Bloomberg: NIMBYism Growing in the South

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I don't know anything about housing, but wouldn't building more homes be contrary to environmentally conscious voters? That's why I am not eager to get behind more homes being built.

[Damocles]

I don't know anything about housing, but wouldn't building more homes be contrary to environmentally conscious voters? That's why I am not eager to get behind more homes being built.

It's good that we see a more diverse housing stock that includes more apartment buildings. Ideally, you'd also integrate some retail, office, and light industrial space, so that people can live closer together to the things they'd typically want to access. Higher land value per acre means more property tax money and better quality municipal services, and lower property tax rates in the long run.

[Person Man]

Its not just a problem in urban centers, we need more homes built. But all I ever see built are McMansions for retiring boomers and storage buildings oddly enough.

And those buildings eventually getting converted into "churches".

[Malarkey Decider]

I don't know anything about housing, but wouldn't building more homes be contrary to environmentally conscious voters? That's why I am not eager to get behind more homes being built.

Building denser housing like apartments is absolutely better for the environment, for several reasons.

1. Less Land is used / habitats destroyed.
2. Because less land is used in construction, the suburbs do not sprawl as far. This means shorter commute times and less cars, leading to lower emissions.
3. Less Lawns -> less water being used
4. Heating/AC is also more energy efficient in apartments, as any specific apartment will only be exposed to the elements from one/two sides instead of 4.

I'm sure there are others as well, but these are what came to mind.

[Del Tachi]

At some point in the next few decades it's going to become a pretty fun, but very morbid, Leipverse game to pinpoint when the increasingly unliveable climate in the Sunbelt Stack will start outweighing the cultural and economic reasons why people keep moving there.

People have been saying this for decades, and we're still waiting for Sun Belt growth to slow (if anything, it's accelerating!)  This is despite the doomsayers claiming the effects of climate change are already here.  The sentiment gives weird "Dixie genocide" vibes.   

[Person Man]

At some point in the next few decades it's going to become a pretty fun, but very morbid, Leipverse game to pinpoint when the increasingly unliveable climate in the Sunbelt Stack will start outweighing the cultural and economic reasons why people keep moving there.

People have been saying this for decades, and we're still waiting for Sun Belt growth to slow (if anything, it's accelerating!)  This is despite the doomsayers claiming the effects of climate change are already here.  The sentiment gives weird "Dixie genocide" vibes.   

That's why its a game. It's like its September 29th in Michigan and you are still trying to grow your tomatoes. Maybe its been a warm September and it hasn't gotten below the 50s yet but there is soon going to be some sort of reckoning.

[Samof94]

Its not just a problem in urban centers, we need more homes built. But all I ever see built are McMansions for retiring boomers and storage buildings oddly enough.

Exactly, regular housing, even in smaller cities like Waco, Macon, and Lafayette, is quintessential. 

[John Dule]

At some point in the next few decades it's going to become a pretty fun, but very morbid, Leipverse game to pinpoint when the increasingly unliveable climate in the Sunbelt Stack will start outweighing the cultural and economic reasons why people keep moving there.

People have been saying this for decades, and we're still waiting for Sun Belt growth to slow (if anything, it's accelerating!)  This is despite the doomsayers claiming the effects of climate change are already here.  The sentiment gives weird "Dixie genocide" vibes.   

"The climate in the south is hot" ----------> ---------> "I endorse genocide"

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I don't know anything about housing, but wouldn't building more homes be contrary to environmentally conscious voters? That's why I am not eager to get behind more homes being built.

Building denser housing like apartments is absolutely better for the environment, for several reasons.

1. Less Land is used / habitats destroyed.
2. Because less land is used in construction, the suburbs do not sprawl as far. This means shorter commute times and less cars, leading to lower emissions.
3. Less Lawns -> less water being used
4. Heating/AC is also more energy efficient in apartments, as any specific apartment will only be exposed to the elements from one/two sides instead of 4.

I'm sure there are others as well, but these are what came to mind.

Ah, so I'm guessing since all the land these apartments would be built on would also be the land that new houses would be built on anyways? Or could we stop more homes from being built to save our remaining lands where animals can roam?

[heatcharger]

At some point in the next few decades it's going to become a pretty fun, but very morbid, Leipverse game to pinpoint when the increasingly unliveable climate in the Sunbelt Stack will start outweighing the cultural and economic reasons why people keep moving there.

Keep up the wishcasting bro

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Framing this as an "anti-growth backlash" is lazy and suspect. In fact, this is how "NIMBYism" can be a good thing (to the extent that it even is this; the more we allow the scale of this term to expand the more it becomes a serious misnomer). Looking more long-term at this region, continuing the sprawl of cheap multifamily is counterproductive and it makes sense to keep suburban communities more SFH-dominant.

