I've been seeing articles claiming Bluesky isn't a troll-filled cesspit like Twitter; maybe it's true?
Printable View
It’s absolutely true.
Once paid blue checks got elevated in the Twitter replies it was no longer worth reading replies, but nothing like that on Bluesky. Also the block function on Bluesky is powerful so trolls don’t seem to gain traction (for example, if a troll quote tweets someone to dunk on them, the original poster can block them so the troll can’t see posts, but they can also choose to remove the post that the troll retweeted from the trolls feed. Now you see them dunking on ‘post removed by author’.)
Bluesky seems to have a lot of momentum post-election, so hopefully everyone migrates over there.
Another thing, which to I don’t understand in detail tbh, is that the Bluesky protocol or whatever you’d call it is open source (or transportable?). Basically a competitor could set up a rival site and everyone could bring their feed over to it if they were to get fed up with Bluesky. So hopefully that keep something like an Elon takeover from happening.
Edit: oh, and Bluesky does actual moderation, so hate speech accounts will be removed. Not ‘free speech absolutists (TM)’ but makes for a more enjoyable experience.
This may be a sign that SF doesn’t allow enough new housing to be built:
Attachment 506463
https://bsky.app/profile/maxdubler.c.../3lcj4xljshs2k
An increase in supply is the ONLY way to fix the 'housing crisis'.
Seems that everybody who has bought in already is a NIMBY though, including the zoning boards. Watching my city right now making an absolutely laughable attempt at "reducing the housing crisis" by passing some asinine zoning laws that look like they're doing something, but no developer in their right mind would work with.
It is laughable when homes are on 50x100 or 50x140 lots that the state thanks we all have room for an adu. And if I did, I would have my kids living there, not anyone else.
That's exactly the kind of crap my city pulled. Same green space requirements, maybe 2 foot setback allowances, and then you CANNOT under any condition rent them out. Either the homeowner or a spouse (i think they even excluded blood relatives) must live in it for 10 years or something. The requirements are straight ludicrous. But hey, they allowed ADUs!!
It's a mistake to think these county's or city's actually want housing prices to go down. Nobody wants housing to go down. Allowing an ADU is just increasing the value per acre for the city. People who do pump more money into their property building that new adu are really just increasing city tax revenue, and making the value of that land now even more unaffordable than before.
We need more homes, they need to be small starter homes, and they need to be single home owners, not sitting empty second homes or vrbos. If your neighborhood is in such need of housing then why are half the houses empty all the time.
Agreed TJ, way back in the day my parents first home was a duplex. 2 bdrm & 1 bathroom up and down on maybe a 60X100 lot. Start building stuff like that. I own a duplex with a 1300 sq ft original 1938 house up front and a two story 1600 sq ft home on the back of the lot with a shared rear yard that separates the houses. Jesus, just build those and stop the SFR shite.
Our fine city has been pushing for ADUs. We tried to build one. On a 110x60 lot. Footprint counts towards lot coverage and we barely made that. But total livable square footage of appurtenant structures is used for setbacks. But under 7’ ceilings isn’t liveable. So over half of what was going to be the ADU above the garage is under 7’ and “storage”. The city stalled our project because we didn’t have liveable space egress windows in the storage area. So we changed to egress windows in the storage areas. The storage area made a nice little guest room and home office but we can’t legally call them that nor rent it out. Saved me a bunch of money on permits and taxes and the city receives no more urban density.
They spent years rewriting the codes to promote density and ADUs. In a city of a quarter million people, they had 30ish ADU permits pulled on hundreds of applicants. The headlines read the rewrite was a success.
And all the tiny house bullshit talk…
Those have existed for decades. They’re called trailer parks. But trailer parks carry some sort connotation and are being gentrified out of existence.
Problems are to be talked about, not fixed.
Slumlord NIMBYism: https://buildingsaltlake.com/murray-...ss-the-street/
"The owner of an apartment complex in Murray has filed a lawsuit seeking to block a new development next door, leaning heavily on purported concerns about increased traffic as the basis to have the court block the new housing...The legal challenge follows a general playbook by opponents of new housing, who often claim that new housing will create congestion but without citing any evidence that the new housing will cause issues."
