Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex43578 | Hacker News Reader

The article says "most of which require no new spending" but doesn't recognize that it isn't just cost behind these rules.

SROs are undesirable from the perspective of most of the community: they are broadly viewed as overcrowded, low quality, unsightly, and associated with crime. Put simply, the people who would live in an SRO are, for the most part, people not desirable in the community.

The same goes for "Make it clearly legal to open your home to someone else who needs meals and daily help". Are you running an unlicensed nursing home or halfway house? We already have rampant Medicaid fraud, and then there's cases like: https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-alon-riabichev-indicted-fo....

View on HN

This is a wildly insane entitled NIMBY boomer tier take but I'm glad you said it because it's what a lot of property owners are trying to convince people of.

Artists, college students, young people getting started, older people, service industry people, quiet poor, etc, etc.

I can think of numerous types of people who would live in an SRO and be a net positive to the community.

Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables'.

I'm not putting a value judgement on it, but explaining why the original article's position is oversimplifying by saying "it just makes financial sense", while ignoring the arguably-bigger opposition that is driven by social values and norms. Communities continuously make financial sacrifices to maintain preferences.

Most of the "more acceptable" groups you're naming, including artists, students, and young people are already covered by studio apartments or roommate situations. An SRO or low-end extended-stay hotel is commonly expected to bring a seedier element with lower standards, poorer credit/no credit, evictions, etc.

"Some would argue homogenous suburbs are unsightly and a waste of land and resources and are inhuman and people who live there are 'undesirables" - that's fine: both groups can vote and help steer their community to better reflect their views.

People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.

> People should live among those who reflect their norms, and much of the societal conflict across the West comes from people trying to forcibly change a community to suit them, rather than integrate into it.

You made my argument against Nimby-ism better than I could!

I don't think the GP comment is actually NIMBY. They are pointing out that there are more incentives at play than what the article presents, and ignoring them will cause different problems.

In the case of SROs, if a perception exists that they will cause more crime than benefit provided, then people will vote against them. Understanding anticipated opposition and coming up with a way to address people's concerns would be a successful path to re-legalizing them.

Dismissing opposition with a pejorative is a less successful path.

Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.

There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.

That being said, what other incentives are there to eliminate affordable housing then other than property values?

The boomer NIMBY's are taking over regions by running local politics and enacting zoning ordinances that are out of control to keep their property values high.

The government is telling people what they can do with their own property to an insane degree.

I suspect at some point there will be a legal battle over this.

> Its extremely disingenuous and pejorative to conflate artists, students, and service industry employees with criminals.

> There's a number of reasons for people to be poor outside of being CRIMINALS.

Right, yes, I agree with you.

The trouble is, the voters whose support is necessary to legalize SROs, do not agree and do not care how unfair we believe they are being.

So how does this get passed? Expressing anger at the ignorant hoping that they see the error of their ways?

There have been many legal values fought over this in the past. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that barring state laws to the contrary, it is entirely within the rights of municipalities to make these rules. So either the state needs to force the hand of the cities, or else the cities need to come around.

Zoning abuse is still at the periphery of the public conscious but as it get more exploitative and more brazen and people start realizing that a small set of property owners are capturing entire municipalities through zoning I suspect this will start to make main stream headlines regularly.

One activist's zoning abuse is a homeowner's "preserving the character and value of the largest investment in their life". Many people have chose to buy in single family zoned neighborhoods, neighborhoods with HOAs, communities that enforce anti-vagrancy statutes, etc.

As I said up-thread, a lot of people view these restrictions as a good thing for them and their community. The homeownership rate is 65%. The individual homeownership rate is 53% - it's not a small set of property owners capturing the entire municipality, but rather a literal majority of the population benefiting, and likely a majority of the population approving (- some liberal/anti-regulation homeowners, + people who prefer zoned communities even if they rent/don't own).

Like anything there's a line between utility and abuse.

When people are paying 5k a month the rent because zoning won't allow growth this could be considered abuse.

When people are prohibited from building an addition on their house (the most expensive investment of their life ) without overwhelmingly expensive bureaucracy that's abuse.

In many cases homeowners and renters are on the same side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com