All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[shooshoomanjoe]

One that one particular aspect...

They just ran the table. Is there much of a case that those five thousand prisoners would still be prisoners once they were fully in control?

If not?

Kinda feels like the difference between six and a half a dozen.

As for legitimizing the Taliban while ignoring the Afghani government?

Man, would another six months/year/whatever of trying to prop them up have made a notable difference that late in the game?

We will never know. There are still some in the Afghan army fighting the Taliban. But I think ISIS will give them more of a problem.

[Gray Lensman]

I saw this posted online with the caption "Average suburban liberal." Is that fair?

Nimbyism is one of the few things out there that is still truly bipartisan. Pity that Anti-Slapp laws don't carry a Nimby provision.

[PwrdOn]

I saw this posted online with the caption "Average suburban liberal." Is that fair?

Conservatives are not wrong about white suburban liberals being sanctimonious and annoying, it's just that white suburban conservatives somehow manage to even more obnoxious.

[Tami]

I saw this posted online with the caption "Average suburban liberal." Is that fair?

I know what it looks like, but the issue isn't so much affordable housing, or even apartments, it's the locations. In the case of the image above, apparently they want to build an apartment near a school. That could lead to increased traffic near the school, and possibly other issues.

In my town, the local Republican controlled Govt approved the building of two apartment buildings. Something this town has never had before. In one case they tore down an historic, 1700's home in order to build an apartment in it's place. In the other case they are building an apartment on land where they tore down a local landmark. Biggest problem aside from that is that, there is no space for parking and the roads around it are too narrow to handle the increased traffic.

There are many issues that a small suburban town has to consider, such as can the local schools handle the increase number of students? Can the roads handle the increase traffic? Is the increase traffic a danger to children and others walking nearby? And so on.

Creating low cost homes doesn't have to mean packing them into an apartment building. Especially poorly located buildings.

[Mister Mets]

Nimbyism is one of the few things out there that is still truly bipartisan. Pity that Anti-Slapp laws don't carry a Nimby provision.

I certainly agree that there are plenty of NIMBY conservatives and some progressives who note the ways in which NIMBYs stand in the way of their preferred policy goals.

But there is a hypocrisy in wanting equity without allowing for an increase of in-demand housing.

This was sarcasm? Yes?

I'm willing to hear the alternatives, but it does seem that people who aid America's enemies should be punished, and the United States should not get involved in nation-building. Squaring that circle is not easy.

[AnakinFlair]

The last two decades have provided the argument for "bomb it until the bad guys are neutralized."

Maybe that'll leave the country in a position to improve itself.

Pretty sure that stopped being an effective solution in Vietnam.

[GindyPosts]

I know what it looks like, but the issue isn't so much affordable housing, or even apartments, it's the locations. In the case of the image above, apparently they want to build an apartment near a school. That could lead to increased traffic near the school, and possibly other issues.

In my town, the local Republican controlled Govt approved the building of two apartment buildings. Something this town has never had before. In one case they tore down an historic, 1700's home in order to build an apartment in it's place. In the other case they are building an apartment on land where they tore down a local landmark. Biggest problem aside from that is that, there is no space for parking and the roads around it are too narrow to handle the increased traffic.

There are many issues that a small suburban town has to consider, such as can the local schools handle the increase number of students? Can the roads handle the increase traffic? Is the increase traffic a danger to children and others walking nearby? And so on.

Creating low cost homes doesn't have to mean packing them into an apartment building. Especially poorly located buildings.

The issue is... many places have a hard time defining what even is "low cost" to begin with. They can fiddle with estimates and claim $250K homes are "low cost" or apartments that will cost $1000 or more a month to rent are "low cost". It's all about dealing with real estate developers and landlords who constantly fear that poor people with three or four children and five cats will move in and mess up the carpets within a month, bringing down property values, so they try to cut off access to anyone at or below the poverty line since they assume everyone who's dirt poor is a mangy slob that'll put holes in everything while the kitchen is covered in spaghetti and grease with Slayer serving as ambient background noise.

[babyblob]

I'm willing to hear the alternatives, but it does seem that people who aid America's enemies should be punished, and the United States should not get involved in nation-building. Squaring that circle is not easy.

See the thing is The people of Afghanistan were not the enemies. Isnt that what Bush said over and over. And nation building did not work here. But if we just bombed and left the Taliban with Bin laden still alive would have been back in charge in a matter of weeks planning another attack.

