• jacksilver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I get the meme and your response, but you could easily flip this one on its side: “Everybody wants clean air to breathe, yet they need laws to prohibit pollution”

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s an issue of externalities, which doesn’t really apply to my housing argument.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The NIMBYS would argue “the character of the neighborhood” would suffer. They’re fucking selfish assholes for it, but it’s an argument.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          If anything, single-family has worse externalities than high density does. Single-family homes have to be subsidized because they don’t generate enough tax revenue per acre to pay for the amount of infrastructure they require. (Concrete example: if you have a single-family lot with 100’ of street frontage, that one family basically needs to pay enough taxes to maintain 100’ of road. But if you have a 10-plex on the same lot, each household only has to pay enough taxes to maintain 10’ of road.) Single-family is also inherently the least sustainable in terms of both HVAC costs (because every side of the habitable unit is exposed to the environment) and transportation costs (because low density minimizes walkability).

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah I think pretty much everyone either forgets or doesn’t know that the suburbs are subsidized by the city for exactly the reasons you mentioned.