Comment by kbolino | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbolino | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's not just about the status quo or racial homogeneity. Every time I've lived in multi-unit dwellings I have had to deal with the following problems caused by neighbors:

1. Smoking. Maybe not such a problem in a brand-new dwelling with well isolated HVAC but it is a serious problem in older construction with poorly isolated HVAC. The negative effects vary from one room being smoky sometimes (usually a bathroom) to the entire place being unlivable at certain times of day.

2. Loud noises late at night. This can be parties, heavy footfalls, old pipes that clang or ring, animals, etc.

3. Pets. Besides the noise, the animals can be aggressive and their owners may not clean up their waste.

4. Water damage. If you can't tear the place down to the studs and rafters, you can't get rid of mold.

You can try to ask people to change, you can try to get the landlord involved, you can even get the cops involved. But it's a lot of hassle, it rarely fixes the problem long-term, and you will be seen as "that guy" who causes trouble.

So you're saying that it is about the status quo, where living in a multi-unit dwelling means having to put up with terrible neighbors. This will not be as much of a problem if you own a condo, where the HOA is there to enact policies that deal with these issues as they arise.

I don't consider wanting to avoid the dizziness, headaches, and nausea I get as a non-smoker from prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke to be the same thing as me trying to preserve the status quo. It may be my "status quo" to not be constantly exposed to tobacco smoke, but it's not "the" status quo.

Condos _are_ better, but they are also more expensive. As far as I can tell, where I live, condos are closer in cost (including fees) to townhomes or even single-family homes than they are to apartments in regular complexes. They may have benefits, but affordability isn't one of them.

Affordability is relative, a condo unit can still be more affordable than a SFH sitting on the exact same lot. It makes sense to have a range of options rather than force everyone to pick either the lowest (rented flat) or most exclusive (single-family dwelling) quality of housing.

Yeah, I think you're getting at the other big reason for zoning inflexibility: property value. High asset prices and a dearth of other reliable ways to grow wealth have caused many to prioritize the sticker prices of their houses over the livability of their neighborhoods.

I think smoking has become much less common. I rent in Cambridge, MA and my lease prohibits smoking of any kind, which I think is standard. Once the landlord sent out an angry email threatening eviction if someone in our building didn't stop smoking. Smoking in the outdoor courtyard is also specifically forbidden.

My most recent rental experiences are from 2021 (urban MD) and 2023 (suburban MS).

Nobody’s seeking to forcibly evict homeowners and seize their property. If you like your house, you can keep it.

Ok, cool?

I don't think that was the issue at hand.

You listed a bunch of reasons that you personally don’t want to live in an apartment building, but the issue at hand is whether other people should be allowed to build them on the land they own.

Ok, as I understood it, you were saying that the primary reason why zoning has become less flexible is that white homeowners used the zoning process to maintain discrimination.

I was challenging that. Though my experience may not be universal, I don't think all of those issues are unique to me.

You say that as if the prospect of such disturbances weren't used as a pretext for discrimination - because, of course, "those people" are loud/smoke/have rotties and pitbulls/don't take care of the property they're renting. /s The characterization also ignores that the reason those things (lax maintenance, smoking indoors as sequela of tobacco company propaganda/anti-marijuana laws, etc.) do occasionally happen are closely intertwined with social disregard for marginalized groups. In other words, treatment of a symptom, not the cause.

GP's point is that it's difficult to solve the issue without acknowledging that we made a stupid policy decision predicated mostly on class and racial hysteria. If we recognize those decisions for what they are and stop making them, maybe we can get somewhere. It's quite unlikely that your local zoning board forbade duplexes and low-rises 50 years ago because they were concerned about mold.

I have dealt firsthand with all of those things, I didn't make them up. It can't be a mere "pretext" if it's real. I think there's more to the story than just SFH vs multi-unit, of course, but there's a pretty strong correlation in my experience, much stronger than anything racial.

Myself and the other poster are asking you politely to stow your ego and self-interested focus, and to think about why sweeping, nationwide changes in policy might have come about. I don't deny that you've experienced those issues firsthand; I'm saying it doesn't matter.

Put yourself in the time period: babes born after MLK was assasinated aren't even in elementary school yet, and we're at the height of white flight and the Marlboro Man and asbestos-infused flooring. You can't seriously hold that the shift to SFH-only zoning was predicated on smoking and mold concerns, can you?

If you honestly believe that such concerns, wholly divorced from racial and class politics, were the impetus for this shift, you're being irrational, and selfish. I apologize, because I know saying so can be considered rude, but it is the crux of our disagreement: it's not about you. Your personal concerns do not, by themselves, define the scope of a national problem.

This is unnecessarily antagonistic. People are allowed to bring their personal experiences to the table, and just because you don't think that those, alone, change the big picture - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to point out - that doesn't mean that they should simply not share those experiences or the opinions that are informed by them. It certainly doesn't make them "ego(tistical)", "irrational", and "selfish". There's just no reason to treat people this way.

In this case, it does. It (and accusations of incivility) is also right in-line with the historically racist and classist character of these discussions. You think that you're being polite, but it's a "measured" tone in service of monstrous ends: continuing a status quo that sees Americans routinely without shelter, or insecure in it. It is selfish, it is irrational, it is egotistical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com