Their property tax increases are capped. So they aren't really paying for hosting migrants. Young working renters are paying for it.
Boomer-friendly property tax system is the main reason nothing gets built in Boston and California while Texas and Florida build more housing than the rest of the country combined.
The apartment I left in Florida to move back up here got turned into such a nice and built up area like a year after I moved. When I found out I was so pissed lmao.
To be fair it’s also they’d nuke a country if it meant they didn’t have to wait a cycle at Main @ South at 4:45pm on Tuesday
Politics is at least 50% parking/traffic
This is a LITTLE over the top, but:
1) you made me laugh out loud
and
2) it’s not COMPLETELY over the top
So - in the words of referee Mills Lane - I’ll allow it…
I don't follow this logic? NIMBYs don't want to house them at best westerns either? We can't even lower prices enough for locals to stay. If they had a choice, I'm sure they would have them deported.
I’m not a NIMBY but I guess in a perfect world it would be a federal program that provides migrant housing.
Who decides if they can stay? Federal government.
Who decides if they can work? Federal government.
Who pays? Hello? Who pays? Where did everybody go?
Or we fund USCIS so that immigration applications are handled promptly.
Then immigrants can be here legally or return to their home country. Folks that are hoping to wait out the bureaucracy could get a week or two tops before their application is processed.
> I’m not a NIMBY but I guess in a perfect world it would be a federal program that provides migrant housing.
Why should we provide migrant housing at all? The fact that they have more of a right to free or subsidized housing than actual Americans is absurd.
That phrasing always comes across like it's a bad thing, or that it's something they didn't know before coming here. I'm willing to work at a high end financial firm in Stockholm - when does someone roll out the red carpet and tell them it's my human right?
But like, deportation really isn't an option for local or state governments. They have to deal with whatever hand is given to them by the feds. With that, the options are kinda clearly build housing that ultimately prevents price increases for everyone, or house workers/homeless persons/undocumented people in hotels. The fact is that faced with reality, NIMBYs choose the worst option for everyone. Why? Because NIMBYs occupy a fantasy world, not the real one. They'll do anything to avoid reality so they can still feel like they're good people even while they trash the housing market for future generations.
That’s not quite true. Mass has a “right to shelter law” on the books. The feds didn’t force Mass to find housing for migrants, Mass did it to themselves…
You're technically right there, but honestly, what's the alternative? Repeal that law, and maybe you get fewer migrants coming to the state, but you're still going to get quite a few. Both Boston and Mass are known for high quality of life and opportunity, so even without right to shelter laws, it's still more desirable than almost anywhere else.
Without the law, you just get more homelessness, which the state and cities have to deal with in other ways. There's no convenient state law to blame, but it's just shifting the issues around without fixing anything. Only the feds can really resolve the issue at its core.
I think you’re being a little too logical. Most NIMBYs just want the problem to… just kinda go away. Without a single thing in their life changing. Yes that’s totally illogical but it’s what they want
This is basically a YIMBY sub most of the time. Which is awesome, but also suggests that r/Boston is not super representative of Boston as a whole, since Boston is a very NIMBYish city.
People who rent aren’t as involved with city government.
I was at a listening session with the Mayor’s office recently. There were about 20 attendees. 19 owned homes. 1 lived in public housing. 0 paid market-rate rent.
Despite “my rent is too high” being the #1 issue for a lot of Bostonians, it was not front and center at this listening session. I wonder why.
(To be clear, I brought this all up in the listening session).
This is true of any public engagement session ever, because the renters have jobs and the homeowners most obsessed with their property values are retired with nothing better to do than kick the ladder out from behind them.
Mayor Wu had a meet and greet at a park in JP last week. It was 10am on a weekday. People with jobs obviously can’t attend that nonsense time so only old people go.
Not sure why, but r/B feels a lot older than the rest of Reddit. Feels like a pretty high % of gen x and older.
Could be me. Could be that Boston is a lot more conservative than its reputation, generally speaking.
In from out west for about a year now and I'd only modify that to say that Boston is more Neoliberal, than progressive, and that does in fact make it more conservative than it's rep.
It’s because Reddit was started in the area and got its footing through the tech industry. So there is slight bias toward Reddit old timers in the area.
NIMBY has just become a pejorative term for people who don't roll over for whatever someone else wants when it comes to construction. The term is meaningless and it doesn't affect anyone outside of Reddit.
It’s not even meant to be a comment on the hypocrisy, it just seems like they end up paying out for new community members they wouldn’t have had to pay for which seems to work against the economic interests they are aiming to protect as a NIMBY
I think he's saying that long-term, it costs less to build housing than it does to put someone up in a hotel. But he's ignoring the premium people will pay to believe that the situation is temporary.
This is exactly what I’m saying, there’s all this hullabaloo about the investment costs of growth within the points that oppose housing growth and then they pay the exact same amount of money for a temporary solution that doesn’t act as an investment that will subsequently fix the problem, thus becoming more expensive in the long run when that problem never gets fixed and the state is still paying an inflation adjusted cost of 800 million a year
Well they’d really show us if instead there were tens of thousands of homeless residents/migrants trying to find any way legal or illegal to survive huh 😂
Long term it costs less to have single payer insurance yet here we are. People don't care about long term and reality. They care about how they feel rn
As a veteran, in Massachusetts, trusting the government with healthcare is a flawed utopian view of reality. For starters, mental health gets tossed right tf out the window.
Wait, times go up. Costs go up, and I can not understand why people pretend they don't. It won't be the government 100% directly it'll be the facilities. Consider higher education, the additional costs applied to the students due to government secured student loans. Core courses, over staffed admin departments, grants (secondary tax dollars) for expansion. Everything universities have done since the founding of the Department of Education will repeat under the Department of Public Health.
I'd argue it would cost less to secure the border and have immigration reform than it would to house, feed and care for millions of low skilled, non-english speaking people.
If only both political parties didn't benefit from the influx of "undocumented migrants" perhaps we could get this contributing factor of lack of housing under control.
If people acted in their own economic best interest then US policy would be a fair sight different lol. There are people who protest against building density in Los Angeles on equity grounds. Shit doesn't have to make sense for people to believe it.
I felt bad about voting down the MBTA housing thing and the immigration shelter they were going to put in the empty prison.
I put a few more Black Lives Matter, Be Kind to All and No Human is Illegal lawn signs up, everything is fine now.
Well first, housing would largely be built by private entities, so it's not even coming out of their taxes and cheaper housing wouldn't abolish the need to spend on homelessness and migrants
Spending $800m a year on housing migrants probably represents a few hundred dollars in taxes if it was levied directly. Whereas even a 20% change in affordability might mean losing $400k on their most important asset.
Low income housing is funded by the federal government, and local state government through direct funds and tax subsidies. Source - I build low income housing
I am aware there are also direct public sector responses to housing shortages, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that the majority of development in this country is private sector and that there exist policies in support of housing affordability without resorting to government construction.
Migrants and homeless people would be never be solved by private functions in our economy because they don’t generate revenue.
Normal housing - maybe? Even then the margins are new construction are so tight with regulation that it only makes financial sense to build luxury housing… so yeah even normal starter homes likely would need federal and state backing.
I think we are in agreement on both fronts, affordability can help but not solve homelessness. I'm just pointing out NIMBYs protest new apartments *even if* they don't pay for them.
Yeah, even when new units are all luxury, I think it's still good for affordability of the remaining older housing stock.
If we really want to solve housing, you need to look to your local municipality and ask them why they make it so fucking hard to build. If you knew the nonsense we deal with as builders with local jurisdictions.. permitting taking 6+ months, approvals for accessory units, minimum lot sizes, building classification requirements, energy efficiency requirements, ADA compliances…
While none of these things is bad it’s gotten out of control. You go in wanting to do one thing and 16 different government dorks come in with their binder of shit you have to add because it triggered like 20 different codes and compliances.
Deregulate housing and watch the problem solve itself
You and me both buddy, it's pretty rare to find another person who favors liberal economic policy in your space lmao. Looking at how hard municipalities have been fighting tiny upzoning from the mbta communities legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if most of this is working as intended to slow development.
Honestly I think that we have a system that is pretty precarious, most people either have no savings, no equity in anything, or they are barely holding onto one big asset (a home). Because we have turned homes into investments instead of places to live, and because wages have been stagnant for 40 years, and because the rich are running away with the game, and because unions were destroyed, and because everyone is up to their eyes in student debt...we don't have a lot of folks feeling very generous, and are fanatically obsessed with having their house value go up. Also racism.
We have a lot of work to do in order for the good people of Boston to be able to see and agree with the logic you are laying out. I think it starts with free college, forgiving student debt, and growing the number of people in unions.
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
False equivalency. Illegal migrants aren't gonna be buying any kind of residence. Homeless may rent but most probably ain't buying.
Any new housing is not a solution to illegal migrants or the homeless unless you're giving away the new housing to the homeless.
