. It's a very imperfect solution vs. nothing at all. A scandinavian-style reimagining of urban centers won't be hitting rural/suburban Ohio anytime soon, so maybe in the meantime generic housing for a narrowing middle class of people who just want to be in a decent school district and not have to raise a family of 4 in a courtyard isn't the worst thing.. aesthetics be damned.

penningtron wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:38 am

Geiginni wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:59 am As much as I share your dislike of tract housing developers: People like new things, even if they are uglier and less blended into the community than vintage housing. The demand for new housing will keep prices of existing housing more stable, and that can be a good thing. This country needs a lot of cheaply built housing to take the pressure off existing stock. Boomers aren't dying fast enough to take care of that turnover alone. If housing can't be built for less than $150/sqft. this problem is never going to find a solution.

Yes, this. It's a very imperfect solution vs. nothing at all. A scandinavian-style reimagining of urban centers won't be hitting rural/suburban Ohio anytime soon, so maybe in the meantime generic housing for a narrowing middle class of people who just want to be in a decent school district and not have to raise a family of 4 in a courtyard isn't the worst thing.. aesthetics be damned.

You just described my life.

What counts as "affordable" in the US?

In New Zealand a modest family home in a mid-size town is going to set you back US$600k at least. They can't build new houses fast enough.