Right. In areas with bad schools and bad neighborhoods in general. I don’t think the premise of this thread is correct.
Thank you so again the premise of the thread is completely false.
Every school and neighborhood has the opportunity to be “good.”
The system you have in place is perfectly designed to give youvthe results you are getting.
I always say it with more words you know that by now!!!
2 Likes
I agree with all of that of course and it takes years if not decades for that to occur.
If it does at all
The opportunity is there the day the school is opened and the first house is built.
Who makes a school or neighborhood “bad”?
How could it be incorrect?
The homes are there (they exist).
The homes are affordable.
In fact, with a few exceptions (e.g. San Francisco) they exist in every large and small city. (When the are only a few exceptions a general rule is still accurate. It is still a general rule.)
When people say things like “affordable housing does not exist” they are ethere a.) lying or b.) ignoring areas where crime and schools are so bad they never even considered living there.
Because people are in fact buying them
Gentrification is happening in many big cities and even some suburban areas are are subject to it. Look at Atlanta Pittsburgh etc
Gentrification is the specific purchase of housing in bad areas. Some of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn 10-20 years ago are completely being reshaped. Same with Atlanta.
They do not exist because people are buying them. That sentence makes no sense.
What is true (as a general rule) is that when someone tells you, in person on the internet, “The boomers ruined eveything, they made housing unafforable” they are saying “There is a ton of affordable housing, but I will not even considere living in the same places the boomers and the greatest generation lived, because the neigborhoods have gone to hell” (In your language “Has not been gentrified yet.”)
You are not reading what is being written or you are not understanding
I’ll make it easier. The above quote is false. Because in fact gentrification is a thing and they are considering them and they are buying and it’s happening everywhere.
Is that a “bad” thing? If so, why?
Should the people who made them bad reap the benefits of the change?
Not at all. I don’t have a problem with it. There is a lot of white guilt over it though. It’s so very silly
The way you are bringing it up, sure seems like it.
Not sure why.
I think the premise of the thread is ridiculous not to the extent that we don’t have a school problem or a bad neighborhood problem but that in fact people are buying houses in bad neighborhoods all the time.
Ridiculous
Imagine if you find someone, on the internet or IRL who is unaware of this conversation who says “housing is too expensive,” try telling him to move into the S Bronx or E NY because gentrification sometimes happens in some places.
You won’t because you dont believe what you just wrote. You are blathering nonsense and you know it is nonsense. Is this really how you want to spend your weekend? Blathering nonsense to people trying to have an honest discussion?
It’s rude.
You don’t have to. You can tell them to move to Bushwick or to east Bronx or to washington heights or to St. George in Staten Island or white plains in west Chester county or…… It’s not ridiculous. Your entire thread is not based on reality. You are ignoring gentrification because it’s easier than to actually consider that you are wrong. People are buying housing in poor areas. Consistently.
You are not having an honest discussion because you are ignoring that in fact what’s causing the increase in prices is people buying housing in more areas than good established neighborhoods. We have verifiable evidence that people are buying houses in poor areas and you are ignoring it. Most likely on purpose.
When shown an example over and over again you revert to you usual garbage posting. Stop it. Read.
Why didn’t those people stay in those neighborhoods? Why did they move away?
Thank you…that was a good link. However, the land use regulation appears to be referring to local and state laws/regs …not federal regs. I only read the abstract…so I may be worng.
The majority of Regs that may effect the costs are local and state.
I am all for reducing wasteful unnecessary regs…
Also, the NAHB might be a little biased.
