I don’t think I understand, are you saying real estate developers are NIMBY, as well?
Comment on Guerrilla plantfare
MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day agoapartment owners
people […] trying to build affordable housing
Unfortunately, these are often the same people. A developer will usually make a deal with a municipality that requires that x% of new units built must conform to “affordable housing” requirements. That’s it. It’s kind of a whole scam used so big developers can just develop MORE AND MORE.
Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 1 day ago
MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
No, I’m saying that real estate developers are overcoming the NIMBYs by instilling themselves into their local politics, and then calling for “future forward” mix-use development, obstensibly thinking about the “changing demographics” of the local area, wanting to build GIANT developments that mix high-end condos, affordable housing, and senior care (both assisted and independent) into the same space. This enables them to essentially control the housing market, and then buy up all of the nearest single family dwellings and repeat.
This is to say nothing about the massive developments going up all over our farmland outside of city centers, as gentrifiers are now bored/sick/scared of the city and seek to once again suburbanize.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Its not always bad. In areas that are already urban that scheme can be combined with fewer parking places near public transit and result in a larger overall supply of housing. And mixing poor families into nicer neighborhoods rather than clumping them together into a Housing Project can mean they’re not in a food desert and have better-funded local schools and a better-maintained building, maybe be closer to where they work. As well as increasing neighborhood diversity and interaction in general. It’s not helpful to profoundly destitute folks who need lots of services but it can help people who just need a home they can afford.