It did for developers in certain areas. Didn't do much for residential owners. The long term city master plan called for more density in the downtown core which is surrounded by single family residential. They're basically calling for placing people close to where they work creating connectivity in the core but promoting multi-family away from the core. If you think traffic sucks now...
Edit-I'm happy they loosened the noose on housing but the sprawl is pretty rough. Look at the 10 mile area as one of many examples.
Thankfully we’ve got regional light rail coming to the valley any day now, right? lol
You should see the letters some of my neighbors wrote the city about zoning variances requested for a big neighboring empty parcel to allow for more duplex/quadplex homes. Not even a full higher density development...most of the land was still going to be zoned single family with some still having a 2.5acre minimum lot size (which is insane for the proximity to town).
They were writing as if someone was trying to build an urban housing project in their back yard...not townhomes that will never sell for less than $5-600k (and probably a lot more than that). Fears about how the housing isn't going to attract the "kind of people we want" and how those people would be "wandering into our neighborhood" (yeah, it is called going for a walk on a public street...if you want to live in a gated community then move to one).
Like sure: I fully agree that a firefighter or a teacher isn't going to move into those units...because they still won't be able to afford them!
How do I know that? Because for 3 years, I lived in a similar 3br townhome in the neighborhood and I know my rent was too high for a teacher with a couple kids to afford. There's like one or two townhomes that have kind of shady characters living in them (not that they've ever caused any problems that I know of...they just have sketchy old cars and are cramming a bunch of adults in there to make rent affordable). The rest are mostly either families who seem exactly like the "kind of people we want" who live in rented units or vacation homes mostly owned by Canadians (might be nice if a local family lived there instead...but they are perfectly nice people when they visit).
Ha...all of the above is on point for Grand County, CO. The engineered solution is protect MY property values, I only want to be neighbors with MY people, leverage the Golden Age of Bullshit, send the bill to somebody else, practice performative empathy and fill the yard with pro affordable housing political signs.
I Zoomed it to my HOAs annual meeting. The eco chamber has gotten so loud that collectively their was little to no understanding the many people can not be available at 1pm due to a pesky job and that money is an actual constraint for some people.
And these are not even the worst of the worst. I get to deal with them later this month for my OTHER HOA.
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
The best part is that it is pretty much in line with the city's master growth policy that was in place before the people writing the letters purchased their homes.
Upzoning the county/agricultural zoned property when a developer requests it? Part of the plan.
Developing the land next to where your neighborhood was developed (and closer to town at that!)? Part of the plan.
Extending/expanding roads for access? Part of the plan and the ROWs for those potential road extensions have been maintained for years and are clearly visible on maps.
This was all 100% knowable when you bought your house. Hell, a bunch of the houses in this neighborhood border a conservation easement that can't be developed and you'd better believe real estate agents are very quick to point that out...can't pretend to be surprised when a developer shows interest in the non-conservation land.
edit: although I suspect most home owners don't actually do any research into this when they buy and their realtor has no incentive to point out that their quiet little street is earmarked for becoming a busy collector road.
Yep, I've talked about it before but a specific example is a low rise 6 building apt complex in a high density zoning designation served by a water sewer district quarter mile from US40.
It is approved at ever level except HOA who are changing the rules on the fly. In a public meeting they responded to my question that yes a special assessment of $10k per home for legal expenses is good value.
I'm not sure how a judgement against an HOA that doesn't have the reserves would be handled. Perhaps a proportional lien against each home that would be perfected at sale?
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
I admit I'd be bummed out if a 30-unit apartment building went up on the lot next door. But a 4-townhouse complex where each unit sells for $450k? Bring it on, otherwise everyone in the neighborhood is going to be an old fart like me.
Anyplace where housing is scarce should have deed restricted full time housing. Once a year the landlord or owner has to prove residency.
Sucks. More regulation.
But in a prime location building second or third homes helps no one.
That is absolutely true J Barron DeJong
I don’t know if this is a “smart plan” but it’s some left-field marketing.
A Michigan roofer’s smart plan to end the housing crisis
Quote:
For this picture to improve, Americans need to be sold on smaller homes and “cookie cutter” designs. DeHenau thinks Donald Trump can bring back both. After all, the president-elect’s talent is in marketing. He could say, for example, that it’s time to build Trump Towers across America, which would immediately make them sound desirable — even luxurious — in many communities.