And so if we were going to stay we had an obligation to try and improve the lives of the people whose country we just took over. That was what was being said after all. Bush and his ilk hyped the hell out of as Liberators. So yea if we truly were we were under obligation to make the place better then when we entered. Something every president in Power the last 20 years has failed to do.

[CSTowle]

I saw this posted online with the caption "Average suburban liberal." Is that fair?

I know what it looks like, but the issue isn't so much affordable housing, or even apartments, it's the locations. In the case of the image above, apparently they want to build an apartment near a school. That could lead to increased traffic near the school, and possibly other issues.

In my town, the local Republican controlled Govt approved the building of two apartment buildings. Something this town has never had before. In one case they tore down an historic, 1700's home in order to build an apartment in it's place. In the other case they are building an apartment on land where they tore down a local landmark. Biggest problem aside from that is that, there is no space for parking and the roads around it are too narrow to handle the increased traffic.

There are many issues that a small suburban town has to consider, such as can the local schools handle the increase number of students? Can the roads handle the increase traffic? Is the increase traffic a danger to children and others walking nearby? And so on.

Creating low cost homes doesn't have to mean packing them into an apartment building. Especially poorly located buildings.

I'd agree that NIMBYism does seem worse at first glance coming from the left because it's hypocrisy, but in the end do you really think it's better to be so openly against helping others (especially when it involves sacrifice or inconvenience on your part) that you wear it on your sleeve and proudly proclaim it?

As to the concerns Tami lays out, there will always be inconveniences tied to expanding housing. It's still something that needs to be done. Yes, you will have more packed schools, less parking, more traffic, more wear and tear on roads. Property values might be impacted, taxes might be impacted, resources will be harder to come by, and it will probably change the character of your community in slight ways. But there's not some magical place you can funnel all the poor folk, even urban centers with large housing developments can only hold so many.

I see most of these concerns as polite and convenient lies we tell (even/especially to ourselves) to not admit the real answer which is, "I don't want those people living near me/my children". Can't say that, because that'd make you the bad guy, and nobody's the villain of their own story. So it's those precious historical landmarks being torn down that are the real concern, never mind that in any given town of even small size there are probably dozens of "landmarks" a small fraction of the population is even aware of and an even smaller fraction of them give a damn about. Instead it's more of a way to manipulate the law to prevent this sort of thing from happening, weaponizing history not in the name of preserving it (whatever the stated intent) but to keep things the way people like them. Preferably with fewer people, especially "outsiders".

[Tami]

The issue is... many places have a hard time defining what even is "low cost" to begin with. They can fiddle with estimates and claim $250K homes are "low cost" or apartments that will cost $1000 or more a month to rent are "low cost". It's all about dealing with real estate developers and landlords who constantly fear that poor people with three or four children and five cats will move in and mess up the carpets within a month, bringing down property values, so they try to cut off access to anyone at or below the poverty line since they assume everyone who's dirt poor is a mangy slob that'll put holes in everything while the kitchen is covered in spaghetti and grease with Slayer serving as ambient background noise.

There is another complication. Developers of these places, in my neck of the woods at least, are known for building buildings that are a mix of high cost and lost cost units. After a certain period of time, I'm not sure the details, they are then allowed to increase the cost and lease the lost cost units the same as their high cost units. And some of their so called lost cost units are incredibly tiny in size, barely large enough to qualify as being livable.

In the end, the majority of units will eventually either be unrentable, or converted into high cost units which defeats the original purpose.

[Mister Mets]

See the thing is The people of Afghanistan were not the enemies. Isnt that what Bush said over and over. And nation building did not work here. But if we just bombed and left the Taliban with Bin laden still alive would have been back in charge in a matter of weeks planning another attack.

And so if we were going to stay we had an obligation to try and improve the lives of the people whose country we just took over. That was what was being said after all. Bush and his ilk hyped the hell out of as Liberators. So yea if we truly were we were under obligation to make the place better then when we entered. Something every president in Power the last 20 years has failed to do.

The people of Afghanistan were not the bad guys and were not America's enemies.

It's a worthwhile point that the war was different when Bin Laden was still alive. But we did find him in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan.

There is another complication. Developers of these places, in my neck of the woods at least, are known for building buildings that are a mix of high cost and lost cost units. After a certain period of time, I'm not sure the details, they are then allowed to increase the cost and lease the lost cost units the same as their high cost units. And some of their so called lost cost units are incredibly tiny in size, barely large enough to qualify as being livable.