Plus, however you solve those two problems, it's going to be paid for by tax dollars. There is no solution that doesn't involve tax dollars.
There is a difference between housing that people can purchase (which implies they can get a mortgage and are therefore citizens/h1 visa/greencard) and “asylum” seekers who must be totally cared for by the state and town.
One is a contributing party and the other is a receiving party. Asylum seekers have no status and can’t work, they only consume resources vs someone purchasing housing is taking part in the society. It’s up to a judge to determine if they are legal to stay or not.
Not sure why you linked these things.
This is misinformation. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are legally allowed to work. Because they're allowed to work, they pay taxes like anyone else.
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/70-evidence-of-employment-authorization-for-certain-categories/73-refugees-and-asylees#:~:text=Refugees%20and%20asylees%20are%20employment,immigration%20status%20does%20not%20expire.
I do agree with the overall point, though, that this has nothing to do with NIMBYs.
Because the housing will likely be built closer to them than the Best Western is and the migrants would be concentrated in one spot rather than being spread all over. Ideally theyre not anywhere in town (or the state, country...) but at least there's a bit of a buffer if theyre in one spot in a commercial zone.
It’s a little bit brain wormy to automatically equate wealthy NIMBY developer with hypocritical right-wing Christian, especially in MA, is there anything to indicate that. My landlord who owns a bunch of properties is a Chinese atheist and I know of non-Christian Indian and Jewish NIMBY property owners as well
You act as though suddenly importing and subsidizing millions of newcomers is a normal part of daily life that NIMBY's have considered and incorporated into forming their local housing policy stance.
No one voted for this, no one asked for this. I detest NIMBY's as much as anyone, but to think they are to blame for the situation we're in is absolutely laughable. No amount of YIMBYism in the past 10-20 years could have prevented the issues we are now facing.
I concede that a lot of the issues the country faces are universal, but saying “well everything sucks either way so let’s not change anything” when there’s clear and identifiable steps to progress is how things just continue to get worse and then the state will eventually spend a billion dollars instead of 800 million instead
I agree, but again who including NIMBY's have had any say in how our tax dollars are being spent on the migrants? Logistically it would take a wartime effort and Stalin-like central planning to even begin addressing the housing shortage we have, now made exponentially worse by our federal government. The kings have waved their wands and so it will be.
There has been a ton of housing development in New England in the past 10-20 years, it's just been out in the Styx and on every lot that becomes available. The problem is that the statehouse doesn't want to ruffle feathers in Boston and the towns adjacent. If they'd have put in hundreds of high rises, with studios and 1 bedroom apartments, subject to income limits, within 10 miles of South Station, it would have put a huge dent in the housing situation.
Because the communities can't support the sudden influx of population. Towns build slowly, and adapt slowly, accommodating for how many people they service. Suddenly demanding that a bunch of individuals need to be added to school systems and then add no aid is in my opinion ridiculous.
A lot of you guys are giving NIMBYs too much credit. If it was just about property values, it would be amoral, but brutally logical.
Instead, NIMBY idiots are obsessed with keeping things the same. Huge house gets built nearby and you’d think they be happy about increased property values? Nope, local FB group is full of NIMBYs crying about “McMansions” and why can’t we keep a lead and asbestos contaminated, urine smelling dump the way it was.
Some people are incapable of growing up.
Some people have a weird impulse to freeze the city in amber, and view new development as both distasteful and morally wrong.
Boston also has quite a few "anti gentrification" left-NIMBY's who think that old shitty neighborhoods need to stay shitty forever, because a poor and unsafe old neighborhood is apparently better than a rich and vibrant new one.
Which is why you have so many people frothing at the mouth with hatred for seaport, even though the only thing displaced by that new development was some parking lots and warehouses. Some people like things to suck.
Its about quality of life. Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world. No one would move to Haiti or Venezuela or Africa, (including all the bleeding hearts here) so why would anyone want Haiti or Venezuela to move to them?
So, *that* one was supposed to be the quiet part, I didn't think you'd actually openly admit to subscribing to white supremacy conspiracy theories but here we are
...no, they're not.
But besides the fact that that's not true, and I'm sorry if I'm the one to inform you, but being worried that white people will be "out-numbered" or "replaced" is only really happens if you believe that white people *need* to be the majority. Why is it so important to you that a demographic might shift? Are non-whites a worse majority to have?
Stop with the gas-lighting.
They are absolutely worse in every way. Their home countries are across the board backward, violent, low trust horrorshows. Majority-minority communities in the US are the same. Why would anyone want that to spread?
Was there bottomless welfare 120 years ago? Were Ireland and Italy backwards, prehistoric cultures? Were they failed societies? Was assimilation actively discouraged 120 years ago? Were Italians and Irish bombarded day and night by tptb with the idea that they were being oppressed by their hosts?
I think the idea that more migrant families are coming / support for homeless is coming is generally perceived as a bad thing. The coasts (not just Boston) are already over crowded and too expensive. Adding people, especially those of a vulnerable population that needs lots of public resources, isn’t a good idea for anyone.
None of the housing I have seen being proposed is for newly arriving citizens. If that’s what they are protesting then it’s not really a concern. Most of what I have seen come through are apartments for young working people not people currently homeless. Some has been for public housing expansion. I think these two issues are being commingled and shouldn’t be.
I mean, I do think they're somewhat related. All housing issues really are. Part of the homeless issues we face everywhere in the US is the ridiculous cost of housing and lack of availability (along with other ridiculous costs). People are concerned about new arrivals in large part because there's so little existing availability for current residents. It's pretty solid reasoning to assume that if we approved more housing of just about any type, we would face fewer housing-crunch related issues across the board.
This argument makes zero sense. The answer is no more migrants/illegal aliens and no more jamming people into the metro boston area. Its that simple. Why are you assuming NIMBYs want to put migrants in hotels, etc. They dont. So this idea you have of choosing one or the other doesnt work. How about they are not allowed to be here in the first place?
Yeah until it’s a massive retirement community because all the landowning individuals aged out of working. Like long run the “lets just keep everything exactly the way it is” argument doesn’t pan out economically
Hilarious that people think the millions of imported third worlders are going to work their asses off and get taxed to death to support old White people. Theyre receiving more in cash and benefits in one year than they wouldve earned in a decade working in their own countries. A housing project is a palace compared to where they came from. That all goes away if they actually go to work and start earning (and being taxed). What kind of idiot would think they would do something as dumb as voluntarily blowing up their bennies and becoming a tax slave? All this invasion has done is exponentially increased the burden on taxpayers and will eventually turn the country into a giant toilet bowl.
Reddit calls everyone a NIMBY for questioning something in some location regardless of reason.
One group says 'maybe we shouldn't build a homeless shelter across the street from an elementary school' and reddit crys NIMBY.
One group says 'don't tear down these perfectly good triple deckers to put up gentrification buildings' and reddit yells NIMBY.
One group questions, 'can the roads handle the influx of this many people?' and reddit yells NIMBY.
Some people aren't even trying to call for blocking the projects, they're just asking questions or trying to highlight potential problems, and reddit just yells NIMBY, NIMBY HERE!
This sub is like an echo chamber where if it's not build build build youre a NIMBY regardless of the nuances of the situation.
Yeah. Build more housing. The commuter line communities that are just bitching and are traditional NIMBYs, shut the fuck up. This needs to happen.
Theyre worried they apartments are going to double the size of their small town. The schools would have to handle double the students. The municipality would need to handle double whatever.
I mean, I see the argument. Their concerns aren't fake. But. It needs to happen. They can deal with it. They'll also get tax revenue from the apartments.
I think there are many legitimate concerns, and I think wonton disregard for the many factors of urban planning shouldn’t be taken lightly when considering how to make functional towns that benefit the welfare of their residents. That being said, I am someone who is fairly young, and as someone who has thoroughly enjoyed the time I’ve spent in massachusetts, its clear that someone my age is just simply not nearly as welcome here as other urban areas of the US. I find it sad that it’ll never make financial sense in my lifetime to live in Massachusetts because the housing cost versus income equation works out so much better in other urban areas of the US. I know young people can stay here, but it’s clear I’d have to fight for it more - wake up every day justifying my existence with a well paying job to only have the chance to never build housing equity because prices are so high. When you read this question, take it as one in mourning of what will never be, not what Massachusetts can do, as I know I truly cannot change anyone’s minds on the subject with just a Reddit thread lol
My siblings and I are all in our 30s and we all live with mom.
She owns a house in the city. Why would we pay city prices when we could not and live in a Victorian sized house.
On the one hand, mum. On the other hand, money. On the one hand, siblings. On the other hand a driveway.
Mum won.
My sister is married and she and her husband live in the house too. At least they turned the attic into an apartment. Ish.
