> In brief, our city has a housing shortage and a homelessness problem<p>I've never understood why people try to connect these issues. They're wholely unrelated. No one's like "oh, I can't find a house in my city, guess I'll just live on the street". In reality it is "oh, I can't find a house in the city. I'll move where it's reasonable". If I can afford a very reasonable rent, I can afford a ride out of town.<p>The homeless aren't homeless because housing is expensive where you are. There are places within reach where housing is cheap.
Even the silliest argument against becoming a historical district is a wonderful argument.<p>I live in a historic district and am not allowed to do things that would help preserve the house or even to change it back to its original state (unless I have photos of my house circa 1900 to prove it, but who took photos of middle class houses then?). The city busybodies don't have a background in architecture or history and seem to think that the past actually looked like Disney's Celebration, FL.<p>Best of luck to Mark in keeping his own city's troublemakers out of his neighborhood.
I think these historic areas are getting out of control. Where I grew up, just about the whole city became an historic area. The end result over the years, rents are raising a lot and development has destroyed the character of the city.<p>If you looked at the City in the 70s, when it became "historic", it looked amazing, but greatly run down. If they repaired the structures instead of tearing then down structures over the past 50 years, it would be an amazing place to visit.<p>Now, it is a shell of its former self. But there are plenty of signs saying "This is where ... was". Now I think getting a historic designation is nothing but a money grab by the local gov and their friends in development.
related to this I'm surprised more people don't get together to start (or reboot) more small towns? Saw a video on abandoned CO towns and made me think that if 20 people moved there are opened some small businesses while keeping it historic it would be fun.
Imagine if you will, a stealth apparment building. Disguised as mc Mansion, its actually a appartment block going deep into the ground.the "owners" play pretend to be be soccer mum and dads, but are actually janitors and shuttle service drivers. HOA agents stalk the lands, trying to discover the anti nimby activity. Construction is stealthy and in situ.
No one has a right to housing at any location they want at the price they want. That’s entitlement. There are plenty of cheap places to live in this country. But people instead want to go to a desirable high demand place and force it to change to accommodate them. Why shouldn’t people who live there already resist change and fight to keep their neighborhood and quality of life?<p>This post also makes the same mistake pro density activists usually make, which is to project their false ideas of how their “opponents” think onto them. Residents who fight against density and change aren’t doing it for scarcity or property value. That’s what activists say to make them look bad, along with a healthy dose of childish pejoratives like “NIMBY”. The reality is people mostly just want to keep the quality of life they’ve worked hard to find and build.