In the end, the majority of units will eventually either be unrentable, or converted into high cost units which defeats the original purpose.

There are many sides here.

As a single guy, I would like it to be easier and cheaper to buy a small unit outside of a transportation desert, so I would be able to get to work in the Bronx without driving.

[babyblob]

The people of Afghanistan were not the bad guys and were not America's enemies.

It's a worthwhile point that the war was different when Bin Laden was still alive. But we did find him in Pakistan, and not Afghanistan.

I know where we found him. This is true as you said. my point was you said America's enemies need to be punished. fine go for it. But we did nothing to make the lives of the Afgan people better in the long term when Bush and pretty much every politician hailed us as the great liberators of the country. it was pretty much we went in got rid of the Taliban for a bit then just could give 2 fucks about the rest of the country. And after Bin laden was killed. No one even pretended to care any more unless it was for a talking point or photo op. This is pretty much everyone on both sides of the isle. Hell any time I saw anyone talking about it before this whole mess was maybe a nice little story about women going to school and having a government job.

[Tami]

I'd agree that NIMBYism does seem worse at first glance coming from the left because it's hypocrisy, but in the end do you really think it's better to be so openly against helping others (especially when it involves sacrifice or inconvenience on your part) that you wear it on your sleeve and proudly proclaim it?

As to the concerns Tami lays out, there will always be inconveniences tied to expanding housing. It's still something that needs to be done. Yes, you will have more packed schools, less parking, more traffic, more wear and tear on roads. Property values might be impacted, taxes might be impacted, resources will be harder to come by, and it will probably change the character of your community in slight ways. But there's not some magical place you can funnel all the poor folk, even urban centers with large housing developments can only hold so many.

I see most of these concerns as polite and convenient lies we tell (even/especially to ourselves) to not admit the real answer which is, "I don't want those people living near me/my children". Can't say that, because that'd make you the bad guy, and nobody's the villain of their own story. So it's those precious historical landmarks being torn down that are the real concern, never mind that in any given town of even small size there are probably dozens of "landmarks" a small fraction of the population is even aware of and an even smaller fraction of them give a damn about. Instead it's more of a way to manipulate the law to prevent this sort of thing from happening, weaponizing history not in the name of preserving it (whatever the stated intent) but to keep things the way people like them. Preferably with fewer people, especially "outsiders".

I used to work in Newark, and I was around when they tore down the apartment buildings and replaced them with lost cost individual homes. It made the area more family friendly, safer, and home ownership is much more preferable than renting out an apartment that often ends up having issues and slow moving responses from landlords to getting them fixed.

My argument is for adding lost cost homes with low cost subsidized mortgages that buyers can pay off quickly instead of apartment buildings.

Though it was considered a condo, we all saw what happened in Surfside Florida with the building collapse. And those were expensive units and they still couldn't afford the repairs. Imagine a building like it, but its an apartment, and no one is forking up the money to repair any damages, infestations, or other problems.

Apartment buildings may have a place in big cities, but I really think that there are better alternatives for smaller towns.

[babyblob]

In some areas i would rather have Low cost housing that is being used.

Here in Cincy they have been trying for years to turn some of these bad neighborhoods into hipster places with some high priced places and neat little bars and shops. And in some places it has worked. but there are many many of these condos and hip little high priced apartments just sitting empty and not being used. And it is a waste of money and space.

[Kirby101]

For starters...

Unless I bought the Times and it just slipped my mind?

That is not my headline.

Past that, this is still most likely the case -

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/demo...n-pullout.html



While everyone will get what they get out of something, it's not like that possibility is roughly equivalent to Kevin Federline bringing home a Grammy.

From the article:

But key American decisions were made long before July, when the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Afghan government could hang on for as long as two years, which would have left ample time for an orderly exit. On April 27, when the State Department ordered the departure of nonessential personnel from the embassy in Kabul, the overall intelligence assessment was still that a Taliban takeover was at least 18 months away, according to administration officials.

One senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified intelligence reports, said that even by July, as the situation grew more volatile, intelligence agencies never offered a clear prediction of an imminent Taliban takeover. The official said their assessments were also not given a “high confidence” judgment, the agencies’ highest level of certainty.

Clearly all Biden's fault.