Hi RJ. I notice that the sort of absolutist language you use is becoming more common on all "sides" of all debates and ut is clearly fueled by social media usage. You can be against the townhouses without aligning with relatively small group of nimbys that are fighting it. Many would argue that until we see some sort of reform to the tax…
Hi RJ. I notice that the sort of absolutist language you use is becoming more common on all "sides" of all debates and ut is clearly fueled by social media usage. You can be against the townhouses without aligning with relatively small group of nimbys that are fighting it. Many would argue that until we see some sort of reform to the tax system which prevents us from building the necessary infrastructure, more houses is unlikely to have the impact some here are suggesting it would. The older commenter here sound quite critical of this neoliberal approach. We should be careful not to be sucked into culture war red herring traps set by a media to scared to tackle the real issues/power structures. Xx
You either provide the freedom to build, and address the housing crisis and myriad issues that stem from it or you don't. There is no answer to the housing crisis that includes arbitrary restrictions on housing based on aesthetic preferences.
To suggest that is to claim that the cost of seeing an ugly dense residential building (in the case of those that claim we need "density done well" or compulsory design guides) or enabling a house to be built which isnt some suburban fantasy quarter acre dream house (in the case of those opposing the MDRS) outweighs the benefits of enabling broad based intensification to house for the 10s of thousands that are currently underhoused in New Zealand.
If you are against the town houses and not promoting something that is even more enabling, you are a NIMBY and you are advocating for less housing than the status quo and condemning us to a slower fight against the housing crisis. That's a fact. There's no element of culture war in that.
Hi RJ. I notice that the sort of absolutist language you use is becoming more common on all "sides" of all debates and ut is clearly fueled by social media usage. You can be against the townhouses without aligning with relatively small group of nimbys that are fighting it. Many would argue that until we see some sort of reform to the tax system which prevents us from building the necessary infrastructure, more houses is unlikely to have the impact some here are suggesting it would. The older commenter here sound quite critical of this neoliberal approach. We should be careful not to be sucked into culture war red herring traps set by a media to scared to tackle the real issues/power structures. Xx
You either provide the freedom to build, and address the housing crisis and myriad issues that stem from it or you don't. There is no answer to the housing crisis that includes arbitrary restrictions on housing based on aesthetic preferences.
To suggest that is to claim that the cost of seeing an ugly dense residential building (in the case of those that claim we need "density done well" or compulsory design guides) or enabling a house to be built which isnt some suburban fantasy quarter acre dream house (in the case of those opposing the MDRS) outweighs the benefits of enabling broad based intensification to house for the 10s of thousands that are currently underhoused in New Zealand.
If you are against the town houses and not promoting something that is even more enabling, you are a NIMBY and you are advocating for less housing than the status quo and condemning us to a slower fight against the housing crisis. That's a fact. There's no element of culture war in that.