One of the (small) ways we try to help with that is to rent to people we know for well under market.
That's commendable but inheritance isn't fair is it? You do nothing to earn it and it is just due to privilege. Shouldn't it go to the state and be redistributed to those without such privilege and those who are homeless?
That will happen whether your friend has a house there or not. Also, what is wrong with "modest housing" that you say they live in?
Nope. Neither is cancer or wildfires or hurricanes or being disabled. We do what we can to make it more fair.
Given that we are providing cheap housing to people I can't get too worked up over your disapproval.
And hookers. Don't forget hookers.
That's your privilege speaking and apparently you don't even realize it. You're one of the "good ones", right? Aren't you profiting from someone else's disadvantages?
www.theatlantic.com
But only the ones who don't have OnlyFans pages--they have very loose morals (I learned that from Tim Pool).
I agree with parts of the article and not with other parts. I do think this is a good time for them to reaccess where houses can and can't be built and how they are built.The current situation in LA underscores some of the poor policies that impact both affordable housing and wildfire resistance. (paywall-free link)
How Well-Intentioned Policies Fueled L.A.’s Fires
The disaster can teach California how to rebuild, if the state will listen.
Cramming seems like a term that could also advance a personal political view, though not saying you were. Infill housing and mixed housing has been a solution to multiple urban problems for millennia. It is very much part of the New Urbanism, where there is transformation of underutilized urban spaces into mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly areas. This not only increases housing supply but also preserves rural lands and reduces environmental impact. Sprawl also can eat up cropland, not always the best idea when population is growing and food production systems are already straining ecosystems.
It sounds good but, in reality, it isn't. It just means that the car you left home is now more likely to be broken into rather than some new social reawakening.
Just one example (I've also witnessed this up close in Nebraska in the 70s-80s, with croplands being swallowed up around Omaha and Lincoln):
Is this based on real research, or anything beyond white suburban xenophobia? The stats I've seen suggest mixed housing areas are lower in crime. Speaking as one who lives in such a neighborhood, with a wide demographic range, I have yet to see the break-ins you describe. The diversity in both income levels and age of residents, and the large number of pedestrians actually seems to discourage crime. Walkable neighborhoods seem to encourage more self-policing and effective networks of people who recognize each other.
The fallacy is that most food for a city is produced just outside that city. It isn't. Also, most crops raised in the US are corn and soybeans which are feed for cattle and much is shipped to China.
Where do you live? I live in Seattle.
Not a fallacy I was making, or a topic I was opening. I only referred to arable land, regardless of what it produced.
Every sentence irrelevant or grossly inaccurate. You clearly know very little about the farmbelt, or the West Coast, or their areas of urban sprawl, or the full range of US crops many of which are grown and eaten domestically.
?? WTF are you talking about?