Due to decades of what we'd now call inefficient land use, a lot of major sun belt metros have opportunities to densify their CBD and inner-ring neighborhoods. Maybe not Atlanta as much anymore, certainly the likes of Nashville at least. But walkability is all the rage these days and Revitalizing Downtown prevails as a trend across the board in planning/development depts, best way to start that is to get more housing there.

The quoted proposal to increase minimum lot sizes in suburban counties seems like quite an intriguing constraint that could hopefully be a way to influence future developer investment patterns. And it's about time, there are too many living too far out and suburban apartment living really sucks from a QoL point of view.

If you want to limit sprawl, wouldn't make sense to *decrease* minimum lot sizes in suburbs?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

doomsayers claiming the effects of climate change are already here.

This might be the most surreal thing you've ever posted. Not even the "drill, baby, drill"/"deliberately f**k up my muffler to trigger the libs" people deny that the climate is tangibly changing at this point; they just say that we don't know what's causing it and/or that it's a good thing.

Keep up the wishcasting bro

But enough about your posting about how much black people love Trump.

[Danforth]

Framing this as an "anti-growth backlash" is lazy and suspect. In fact, this is how "NIMBYism" can be a good thing (to the extent that it even is this; the more we allow the scale of this term to expand the more it becomes a serious misnomer). Looking more long-term at this region, continuing the sprawl of cheap multifamily is counterproductive and it makes sense to keep suburban communities more SFH-dominant.

Due to decades of what we'd now call inefficient land use, a lot of major sun belt metros have opportunities to densify their CBD and inner-ring neighborhoods. Maybe not Atlanta as much anymore, certainly the likes of Nashville at least. But walkability is all the rage these days and Revitalizing Downtown prevails as a trend across the board in planning/development depts, best way to start that is to get more housing there.

The quoted proposal to increase minimum lot sizes in suburban counties seems like quite an intriguing constraint that could hopefully be a way to influence future developer investment patterns. And it's about time, there are too many living too far out and suburban apartment living really sucks from a QoL point of view.

If you want to limit sprawl, wouldn't make sense to *decrease* minimum lot sizes in suburbs?

The most accurate answer would probably be that it depends on the particular city. But generally speaking I don't think so at this point, the remaining un(der)developed territory available within major sun belt metros is increasingly way out in the hinterlands, with a long commute required to go anywhere and on street networks that are not adequately designed to handle large volumes of traffic. Decreasing lot sizes in these areas would be exacerbating the problem, whereas increasing it sets a new (higher) cost floor which hopefully begins to reorient the market more centripetally for future affordable housing construction.

[DaleCooper]

Another reason why this problem won't be addressed for a long time is because homeowners (some of the nastiest, most entitled people in America right now, in my opinion) are increasingly viewing housing as more of an investment rather than a place to live and call home for a long period of time. If you want to feel sick to your stomach, go talk to one of these assholes whose house they bought five years ago has "earned" them a small fortune since then. It's despicable, and these people will not allow anything to be done about it.

[GM Team Member and Acting PPT WB]

suburbs aren't the issue, it's the way we've designed them for decades. It completely lacks community and forces everyone to decide to either rent, or have a single-family home in a subdivision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meanwhile in California, NIMBYs lost pretty badly, so it seems to be largely YIMBYs arguing with themselves about this new plan.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/06/21/california-forever-east-solano-plan-yimby/

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Another reason why this problem won't be addressed for a long time is because homeowners (some of the nastiest, most entitled people in America right now, in my opinion) are increasingly viewing housing as more of an investment rather than a place to live and call home for a long period of time. If you want to feel sick to your stomach, go talk to one of these assholes whose house they bought five years ago has "earned" them a small fortune since then. It's despicable, and these people will not allow anything to be done about it.

I obviously don't think America should adopt social credit, but if we were to do so, I think it should be geared towards discouraging people who care about the resale value of their house from voting in local elections.

[kwabbit]

doomsayers claiming the effects of climate change are already here.

This might be the most surreal thing you've ever posted. Not even the "drill, baby, drill"/"deliberately f**k up my muffler to trigger the libs" people deny that the climate is tangibly changing at this point; they just say that we don't know what's causing it and/or that it's a good thing.

I'm not denying climate change in the slightest (once had a climate advocacy job), but the Southeast has not really had much climate change. Outside of South Florida, what is usually considered Southern has had a much smaller increase in temperature (<0.5 degree Fahrenheit increase), with some places actually getting cooler. Alabama is a tiny bit cooler on average now. I believe this has something to do with the weakening Jet Stream.

So climate change isn't a huge deterrent against population growth for a lot of these Southern cities because the effect has been less acute. Florida it should be, but Nashville, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. probably not.