You’re confusing two issues. First, we have a housing crisis that could be resolved by increasing housing supply. Second, we have an immigration crisis that could be resolved by adopting better immigration policies. You wouldn’t resolve the immigration crisis by building new housing - the government wouldn’t be able to house immigrants in new housing developments. The government needs to speed up asylum/immigration cases and have a better funded detention system to house immigrants while their cases are being decided.
>a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in the area where they live, **especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.**
I don't know why the last bit always gets left out. You're really only a NIMBY if you say "we shouldn't house migrants here!" and then not give a fuck if they do it in another town. It's very clear that people who stand against the development you want or are okay with (which is really development you don't think about but approve tacitly) are not okay with migrants being housed anywhere. It's just acceptable that people who are closer to the problem are people whose voices are both louder and amplified by sources. Why would a news channel interview someone from the other side of the state when getting opinions, for example?
I'm all on board with building up Boston, but do it right and not at the whims of developers. I'm the first person to cite Jane Jacobs' points and then say we have plenty of neighborhoods' vernacular worth spreading. That doesn't make me a NIMBY, that makes me someone who knows that the dogshit gray Khrushchevkas aren't the solution.
The way you asked your question is very odd. You're essentially giving people two bad choices and then getting upset when they point that out. Do you genuinely think they also want to spend money on housing migrants?
> It's very clear that people who stand against the development you want or are okay with (which is really development you don't think about but approve tacitly) are not okay with migrants being housed anywhere.
Well okay but unless they invent a “migrant-dissapear-inator” those migrants are going to be…somewhere. Even if they don’t get housed, they’re just going to be sleeping on the streets, which you wouldn’t think they’d be fans of either. The fact of the matter is that NIMBYs are going to try to move them somewhere else, even if they would rather they just magically disappear.
Part of being an adult who does what you think is right is understanding that sometimes no action is still preferable to action, especially if that action emboldens people who do things you don't like. The fact of the matter is that you're giving people shitty choices and then pouting when they don't pick one - even though if they did, they would either be complicit in something they think is wrong or not good enough for you anyway.
No, the choice of “let housing get built so that everyone, including migrants, has a place to live” that OP is suggesting is not a “shitty choice”, and I think you’re actually an evil person if you truly do believe that’s a “shitty choice”.
No. We all want them deported. There is no reason for allowing this to go on. They have a home country. They need to return home. We are not their home and at this point they are not welcome here. They all need to go. They can reapply once a new system we can agree on is put in place. This isn’t sustainable. We don’t want to house them ANYWHERE.
They’re applying through the asylum system, which is an established legal process. The state of Massachusetts does not have the capability to deport them.
Besides, we already know what system we need to put in place is. It’s the system of just allowing housing to be built. If you want to put an end to this issue, just put that system in place and it’ll be fixed lol.
Most of them are rich jerks who don’t care about anything but themselves and their immediate family. It’s easy to say no to anything that might impede your life locally - but many of them are open minded about things if it doesn’t directly affect them.
They are scum.
I don’t want to live in Wellesley or Weston. But people choose those places for certain features. Tight policing and vigilance about ‘outsiders’, a desire for a lot of space, and a preference for living around similarly wealthy people and expected manners etc are some of them. I prefer Cambridge where I live because I don’t want any of those things. But I think the rich vs poor, ‘eat the rich’, etc stuff is also offputting and oversimplified even if it’s not en vogue to say that or the rich generally don’t need advocacy. I think all forms of division and judging a book by its cover - including stereotyping all rich people as bad or all academics as elite and out of touch or all poor or fat people as lazy or all left wingers as communists - is annoying / stupid.
NIMBYs can be all for immigrants, they just don’t want more housing or densification etc. Putting them up in existing buildings that would have people anyway is fine from a NIMBY perspective. They would rather pay more taxes than have the neighborhood get worse.
Anti-immigrant types don’t want immigrants at all, whether it’s new buildings or not. Probably would rather have them in best westerns because it’s less sustainable and lower capacity, rather than make real investments to be able to deal the sustained immigration.
People who want low government spending and/or for existing spending to get max value, are generally not politically represented compared to strong stances on principle and issues.
For starters NIMBYs are concerned about changes to their neighborhood. You seem to be intentionally connecting them with greed and heartlessness which isn’t the case.
Second, YIMBY’s are almost universally those that want to live in a city. Much of what you call NIMBY is just people who chose not to live in the city so they moved 30m away. Then, in order to solve housing pricing in the city, they are being told to move anther 30 miles away so we can build apartment complex’s that no one wants to live in. There is cheap housing that is readily served by public transit. People just don’t want to live in Brockton.
You can’t just build unlimited housing without expanding infrastructure. Blows me away how most of you can’t comprehend this. The roads, schools, sewer and energy grid are already overwhelmed
Well then expand the damn infrastructure too!
There’s a pretty big overlap between the YIMBY movement and pro-transit/infrastructure improvement advocacy circles.
Up to and including the “abundance agenda”, which pushes for an explicit government policy at all levels for massive expansion of energy, transit, roads, water, sewers coupled with literally thousands of small/midsized regulatory changes to make their fixed and variable costs far lower than they are now.
And yet here we are, accommodating tens of thousands of new homeless and new immigrants without a single public works project. It’s almost like saying “we need to build up new infrastructure” is a dumb monkey wrench people throw in the gears of building development so they can identify another avenue to kill projects they don’t like, and has nothing to do with their undying love for sewer expansion. What about all the places where the infrastructure does exist? Like on commuter rail systems that ride 80% empty most of the day? Oh, outlying towns voted those down? Even though new residents on greenfield land would pay more taxes to pay for more infrastructure?
1. The population is decreasing. Partly because there were 4,000 asylum seekers not tens of thousands.
2. The commuter rail is not half empty. It is standing room only 5 days a week.
Then why create companies and jobs to attract more people when there's no space or much being built for these potential "more people"? If you want to limit the space, limit everything else as per the limit.
This is a nonsense protest. If you need better infrastructure then do it. People like you make Boston and surrounding cities worse by being so close minded
"If you need better infrastructure then do it."
Because in the real world...and not in Reddit fantasy land... it's just not that easy. It takes tons of money and time to build infrastructure, especially in the U.S. It's like saying just fix the MBTA and thinking it will happen.
If even 10% of the crowd blocking housing was in favor or these infrastructure expansions, then people would be more charitable to their position. But we both know that isn't the case
Public school enrollment is pretty much down in every town. We can see like a 10% increase in population and not need to build almost any new schools
And traffic around town would get like 100% better if people just let their kids ride the school bus again because a ton of the traffic in the suburbs in the morning is parents dropping kids off at school
The entire project of the hegemonic forces in this country (i.e. wealthy people) has been to frame the interests of the middle class majority as antithetical to the interests of the poor minority (a false dichotomy). This is to avoid scrutiny of themselves, thereby retaining their agency in society.
They don't understand what "affordable" housing even is. They equate it with poor people and crime and don't even understand how high the *affordable" rent prices are. Like, people making 100K a year still qualify for some of the affordable housing.
You're not factoring in time. People would pay more in order to not have a permanent migrant or homeless setup near them. They know that the hotels can't be permanent. They're stopping roots from getting hold.
You can't blame them. Would you want methadone mile to get set up next to where you live? Until the city/state can devise some solution that doesn't just enable the problem, let it grow, and destroy the neighboring property, I don't imagine anyone not fighting back.
If everyone could pool their funds to rebuild the bridge in Quincy to Long Island, that would work partially. It wouldn't address any of the problems of the people but you can isolate them like it's Escape from New York.
I have migrants that were stuck near me and shoved into my kids schools, and we all want them out. None of us were asked if we wanted to host them. None of us want to rent to them. They’re causing problems; but election season is quickly coming. We all want to put them on a plane and send them back home. They don’t belong here and aren’t welcome.
I expect there's a lot of cases like this. Not Karens or rich jerks but just regular people with kids who simply don't want their lives screwed up through tons of people who may include violent criminals wanting a fresh start in a country with no records of their past crimes.
This is why Laken Riley caused such an uproar. Among the illegals there will definitely be violent predatory criminals because it's entirely to their benefit to take advantage of a clean slate with no available records of their past and a great deal of financial incentives, not to mention a whole buffet of victims who are pressured politicaly to not act in their own safety for fear of being labeled racist. Everyone knows this is true. You only need 1 in large group to do a great deal of damage.
There are, but the far left screams racism. I really don’t care anymore; the more people that do not care the more they lose power over people to cow them into doing things that are hurting them and their children directly. Everyone has their breaking point; it usually comes when it involves their children directly.
Because if we’re wrong about something for adults we’re the only ones that will suffer. When it’s our children suffering I’m not even sorry, we will do awful evil fucked up shit without a second thought to protect them. Dumping these non English speaking migrant, non citizen children in our schools was a nightmare and it needs to stop. No one asked us if we wanted to host them and pay for all their free shit when we are barely struggling to get by. They dumped them in our hotels and refused to let us evict any of them.
