Berkeley wants to turn the park where homeless people are staying into housing for homeless and undergraduates… While refreshing 60% of the park.
Why are people upset about housing homeless and undergrads? Is this some NIMBY shit but people dont think it’s NIMBY because it’s their park this time?
Berkeley is a public school. They’re building government housing. But, it doesn’t matter to the groups who see outrage as a virtue and stall the progress they neverendingly clamor for.
NIMBYs care about all sorts of things and are staunchly against progress and housing the young and poor alike. This is entirely NIMBYism dressed up in progressive aesthetics and language.
Since there are already buildings there and between zoning, tearing down existing buildings, building height limitations, parking minimums, moving tenants out, and possibly no net gain in units after new buildings are constructed what is accomplished?
Anyways miss me with the tone and do some actual investigation into this complexity.
Berkeley wants to turn the park into housing and I guess they hope the wall will keep protesters out.
Surround the park with shipping containers, and done! It is now 100% dystopia appropriate housing!
Berkeley wants to turn the park where homeless people are staying into housing for homeless and undergraduates… While refreshing 60% of the park.
Why are people upset about housing homeless and undergrads? Is this some NIMBY shit but people dont think it’s NIMBY because it’s their park this time?
https://peoplesparkhousing.berkeley.edu/
Obviously people are upset because public space is being taken away for this.
Berkeley is a public school. They’re building government housing. But, it doesn’t matter to the groups who see outrage as a virtue and stall the progress they neverendingly clamor for.
Yes… That’s what NIMBYism is.
No NIMBYs only care about property values. That’s not what this is.
NIMBYs care about all sorts of things and are staunchly against progress and housing the young and poor alike. This is entirely NIMBYism dressed up in progressive aesthetics and language.
Or, and this might be difficult to follow, make one of the adjacent buildings into homes and keep the park too?
Since there are already buildings there and between zoning, tearing down existing buildings, building height limitations, parking minimums, moving tenants out, and possibly no net gain in units after new buildings are constructed what is accomplished?
Anyways miss me with the tone and do some actual investigation into this complexity.
Correct sometimes doing what’s best is a little more complicated. I’m glad you figured that out.