• Ilikepornaddict@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, I refuse to ever live in a can, not being able to simply open my door and go for a walk. Trying to force that on people is cruel.

    • abraham_linksys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is forcing anything stop with the fake hysteria. it’s ok to make it legal to build apartments in more places if people want to.

      • Ilikepornaddict@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is that not what started this whole conversation? Someone claiming single family homes are bad and shouldn’t be built?

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it wasn’t. They were saying the TAXING STRUCTURE for single family homes NEAR CITIES or close suburbs is bad. Single family homes out in the country or in smaller towns are fine. The density isn’t needed there. Single family homes in suburbs could be fine, if the taxes paid for denser housing that is needed to support a larger city. People in New York are able to live in the city because of dense housing availability or easy access to commuter trains to get farther out where less dense housing exists. People in Los Angeles/Houston/Atlanta don’t have great public transport options AND don’t have much high density housing, so the sprawl is horrendous (along with the associated car traffic). If the taxes for single family homes in Los Angeles were higher than for condos/townhouses, then the city could fund either higher density housing (which are actually banned by local zoning laws in some neighborhoods, since nobody wants an apartment building next to their single family home) or better public transport for people living farther out of the city.