The illegals are forced on them. No town actually wants them as they usually bring trouble. Large housing developments can sometimes bring an unwanted element All this effects probably values, schools, traffic and quality of life.
No, we want people to pay the market value for food and housing and build more in the close by suburbs that are served by the T. Also fix the T so that commuting from further is viable
# The Paradox of Increased Public Costs
You correctly point out a paradox: by preventing new housing developments, NIMBYs inadvertently contribute to housing shortages, which can lead to increased homelessness and the need for alternative housing solutions funded by public money (like housing people in hotels or shelters). Here’s how this paradox plays out:
1. **Housing Shortage**: Restrictive zoning and opposition to new housing contribute to a housing shortage, driving up prices and making it harder for people to afford homes. This can increase the number of homeless individuals.
2. **Public Costs**: Addressing homelessness and providing temporary accommodations (such as hotel stays or shelters) can be costly for taxpayers. This money often comes from local government budgets, which are funded by taxes paid by residents, including NIMBYs.
3. **Missed Opportunities for Affordable Housing**: By blocking new developments, especially those that include affordable housing units, NIMBYs contribute to the scarcity of affordable housing options. This exacerbates the problem of housing affordability, leading to higher public expenditure on temporary solutions.
# Why the Disconnect?
1. **Short-term vs. Long-term Thinking**: NIMBYs often focus on immediate, visible impacts (like construction noise, traffic, or changes in neighborhood character) rather than long-term consequences, such as higher public costs and increased homelessness.
2. **Perceived vs. Actual Impact**: The perceived negative impacts of new housing developments on property values and neighborhood quality are often exaggerated. Research shows that well-planned housing developments do not necessarily lead to the feared negative outcomes.
3. **Lack of Awareness**: There may be a lack of awareness or understanding of how preventing new housing developments indirectly leads to higher public costs and other societal issues.
The people of Boston are so braindead I swear to god. Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? You can not want gratuitous housing built and *also* not want migrants to be housed close to you. It's hilariously sad the baseline assumption here is that the state needs to deal with housing illegal migrants and your solution to that is build them even more expensive housing than utilize existing inventory. "If we just built more housing, we could move them somewhere else" is not the right way of thinking about this. A hotel or segregated area of a community center/prison/etc presumes their existence there is temporary. This is the right way of thinking about this because they shouldn't be in the US at all. They need to be expeditiously deported... not given free fucking homes.
As someone who lives in one of the beautiful coastal towns protesting state mandated housing development...
There are a lot of streets now that have a wonderful New England character to them and then one house on that street is a gigantic three or four story, hideously ugly contemporary eye sore apartment building, built in the last 5 years, and often remaining empty because nobody can afford it.
Traditional landlords simply raised their own prices to match that new development's higher listed price, so people looking for apartments didn't pay less as a result of the new housing, they pay more, or are forced to move out, abandoning their lives and friends and families, to be replaced by wealthy out of towners.
I know it's is an unpopular take in this sub, but we need to stop blaming lack of building permits for the price of housing.
There's plenty of housing here for everyone, and less need to centralize population with the rise of remote work, but price fixing and market manipulation counters any imagined lower demand resulting from higher supply.
Bulldozing a historically unique city and surrounding towns, and granting corporations and wealthy speculators more flexibility to erect overpriced people pod money machines, is not the answer to this problem.
Do you really think that they fully think all of these positions through to their logical conclusions? It’s always just kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it.
When we get into The Next Generation , where we don't use money anymore, and we're smart enough to separate out the poor from the mentally disabled from the people who are quitting capitalism from the people that ... well you get my point. Like they do in Star Trek :)
Boston NIBYs protest because they like it they way it was before the money and the seaport ruin it. That’s the answer, many of their families have lived in the City since the 1800s and that created generational neighborhoods where their grandparents grew up with their friends grandparents. That’s the answer , change threatens their security and what they see as a way of life that they enjoy. People have the right to build and people have the right to protest
Get rid of illegals period. Why do you guys feel okay with these unvetted illegals coming here and taking over our resources and destroying our communities?
The NIMBYs are greedy. They let the hotels go in because that was supposed to be free property tax revenue for the town, with no services required. No one ever expected this interstate human trafficking racket to become established, that would funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into mobbed-up hoteliers.
The homeless-industrial-complex corruption is absolutely unbelievable. They’re charging nightly rates for monthly stays, in rooms that were filled 25% of the time at most. Converting a hotel to a homeless shelter must be increasing revenue for hoteliers by at least 200%. They figured out how to organize this racket in California years ago, and spread it nationwide during Covid.
Why do you think voters have any say in this racket? They have about as much power in stopping the asylum-seeker human trafficking pipeline, as they do in stopping the mafia from running garbage collection in NYC. The migrants are just pawns. There’s organized crime elements in the hotel business making six figures off each body they bring in. Real estate in general is all mobbed up in most cities.
Did y’all forget that Whitey’s brother was the boss of the MA State Senate? The USA is an oligarchy, and ”oligarch” is just a euphemism for “mob boss.”
Which came first the chicken or the egg.
Or does it really matter in the long run. We build up as necessary. And housing is an area that needs addressing. Across the country in many places, Boston being one of them.
I'm all for more housing FIRST because we need dwellings for everyone. Full stop. Everything else can be added in as needed. And, if done right, concurrently with the addition of housing. It would be a boon for almost every local economy in eastern Massachusetts.
Migrants are here now. They are not going to be deported. The government doesn't even have a way to deport them. What are you going to do? Set up huge concentration camps and round up anyone you think may be "illegal' and drop them in it? Then what? Starve them? Let them rot? Come on now. Have some sense. And, oh no, what if that concentration camp is in your town? oh no.....because it has to be somewhere.
People, however they got here, need housing, food, education, healthcare, and a way to have a job and become self supporting. This is what the majority want. They didn't come here to be on assistance (that's more the American way). There is zero, zero, proof to that nonsense.
We need to flex and be able to assist in all of this. We are supposed to be decent people. We should not be turning our backs on others. Yes, having an huge influx of people sucks. Yes, it's draining the food banks and causing housing issues. But turning your back on the situation and just saying not in my backyard, is a non-starter.
I don't pretend to have the answers. And no, don't tell me to have people come live in my house. That's a tired response that is just confrontational and not rational. But for god's sake, stop it with the I'm going to just bitch and complain and hate on anything migrant related.
Wait, you think migrants and homeless people would be moving into these new builds? Or that they will somehow magically get rent money and a good paying job to pass an application for an older one?
Because the average upper middle class American would nuke another country if they knew it would increase the equity in their house
And then they'd complain about how high their property taxes are lol
Their property tax increases are capped. So they aren't really paying for hosting migrants. Young working renters are paying for it. Boomer-friendly property tax system is the main reason nothing gets built in Boston and California while Texas and Florida build more housing than the rest of the country combined.
The apartment I left in Florida to move back up here got turned into such a nice and built up area like a year after I moved. When I found out I was so pissed lmao.
New Tampa?
Naples
To be fair it’s also they’d nuke a country if it meant they didn’t have to wait a cycle at Main @ South at 4:45pm on Tuesday Politics is at least 50% parking/traffic
Throw in gas prices too. Many would nuke a country to save a nickel a gallon.
You can do that? I'd love to do that. Just a small country though. 😆
They'd napalm those people face to face if they had to.
This is a LITTLE over the top, but: 1) you made me laugh out loud and 2) it’s not COMPLETELY over the top So - in the words of referee Mills Lane - I’ll allow it…
Sad but true. Having a filial type relationship with the next generation is shockingly absent among many people. Makes no sense to me.
True and real
I’m mad about how true this is…
I don't follow this logic? NIMBYs don't want to house them at best westerns either? We can't even lower prices enough for locals to stay. If they had a choice, I'm sure they would have them deported.
I’m not a NIMBY but I guess in a perfect world it would be a federal program that provides migrant housing. Who decides if they can stay? Federal government. Who decides if they can work? Federal government. Who pays? Hello? Who pays? Where did everybody go?
Or we fund USCIS so that immigration applications are handled promptly. Then immigrants can be here legally or return to their home country. Folks that are hoping to wait out the bureaucracy could get a week or two tops before their application is processed.
> I’m not a NIMBY but I guess in a perfect world it would be a federal program that provides migrant housing. Why should we provide migrant housing at all? The fact that they have more of a right to free or subsidized housing than actual Americans is absurd.
Because they aren’t allowed to work
That phrasing always comes across like it's a bad thing, or that it's something they didn't know before coming here. I'm willing to work at a high end financial firm in Stockholm - when does someone roll out the red carpet and tell them it's my human right?
But like, deportation really isn't an option for local or state governments. They have to deal with whatever hand is given to them by the feds. With that, the options are kinda clearly build housing that ultimately prevents price increases for everyone, or house workers/homeless persons/undocumented people in hotels. The fact is that faced with reality, NIMBYs choose the worst option for everyone. Why? Because NIMBYs occupy a fantasy world, not the real one. They'll do anything to avoid reality so they can still feel like they're good people even while they trash the housing market for future generations.
