It’s an intentionally dumb meme intended to make fun of right-wing idiots (and maybe get some of them to think about their views). Nobody is suggesting to completely remove every zoning restriction, but less restrictive zoning is a good idea.
Exactly. I’m just trying to reframe dumb NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and mandatory parking minimums as anti-freedom so as to try to get conservative NIMBYs to maybe be just a little less NIMBY.
Absolutely no one is seriously arguing we allow PFAS chemical plants next to kindergartens or that we remove all building safety codes. Just that restrictive zoning (and other NIMBY land use policies) is stupid, harmful, and we should get rid of it.
Well it is a simple meme that shouldnt be considered a stand in for a complete set of ideas, it does sure seem like it is saying to remove all the zoning restrictions.
The opposite of less restrictive zoning is a good idea. The good idea is to have our cities designed by experts in urban planning, with the goal of maximizing quality of life and efficiency of infrastructure. The free market won’t achieve an optimal solution, proper planning will. Add social housing to the mix and you’ve suddenly also solved the housing crisis.
I don’t disagree, but that’s a harder sell politically so it’s not something that governments are going to implement without widespread consensus. Whereas reducing zoning restrictions and parking minimums and the like can be implemented more easily and have some impact even if it doesn’t solve all of the more fundamental problems. If you want more than that, you’re going to need an overwhelming progressive voter base, and I’d say it’s not there yet in most Western democracies.
Cheap social housing is harder to sell politically than allowing companies to do whatever they want with the construction of housing? Nah.
You’re taking to a commie, the path towards change is rarely reformism. I’ll support reforms in the meanwhile, sure, but not “free market” nonsolutions. Besides, similar problems occur in Europe (where I’m from) with suburban sprawl, and there aren’t such strict zoning laws here,
Cheap social housing is harder to sell politically than allowing companies to do whatever they want with the construction of housing? Nah.
That part is fine and doable, it’s the central planning that is going to be a very hard sell. Although I’ll add that you probably want to call it “public housing” as “social housing” typically means “public-private” partnerships (but that may be a language/location difference).
![[meme] Part of my ongoing efforts to rebrand urbanist ideas as patriotic and pro-freedom (which they unironically are)](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/327c31e1-5586-4204-a0a3-4d77832d845e.webp){kind=link}
It’s an intentionally dumb meme intended to make fun of right-wing idiots (and maybe get some of them to think about their views). Nobody is suggesting to completely remove every zoning restriction, but less restrictive zoning is a good idea.
Exactly. I’m just trying to reframe dumb NIMBY policies like restrictive zoning and mandatory parking minimums as anti-freedom so as to try to get conservative NIMBYs to maybe be just a little less NIMBY.
Absolutely no one is seriously arguing we allow PFAS chemical plants next to kindergartens or that we remove all building safety codes. Just that restrictive zoning (and other NIMBY land use policies) is stupid, harmful, and we should get rid of it.
Well it is a simple meme that shouldnt be considered a stand in for a complete set of ideas, it does sure seem like it is saying to remove all the zoning restrictions.
The opposite of less restrictive zoning is a good idea. The good idea is to have our cities designed by experts in urban planning, with the goal of maximizing quality of life and efficiency of infrastructure. The free market won’t achieve an optimal solution, proper planning will. Add social housing to the mix and you’ve suddenly also solved the housing crisis.
I don’t disagree, but that’s a harder sell politically so it’s not something that governments are going to implement without widespread consensus. Whereas reducing zoning restrictions and parking minimums and the like can be implemented more easily and have some impact even if it doesn’t solve all of the more fundamental problems. If you want more than that, you’re going to need an overwhelming progressive voter base, and I’d say it’s not there yet in most Western democracies.
Cheap social housing is harder to sell politically than allowing companies to do whatever they want with the construction of housing? Nah.
You’re taking to a commie, the path towards change is rarely reformism. I’ll support reforms in the meanwhile, sure, but not “free market” nonsolutions. Besides, similar problems occur in Europe (where I’m from) with suburban sprawl, and there aren’t such strict zoning laws here,
That part is fine and doable, it’s the central planning that is going to be a very hard sell. Although I’ll add that you probably want to call it “public housing” as “social housing” typically means “public-private” partnerships (but that may be a language/location difference).