Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikem170 | Hacker News Reader

> 1. Encouraging developers to build new properties, particularly properties for low- and medium-income tenants

You forgot to mention zoning law which restrict the supply of housing a lot, much more than any wheeling and dealing cities may do with developers.

Supply is simply not allowed to increase in many areas. It is not a free market, it is government controlled and the priority is to preserve/increase the property values for existing home owners, and restrict where people can live by income. Talk of affordable housing does not come anywhere near making up for the restricted supply in cities due to zoning.

There are other countries that have a much different approach to zoning, there's ideas like land value taxes, etc.

View on HN

As much as I want new housing, I don't want to live in a dense city. I have lived in apartments long enough to know I don't want to live in an apartment anymore. I was born and raised in the suburbs and I want to continue to live in one. I don't blame people living in single family homes not wanting multiple family homes built near them or fighting infill development.

We really need to reduce the population. It will help with carbon footprint reduction too.

Then they can move further out. Your desire to not live near denser housing does not trump other's dire need for affordable housing.

If you're so concerned about carbon footprint reduction, you should be fighting as hard as you can to ban SFH policies and for pro-density policies, since land-use and long commutes are such massive contributors of climate change.

>Your desire to not live near denser housing does not trump other's dire need for affordable housing.

The reverse is also true. Their desire for affordable housing doesn't trump people's desire to not live near denser housing.

>If you're so concerned about carbon footprint reduction...

I don't have children or pets. I have worked from home for the last 20 years.

In cities and suburbs that are already built out, someone must draw the shortest straw. Desires and wants should always be trumped by need.

Your own contributions do nothing in comparison to societal changes.

If I die (lowest footprint possible), it has almost no impact on society in terms of climate change. But if I change behaviors of many (through legislation...) then that is enormous in comparison.

Affordable housing that is also low on climate impact (higher density and close to places people need to go) should be prioritized over “I want 10 acres of land”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com