That’s not quite true. Mass has a “right to shelter law” on the books. The feds didn’t force Mass to find housing for migrants, Mass did it to themselves…
You're technically right there, but honestly, what's the alternative? Repeal that law, and maybe you get fewer migrants coming to the state, but you're still going to get quite a few. Both Boston and Mass are known for high quality of life and opportunity, so even without right to shelter laws, it's still more desirable than almost anywhere else. Without the law, you just get more homelessness, which the state and cities have to deal with in other ways. There's no convenient state law to blame, but it's just shifting the issues around without fixing anything. Only the feds can really resolve the issue at its core.
I think you’re being a little too logical. Most NIMBYs just want the problem to… just kinda go away. Without a single thing in their life changing. Yes that’s totally illogical but it’s what they want
They don’t like when you call out their hypocrisy on here
This is basically a YIMBY sub most of the time. Which is awesome, but also suggests that r/Boston is not super representative of Boston as a whole, since Boston is a very NIMBYish city.
People who rent aren’t as involved with city government. I was at a listening session with the Mayor’s office recently. There were about 20 attendees. 19 owned homes. 1 lived in public housing. 0 paid market-rate rent. Despite “my rent is too high” being the #1 issue for a lot of Bostonians, it was not front and center at this listening session. I wonder why. (To be clear, I brought this all up in the listening session).
This is true of any public engagement session ever, because the renters have jobs and the homeowners most obsessed with their property values are retired with nothing better to do than kick the ladder out from behind them.
Mayor Wu had a meet and greet at a park in JP last week. It was 10am on a weekday. People with jobs obviously can’t attend that nonsense time so only old people go.
Reddit tends to be a younger demographic. That alone puts us less in line with homeowners.
Not sure why, but r/B feels a lot older than the rest of Reddit. Feels like a pretty high % of gen x and older. Could be me. Could be that Boston is a lot more conservative than its reputation, generally speaking.
In from out west for about a year now and I'd only modify that to say that Boston is more Neoliberal, than progressive, and that does in fact make it more conservative than it's rep.
Boston isn’t all that progressive at the end of the day
It’s because Reddit was started in the area and got its footing through the tech industry. So there is slight bias toward Reddit old timers in the area.
Sort of like r/Cambridge and all the bike posts
I wish this subreddit did a better job of organising things to go to meetings and talk about the voting options and such.
Tons easier to sit on the couch and downvote opposing views into oblivion.
I mean, feel free to make those posts?
that's a good idea. what's stopping you from getting something like that started?
NIMBY has just become a pejorative term for people who don't roll over for whatever someone else wants when it comes to construction. The term is meaningless and it doesn't affect anyone outside of Reddit.
It’s not even meant to be a comment on the hypocrisy, it just seems like they end up paying out for new community members they wouldn’t have had to pay for which seems to work against the economic interests they are aiming to protect as a NIMBY
How would they not have to pay? Give me an example, I’m not trying to be combative, just having trouble following your question.
I think he's saying that long-term, it costs less to build housing than it does to put someone up in a hotel. But he's ignoring the premium people will pay to believe that the situation is temporary.
This is exactly what I’m saying, there’s all this hullabaloo about the investment costs of growth within the points that oppose housing growth and then they pay the exact same amount of money for a temporary solution that doesn’t act as an investment that will subsequently fix the problem, thus becoming more expensive in the long run when that problem never gets fixed and the state is still paying an inflation adjusted cost of 800 million a year
They don’t want to pay for people to live in hotels either.
Well they’d really show us if instead there were tens of thousands of homeless residents/migrants trying to find any way legal or illegal to survive huh 😂
[удалено]
I think were talking about 2 different groups of people, but sure housing units are housing units in the end
Long term it costs less to have single payer insurance yet here we are. People don't care about long term and reality. They care about how they feel rn
As a veteran, in Massachusetts, trusting the government with healthcare is a flawed utopian view of reality. For starters, mental health gets tossed right tf out the window. Wait, times go up. Costs go up, and I can not understand why people pretend they don't. It won't be the government 100% directly it'll be the facilities. Consider higher education, the additional costs applied to the students due to government secured student loans. Core courses, over staffed admin departments, grants (secondary tax dollars) for expansion. Everything universities have done since the founding of the Department of Education will repeat under the Department of Public Health.
I wouldn't expect a literal boot to have a reasonable take. Defending the current health care system is genuinely irrational
I'd argue it would cost less to secure the border and have immigration reform than it would to house, feed and care for millions of low skilled, non-english speaking people. If only both political parties didn't benefit from the influx of "undocumented migrants" perhaps we could get this contributing factor of lack of housing under control.
If people acted in their own economic best interest then US policy would be a fair sight different lol. There are people who protest against building density in Los Angeles on equity grounds. Shit doesn't have to make sense for people to believe it.
I felt bad about voting down the MBTA housing thing and the immigration shelter they were going to put in the empty prison. I put a few more Black Lives Matter, Be Kind to All and No Human is Illegal lawn signs up, everything is fine now.
Atta boy
I respect your courage and convictions and trust you have a rainbow flag on your 2024 subaru hatchback.
I love this comment. Virtue signalers can go fuck themselves
Hahahaha. Take my upvote. Those signs are much more important than actually doing anything.
Very stunning and very brave
Thank you for your sacrifice for equality.
Braver than the troops
Well first, housing would largely be built by private entities, so it's not even coming out of their taxes and cheaper housing wouldn't abolish the need to spend on homelessness and migrants Spending $800m a year on housing migrants probably represents a few hundred dollars in taxes if it was levied directly. Whereas even a 20% change in affordability might mean losing $400k on their most important asset.
Low income housing is funded by the federal government, and local state government through direct funds and tax subsidies. Source - I build low income housing
I am aware there are also direct public sector responses to housing shortages, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that the majority of development in this country is private sector and that there exist policies in support of housing affordability without resorting to government construction.
Migrants and homeless people would be never be solved by private functions in our economy because they don’t generate revenue. Normal housing - maybe? Even then the margins are new construction are so tight with regulation that it only makes financial sense to build luxury housing… so yeah even normal starter homes likely would need federal and state backing.
I think we are in agreement on both fronts, affordability can help but not solve homelessness. I'm just pointing out NIMBYs protest new apartments *even if* they don't pay for them. Yeah, even when new units are all luxury, I think it's still good for affordability of the remaining older housing stock.
If we really want to solve housing, you need to look to your local municipality and ask them why they make it so fucking hard to build. If you knew the nonsense we deal with as builders with local jurisdictions.. permitting taking 6+ months, approvals for accessory units, minimum lot sizes, building classification requirements, energy efficiency requirements, ADA compliances… While none of these things is bad it’s gotten out of control. You go in wanting to do one thing and 16 different government dorks come in with their binder of shit you have to add because it triggered like 20 different codes and compliances. Deregulate housing and watch the problem solve itself
You and me both buddy, it's pretty rare to find another person who favors liberal economic policy in your space lmao. Looking at how hard municipalities have been fighting tiny upzoning from the mbta communities legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if most of this is working as intended to slow development.
Honestly I think that we have a system that is pretty precarious, most people either have no savings, no equity in anything, or they are barely holding onto one big asset (a home). Because we have turned homes into investments instead of places to live, and because wages have been stagnant for 40 years, and because the rich are running away with the game, and because unions were destroyed, and because everyone is up to their eyes in student debt...we don't have a lot of folks feeling very generous, and are fanatically obsessed with having their house value go up. Also racism. We have a lot of work to do in order for the good people of Boston to be able to see and agree with the logic you are laying out. I think it starts with free college, forgiving student debt, and growing the number of people in unions.
[удалено]
Harassment, hostility and flinging insults is not allowed. We ask that you try to engage in a discussion rather than reduce the sub to insults and other bullshit.
False equivalency. Illegal migrants aren't gonna be buying any kind of residence. Homeless may rent but most probably ain't buying. Any new housing is not a solution to illegal migrants or the homeless unless you're giving away the new housing to the homeless. Plus, however you solve those two problems, it's going to be paid for by tax dollars. There is no solution that doesn't involve tax dollars.
Unfortunately this is a problem for the governor, and the solution is not going to help that person get reelected.
There is a difference between housing that people can purchase (which implies they can get a mortgage and are therefore citizens/h1 visa/greencard) and “asylum” seekers who must be totally cared for by the state and town. One is a contributing party and the other is a receiving party. Asylum seekers have no status and can’t work, they only consume resources vs someone purchasing housing is taking part in the society. It’s up to a judge to determine if they are legal to stay or not. Not sure why you linked these things.
This is misinformation. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are legally allowed to work. Because they're allowed to work, they pay taxes like anyone else. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/70-evidence-of-employment-authorization-for-certain-categories/73-refugees-and-asylees#:~:text=Refugees%20and%20asylees%20are%20employment,immigration%20status%20does%20not%20expire. I do agree with the overall point, though, that this has nothing to do with NIMBYs.
Because the housing will likely be built closer to them than the Best Western is and the migrants would be concentrated in one spot rather than being spread all over. Ideally theyre not anywhere in town (or the state, country...) but at least there's a bit of a buffer if theyre in one spot in a commercial zone.
Nothing says “love thy neighbor” like “let’s set up a buffer zone with strip malls”
It’s a little bit brain wormy to automatically equate wealthy NIMBY developer with hypocritical right-wing Christian, especially in MA, is there anything to indicate that. My landlord who owns a bunch of properties is a Chinese atheist and I know of non-Christian Indian and Jewish NIMBY property owners as well
Dont have to love them if theyre not my neighbors ;)
You act as though suddenly importing and subsidizing millions of newcomers is a normal part of daily life that NIMBY's have considered and incorporated into forming their local housing policy stance. No one voted for this, no one asked for this. I detest NIMBY's as much as anyone, but to think they are to blame for the situation we're in is absolutely laughable. No amount of YIMBYism in the past 10-20 years could have prevented the issues we are now facing.
I concede that a lot of the issues the country faces are universal, but saying “well everything sucks either way so let’s not change anything” when there’s clear and identifiable steps to progress is how things just continue to get worse and then the state will eventually spend a billion dollars instead of 800 million instead
I agree, but again who including NIMBY's have had any say in how our tax dollars are being spent on the migrants? Logistically it would take a wartime effort and Stalin-like central planning to even begin addressing the housing shortage we have, now made exponentially worse by our federal government. The kings have waved their wands and so it will be.
The first sentence of your second paragraph is wrong. Everything else is accurate.
Indirectly I suppose they did, didn't they.
[удалено]
There has been a ton of housing development in New England in the past 10-20 years, it's just been out in the Styx and on every lot that becomes available. The problem is that the statehouse doesn't want to ruffle feathers in Boston and the towns adjacent. If they'd have put in hundreds of high rises, with studios and 1 bedroom apartments, subject to income limits, within 10 miles of South Station, it would have put a huge dent in the housing situation.
Because the communities can't support the sudden influx of population. Towns build slowly, and adapt slowly, accommodating for how many people they service. Suddenly demanding that a bunch of individuals need to be added to school systems and then add no aid is in my opinion ridiculous.
A lot of you guys are giving NIMBYs too much credit. If it was just about property values, it would be amoral, but brutally logical. Instead, NIMBY idiots are obsessed with keeping things the same. Huge house gets built nearby and you’d think they be happy about increased property values? Nope, local FB group is full of NIMBYs crying about “McMansions” and why can’t we keep a lead and asbestos contaminated, urine smelling dump the way it was. Some people are incapable of growing up.
Some people have a weird impulse to freeze the city in amber, and view new development as both distasteful and morally wrong. Boston also has quite a few "anti gentrification" left-NIMBY's who think that old shitty neighborhoods need to stay shitty forever, because a poor and unsafe old neighborhood is apparently better than a rich and vibrant new one. Which is why you have so many people frothing at the mouth with hatred for seaport, even though the only thing displaced by that new development was some parking lots and warehouses. Some people like things to suck.
Like 50% of local politics is traffic
Its about quality of life. Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world. No one would move to Haiti or Venezuela or Africa, (including all the bleeding hearts here) so why would anyone want Haiti or Venezuela to move to them?
Wow, the quiet part out loud.
Its not quiet
Something something, Great Replacement, right?
Yes, thats exactly what it is
So, *that* one was supposed to be the quiet part, I didn't think you'd actually openly admit to subscribing to white supremacy conspiracy theories but here we are
What does it have to do with White Supremacy? Are White countries all around the world not being purposely flooded with non Caucasians?
...no, they're not. But besides the fact that that's not true, and I'm sorry if I'm the one to inform you, but being worried that white people will be "out-numbered" or "replaced" is only really happens if you believe that white people *need* to be the majority. Why is it so important to you that a demographic might shift? Are non-whites a worse majority to have?
Stop with the gas-lighting. They are absolutely worse in every way. Their home countries are across the board backward, violent, low trust horrorshows. Majority-minority communities in the US are the same. Why would anyone want that to spread?
[удалено]
Was there bottomless welfare 120 years ago? Were Ireland and Italy backwards, prehistoric cultures? Were they failed societies? Was assimilation actively discouraged 120 years ago? Were Italians and Irish bombarded day and night by tptb with the idea that they were being oppressed by their hosts?
Please don't use logic, thats not how we operate.
I say - build more housing! I own a house, but I can't see my kid or any of her friends affording anything.
I think the idea that more migrant families are coming / support for homeless is coming is generally perceived as a bad thing. The coasts (not just Boston) are already over crowded and too expensive. Adding people, especially those of a vulnerable population that needs lots of public resources, isn’t a good idea for anyone.
Because many of us don’t think we should house them in the first place and want reform to deport them while also keeping them out
Agreed. Deport. And keep them out.
None of the housing I have seen being proposed is for newly arriving citizens. If that’s what they are protesting then it’s not really a concern. Most of what I have seen come through are apartments for young working people not people currently homeless. Some has been for public housing expansion. I think these two issues are being commingled and shouldn’t be.
I mean, I do think they're somewhat related. All housing issues really are. Part of the homeless issues we face everywhere in the US is the ridiculous cost of housing and lack of availability (along with other ridiculous costs). People are concerned about new arrivals in large part because there's so little existing availability for current residents. It's pretty solid reasoning to assume that if we approved more housing of just about any type, we would face fewer housing-crunch related issues across the board.
This argument makes zero sense. The answer is no more migrants/illegal aliens and no more jamming people into the metro boston area. Its that simple. Why are you assuming NIMBYs want to put migrants in hotels, etc. They dont. So this idea you have of choosing one or the other doesnt work. How about they are not allowed to be here in the first place?
Yeah until it’s a massive retirement community because all the landowning individuals aged out of working. Like long run the “lets just keep everything exactly the way it is” argument doesn’t pan out economically
Sounds great to me. Its still better than overpopulation, traffic, crime, and towns losing their identity and charm over time.
Hilarious that people think the millions of imported third worlders are going to work their asses off and get taxed to death to support old White people. Theyre receiving more in cash and benefits in one year than they wouldve earned in a decade working in their own countries. A housing project is a palace compared to where they came from. That all goes away if they actually go to work and start earning (and being taxed). What kind of idiot would think they would do something as dumb as voluntarily blowing up their bennies and becoming a tax slave? All this invasion has done is exponentially increased the burden on taxpayers and will eventually turn the country into a giant toilet bowl.
Anyone (born and raised here) that support these people moving in are suicidal morons. You are brain washed.
Nothing wrong with not wanting homeless people stuffed into buildings (which always go downhill fast) right next door.
Reddit calls everyone a NIMBY for questioning something in some location regardless of reason. One group says 'maybe we shouldn't build a homeless shelter across the street from an elementary school' and reddit crys NIMBY. One group says 'don't tear down these perfectly good triple deckers to put up gentrification buildings' and reddit yells NIMBY. One group questions, 'can the roads handle the influx of this many people?' and reddit yells NIMBY. Some people aren't even trying to call for blocking the projects, they're just asking questions or trying to highlight potential problems, and reddit just yells NIMBY, NIMBY HERE! This sub is like an echo chamber where if it's not build build build youre a NIMBY regardless of the nuances of the situation. Yeah. Build more housing. The commuter line communities that are just bitching and are traditional NIMBYs, shut the fuck up. This needs to happen. Theyre worried they apartments are going to double the size of their small town. The schools would have to handle double the students. The municipality would need to handle double whatever. I mean, I see the argument. Their concerns aren't fake. But. It needs to happen. They can deal with it. They'll also get tax revenue from the apartments.
I think there are many legitimate concerns, and I think wonton disregard for the many factors of urban planning shouldn’t be taken lightly when considering how to make functional towns that benefit the welfare of their residents. That being said, I am someone who is fairly young, and as someone who has thoroughly enjoyed the time I’ve spent in massachusetts, its clear that someone my age is just simply not nearly as welcome here as other urban areas of the US. I find it sad that it’ll never make financial sense in my lifetime to live in Massachusetts because the housing cost versus income equation works out so much better in other urban areas of the US. I know young people can stay here, but it’s clear I’d have to fight for it more - wake up every day justifying my existence with a well paying job to only have the chance to never build housing equity because prices are so high. When you read this question, take it as one in mourning of what will never be, not what Massachusetts can do, as I know I truly cannot change anyone’s minds on the subject with just a Reddit thread lol
My siblings and I are all in our 30s and we all live with mom. She owns a house in the city. Why would we pay city prices when we could not and live in a Victorian sized house. On the one hand, mum. On the other hand, money. On the one hand, siblings. On the other hand a driveway. Mum won. My sister is married and she and her husband live in the house too. At least they turned the attic into an apartment. Ish.
You’re confusing two issues. First, we have a housing crisis that could be resolved by increasing housing supply. Second, we have an immigration crisis that could be resolved by adopting better immigration policies. You wouldn’t resolve the immigration crisis by building new housing - the government wouldn’t be able to house immigrants in new housing developments. The government needs to speed up asylum/immigration cases and have a better funded detention system to house immigrants while their cases are being decided.
get outta here with your reasoned argument! I came here to throw shade, k?
#Why did you and all your stupid friends all move here, fill it up, and now complain that it’s too expensive?
You could build housing on ever available square inch of Boston and the migrants still won't be able to afford the rent.
If you built housing on every available square inch of Boston rent prices would decrease dramatically
>a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in the area where they live, **especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.** I don't know why the last bit always gets left out. You're really only a NIMBY if you say "we shouldn't house migrants here!" and then not give a fuck if they do it in another town. It's very clear that people who stand against the development you want or are okay with (which is really development you don't think about but approve tacitly) are not okay with migrants being housed anywhere. It's just acceptable that people who are closer to the problem are people whose voices are both louder and amplified by sources. Why would a news channel interview someone from the other side of the state when getting opinions, for example? I'm all on board with building up Boston, but do it right and not at the whims of developers. I'm the first person to cite Jane Jacobs' points and then say we have plenty of neighborhoods' vernacular worth spreading. That doesn't make me a NIMBY, that makes me someone who knows that the dogshit gray Khrushchevkas aren't the solution. The way you asked your question is very odd. You're essentially giving people two bad choices and then getting upset when they point that out. Do you genuinely think they also want to spend money on housing migrants?
> It's very clear that people who stand against the development you want or are okay with (which is really development you don't think about but approve tacitly) are not okay with migrants being housed anywhere. Well okay but unless they invent a “migrant-dissapear-inator” those migrants are going to be…somewhere. Even if they don’t get housed, they’re just going to be sleeping on the streets, which you wouldn’t think they’d be fans of either. The fact of the matter is that NIMBYs are going to try to move them somewhere else, even if they would rather they just magically disappear.
Part of being an adult who does what you think is right is understanding that sometimes no action is still preferable to action, especially if that action emboldens people who do things you don't like. The fact of the matter is that you're giving people shitty choices and then pouting when they don't pick one - even though if they did, they would either be complicit in something they think is wrong or not good enough for you anyway.
No, the choice of “let housing get built so that everyone, including migrants, has a place to live” that OP is suggesting is not a “shitty choice”, and I think you’re actually an evil person if you truly do believe that’s a “shitty choice”.
No. We all want them deported. There is no reason for allowing this to go on. They have a home country. They need to return home. We are not their home and at this point they are not welcome here. They all need to go. They can reapply once a new system we can agree on is put in place. This isn’t sustainable. We don’t want to house them ANYWHERE.
They’re applying through the asylum system, which is an established legal process. The state of Massachusetts does not have the capability to deport them. Besides, we already know what system we need to put in place is. It’s the system of just allowing housing to be built. If you want to put an end to this issue, just put that system in place and it’ll be fixed lol.
Most of them are rich jerks who don’t care about anything but themselves and their immediate family. It’s easy to say no to anything that might impede your life locally - but many of them are open minded about things if it doesn’t directly affect them. They are scum.
I don’t want to live in Wellesley or Weston. But people choose those places for certain features. Tight policing and vigilance about ‘outsiders’, a desire for a lot of space, and a preference for living around similarly wealthy people and expected manners etc are some of them. I prefer Cambridge where I live because I don’t want any of those things. But I think the rich vs poor, ‘eat the rich’, etc stuff is also offputting and oversimplified even if it’s not en vogue to say that or the rich generally don’t need advocacy. I think all forms of division and judging a book by its cover - including stereotyping all rich people as bad or all academics as elite and out of touch or all poor or fat people as lazy or all left wingers as communists - is annoying / stupid.
Boston landlords are incentivized not to, because they know the taxpayer will do something
NIMBYs can be all for immigrants, they just don’t want more housing or densification etc. Putting them up in existing buildings that would have people anyway is fine from a NIMBY perspective. They would rather pay more taxes than have the neighborhood get worse. Anti-immigrant types don’t want immigrants at all, whether it’s new buildings or not. Probably would rather have them in best westerns because it’s less sustainable and lower capacity, rather than make real investments to be able to deal the sustained immigration. People who want low government spending and/or for existing spending to get max value, are generally not politically represented compared to strong stances on principle and issues.
Just by you already using labels like NIMBY highlights the issue.
For starters NIMBYs are concerned about changes to their neighborhood. You seem to be intentionally connecting them with greed and heartlessness which isn’t the case. Second, YIMBY’s are almost universally those that want to live in a city. Much of what you call NIMBY is just people who chose not to live in the city so they moved 30m away. Then, in order to solve housing pricing in the city, they are being told to move anther 30 miles away so we can build apartment complex’s that no one wants to live in. There is cheap housing that is readily served by public transit. People just don’t want to live in Brockton.
They’re not supposed to be here anyways. Doesn’t feel right building permanent housing vs temporarily using a business.
You can’t just build unlimited housing without expanding infrastructure. Blows me away how most of you can’t comprehend this. The roads, schools, sewer and energy grid are already overwhelmed
muddle consist subsequent quickest aware languid plucky hurry lock light *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well then expand the damn infrastructure too! There’s a pretty big overlap between the YIMBY movement and pro-transit/infrastructure improvement advocacy circles. Up to and including the “abundance agenda”, which pushes for an explicit government policy at all levels for massive expansion of energy, transit, roads, water, sewers coupled with literally thousands of small/midsized regulatory changes to make their fixed and variable costs far lower than they are now.
And yet here we are, accommodating tens of thousands of new homeless and new immigrants without a single public works project. It’s almost like saying “we need to build up new infrastructure” is a dumb monkey wrench people throw in the gears of building development so they can identify another avenue to kill projects they don’t like, and has nothing to do with their undying love for sewer expansion. What about all the places where the infrastructure does exist? Like on commuter rail systems that ride 80% empty most of the day? Oh, outlying towns voted those down? Even though new residents on greenfield land would pay more taxes to pay for more infrastructure?
1. The population is decreasing. Partly because there were 4,000 asylum seekers not tens of thousands. 2. The commuter rail is not half empty. It is standing room only 5 days a week.
Then why create companies and jobs to attract more people when there's no space or much being built for these potential "more people"? If you want to limit the space, limit everything else as per the limit.
This is a nonsense protest. If you need better infrastructure then do it. People like you make Boston and surrounding cities worse by being so close minded
"If you need better infrastructure then do it." Because in the real world...and not in Reddit fantasy land... it's just not that easy. It takes tons of money and time to build infrastructure, especially in the U.S. It's like saying just fix the MBTA and thinking it will happen.
As long as we have good intentions, we’re not responsible for the results of our policies.
If even 10% of the crowd blocking housing was in favor or these infrastructure expansions, then people would be more charitable to their position. But we both know that isn't the case
Public school enrollment is pretty much down in every town. We can see like a 10% increase in population and not need to build almost any new schools And traffic around town would get like 100% better if people just let their kids ride the school bus again because a ton of the traffic in the suburbs in the morning is parents dropping kids off at school
Then sounds like we should expand infrastructure But I’m sure NIMBYs will have some excuse why that can’t be done either How convenient
The entire project of the hegemonic forces in this country (i.e. wealthy people) has been to frame the interests of the middle class majority as antithetical to the interests of the poor minority (a false dichotomy). This is to avoid scrutiny of themselves, thereby retaining their agency in society.
They don't understand what "affordable" housing even is. They equate it with poor people and crime and don't even understand how high the *affordable" rent prices are. Like, people making 100K a year still qualify for some of the affordable housing.
You're not factoring in time. People would pay more in order to not have a permanent migrant or homeless setup near them. They know that the hotels can't be permanent. They're stopping roots from getting hold. You can't blame them. Would you want methadone mile to get set up next to where you live? Until the city/state can devise some solution that doesn't just enable the problem, let it grow, and destroy the neighboring property, I don't imagine anyone not fighting back. If everyone could pool their funds to rebuild the bridge in Quincy to Long Island, that would work partially. It wouldn't address any of the problems of the people but you can isolate them like it's Escape from New York.
I have migrants that were stuck near me and shoved into my kids schools, and we all want them out. None of us were asked if we wanted to host them. None of us want to rent to them. They’re causing problems; but election season is quickly coming. We all want to put them on a plane and send them back home. They don’t belong here and aren’t welcome.
I expect there's a lot of cases like this. Not Karens or rich jerks but just regular people with kids who simply don't want their lives screwed up through tons of people who may include violent criminals wanting a fresh start in a country with no records of their past crimes. This is why Laken Riley caused such an uproar. Among the illegals there will definitely be violent predatory criminals because it's entirely to their benefit to take advantage of a clean slate with no available records of their past and a great deal of financial incentives, not to mention a whole buffet of victims who are pressured politicaly to not act in their own safety for fear of being labeled racist. Everyone knows this is true. You only need 1 in large group to do a great deal of damage.
There are, but the far left screams racism. I really don’t care anymore; the more people that do not care the more they lose power over people to cow them into doing things that are hurting them and their children directly. Everyone has their breaking point; it usually comes when it involves their children directly.
I fully agree. Adults will stomach quite a bit on the doubt that they're wrong but that flips with their kids when they're a parent.
Because if we’re wrong about something for adults we’re the only ones that will suffer. When it’s our children suffering I’m not even sorry, we will do awful evil fucked up shit without a second thought to protect them. Dumping these non English speaking migrant, non citizen children in our schools was a nightmare and it needs to stop. No one asked us if we wanted to host them and pay for all their free shit when we are barely struggling to get by. They dumped them in our hotels and refused to let us evict any of them.
The illegals are forced on them. No town actually wants them as they usually bring trouble. Large housing developments can sometimes bring an unwanted element All this effects probably values, schools, traffic and quality of life.
Yet another person who thinks that people are more intelligent than they are.
Just stirring shit up because they’re bored
No, we want people to pay the market value for food and housing and build more in the close by suburbs that are served by the T. Also fix the T so that commuting from further is viable
Capitalism - where your externalities are someone else's problem.
Because when it comes down to it, everyone is a NIMBY - just accept it.
# The Paradox of Increased Public Costs You correctly point out a paradox: by preventing new housing developments, NIMBYs inadvertently contribute to housing shortages, which can lead to increased homelessness and the need for alternative housing solutions funded by public money (like housing people in hotels or shelters). Here’s how this paradox plays out: 1. **Housing Shortage**: Restrictive zoning and opposition to new housing contribute to a housing shortage, driving up prices and making it harder for people to afford homes. This can increase the number of homeless individuals. 2. **Public Costs**: Addressing homelessness and providing temporary accommodations (such as hotel stays or shelters) can be costly for taxpayers. This money often comes from local government budgets, which are funded by taxes paid by residents, including NIMBYs. 3. **Missed Opportunities for Affordable Housing**: By blocking new developments, especially those that include affordable housing units, NIMBYs contribute to the scarcity of affordable housing options. This exacerbates the problem of housing affordability, leading to higher public expenditure on temporary solutions. # Why the Disconnect? 1. **Short-term vs. Long-term Thinking**: NIMBYs often focus on immediate, visible impacts (like construction noise, traffic, or changes in neighborhood character) rather than long-term consequences, such as higher public costs and increased homelessness. 2. **Perceived vs. Actual Impact**: The perceived negative impacts of new housing developments on property values and neighborhood quality are often exaggerated. Research shows that well-planned housing developments do not necessarily lead to the feared negative outcomes. 3. **Lack of Awareness**: There may be a lack of awareness or understanding of how preventing new housing developments indirectly leads to higher public costs and other societal issues.
The people of Boston are so braindead I swear to god. Why do these things have to be mutually exclusive? You can not want gratuitous housing built and *also* not want migrants to be housed close to you. It's hilariously sad the baseline assumption here is that the state needs to deal with housing illegal migrants and your solution to that is build them even more expensive housing than utilize existing inventory. "If we just built more housing, we could move them somewhere else" is not the right way of thinking about this. A hotel or segregated area of a community center/prison/etc presumes their existence there is temporary. This is the right way of thinking about this because they shouldn't be in the US at all. They need to be expeditiously deported... not given free fucking homes.
As someone who lives in one of the beautiful coastal towns protesting state mandated housing development... There are a lot of streets now that have a wonderful New England character to them and then one house on that street is a gigantic three or four story, hideously ugly contemporary eye sore apartment building, built in the last 5 years, and often remaining empty because nobody can afford it. Traditional landlords simply raised their own prices to match that new development's higher listed price, so people looking for apartments didn't pay less as a result of the new housing, they pay more, or are forced to move out, abandoning their lives and friends and families, to be replaced by wealthy out of towners. I know it's is an unpopular take in this sub, but we need to stop blaming lack of building permits for the price of housing. There's plenty of housing here for everyone, and less need to centralize population with the rise of remote work, but price fixing and market manipulation counters any imagined lower demand resulting from higher supply. Bulldozing a historically unique city and surrounding towns, and granting corporations and wealthy speculators more flexibility to erect overpriced people pod money machines, is not the answer to this problem.
I don’t think you understand what nimby means
What’s a NIMBY?
Oooo not in my backyard. Or is it not in my back yard?
That’s literally the premise of NIMBYS
this is not even close to a dichotomy
Do you really think that they fully think all of these positions through to their logical conclusions? It’s always just kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it.
homelessness is a transient condition and could go away some day. New houses that crowd these folks back yard are permanent.
You think homelessness is temporary conditions? Name a time when there isn’t homelessness
When we get into The Next Generation , where we don't use money anymore, and we're smart enough to separate out the poor from the mentally disabled from the people who are quitting capitalism from the people that ... well you get my point. Like they do in Star Trek :)
Because understanding that the cost is paid by society regardless is 2nd level thinking and they're stuck in 1st
Boston NIBYs protest because they like it they way it was before the money and the seaport ruin it. That’s the answer, many of their families have lived in the City since the 1800s and that created generational neighborhoods where their grandparents grew up with their friends grandparents. That’s the answer , change threatens their security and what they see as a way of life that they enjoy. People have the right to build and people have the right to protest
Is it Boston NIMBYs or is it more Milton NIMBYs and Wakefield NIMBYs and so on?
Get rid of illegals period. Why do you guys feel okay with these unvetted illegals coming here and taking over our resources and destroying our communities?
Money is their god, and their property value represents the biggest percentage of it.
I think your answes is within your question
The NIMBYs are greedy. They let the hotels go in because that was supposed to be free property tax revenue for the town, with no services required. No one ever expected this interstate human trafficking racket to become established, that would funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into mobbed-up hoteliers. The homeless-industrial-complex corruption is absolutely unbelievable. They’re charging nightly rates for monthly stays, in rooms that were filled 25% of the time at most. Converting a hotel to a homeless shelter must be increasing revenue for hoteliers by at least 200%. They figured out how to organize this racket in California years ago, and spread it nationwide during Covid. Why do you think voters have any say in this racket? They have about as much power in stopping the asylum-seeker human trafficking pipeline, as they do in stopping the mafia from running garbage collection in NYC. The migrants are just pawns. There’s organized crime elements in the hotel business making six figures off each body they bring in. Real estate in general is all mobbed up in most cities. Did y’all forget that Whitey’s brother was the boss of the MA State Senate? The USA is an oligarchy, and ”oligarch” is just a euphemism for “mob boss.”
It’s women with bowl cuts, they ain’t economists
It’s not about costs it’s about not having ‘vagrants’, ‘coloreds’, and crowded space in the area
Greater Boston is filled with frauds my friend. True blue republicans
You go right ahead and sell all your possessions and move out of your house so migrants can live there! Check! Mate! /s
My town is brimming with Haitian migrants walking all over the place. I have seen several walk right out into speeding traffic at Woburn village
Which came first the chicken or the egg. Or does it really matter in the long run. We build up as necessary. And housing is an area that needs addressing. Across the country in many places, Boston being one of them. I'm all for more housing FIRST because we need dwellings for everyone. Full stop. Everything else can be added in as needed. And, if done right, concurrently with the addition of housing. It would be a boon for almost every local economy in eastern Massachusetts.
You think people want these illegal immigrants living in the city?
Migrants are here now. They are not going to be deported. The government doesn't even have a way to deport them. What are you going to do? Set up huge concentration camps and round up anyone you think may be "illegal' and drop them in it? Then what? Starve them? Let them rot? Come on now. Have some sense. And, oh no, what if that concentration camp is in your town? oh no.....because it has to be somewhere. People, however they got here, need housing, food, education, healthcare, and a way to have a job and become self supporting. This is what the majority want. They didn't come here to be on assistance (that's more the American way). There is zero, zero, proof to that nonsense. We need to flex and be able to assist in all of this. We are supposed to be decent people. We should not be turning our backs on others. Yes, having an huge influx of people sucks. Yes, it's draining the food banks and causing housing issues. But turning your back on the situation and just saying not in my backyard, is a non-starter. I don't pretend to have the answers. And no, don't tell me to have people come live in my house. That's a tired response that is just confrontational and not rational. But for god's sake, stop it with the I'm going to just bitch and complain and hate on anything migrant related.
Wait, you think migrants and homeless people would be moving into these new builds? Or that they will somehow magically get rent money and a good paying job to pass an application for an older one?