How a NIMBY Suburb Screwed Themselves Over
video description
Date: 2026-10-28
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
joyg2526
The problem with the YIMBY movement in the US is that it relies on private developers to build more housing, there's nothing being said about affordable housing. Even with financial incentives and easing of restrictions from the city real estate developers are going to prioritize their PROFITS, and these incentives just further increase those margins. Building more housing doesn't make housing affordable.
Just look at who backs YIMBY movements.
YIMBY Action operates within a network of organizations, drawing funds from grassroots donations, foundations, and corporate sources.
Corporate and Foundation Funding: A 2023 impact report shows 25. 4% of revenue from corporate donations and 5. 8% from foundations. By 2025, corporate donations grew to about 37% ($433, 225 of $1, 169, 671. A business journalism source states that its parent 501(c(4) received 47% of 2024 revenue from foundations and corporations.
-Major Affiliated Group Funding: The California YIMBY network, including YIMBY Action, has reportedly raised nearly $15 million from Open Philanthropy (founded by Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna) and $1 million from Stripe. Open Philanthropy also granted YIMBY Action $300, 000 for LA housing advocacy.
-Tech and VC Ties: Early support came from tech execs and VCs like Yelp founder Jeremy Stoppelman. Donors to the California YIMBY Victory Fund include Garry Tan (Y Combinator, Kenneth Duda (Arista Networks, and other tech investors.
-Real Estate Industry Links: Previously, the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition raised $1. 8 million to oppose a 2015 ballot measure, with at least 45% from real estate, including developers like Lennar. Recent reports indicate YIMBY Action collaborated with the California Apartment Association and landlords to oppose a 2024 rent control measure.
Leadership Ties: Business journalism notes that several leaders have ties to the real estate industry. Support for Developer Projects: In Chicago, YIMBY has supported luxury projects like Nick Anderson’s Old Town Canvas. Critics argue such support favors market-rate developments that don’t improve affordability, with some describing YIMBYs as vocal allies for luxury buildings backed by private developers.
reply
The problem with the YIMBY movement in the US is that it relies on private developers to build more housing, there's nothing being said about affordable housing. Even with financial incentives and easing of restrictions from the city real estate developers are going to prioritize their PROFITS, and these incentives just further increase those margins. Building more housing doesn't make housing affordable.
Just look at who backs YIMBY movements.
YIMBY Action operates within a network of organizations, drawing funds from grassroots donations, foundations, and corporate sources.
Corporate and Foundation Funding: A 2023 impact report shows 25. 4% of revenue from corporate donations and 5. 8% from foundations. By 2025, corporate donations grew to about 37% ($433, 225 of $1, 169, 671. A business journalism source states that its parent 501(c(4) received 47% of 2024 revenue from foundations and corporations.
-Major Affiliated Group Funding: The California YIMBY network, including YIMBY Action, has reportedly raised nearly $15 million from Open Philanthropy (founded by Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna) and $1 million from Stripe. Open Philanthropy also granted YIMBY Action $300, 000 for LA housing advocacy.
-Tech and VC Ties: Early support came from tech execs and VCs like Yelp founder Jeremy Stoppelman. Donors to the California YIMBY Victory Fund include Garry Tan (Y Combinator, Kenneth Duda (Arista Networks, and other tech investors.
-Real Estate Industry Links: Previously, the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition raised $1. 8 million to oppose a 2015 ballot measure, with at least 45% from real estate, including developers like Lennar. Recent reports indicate YIMBY Action collaborated with the California Apartment Association and landlords to oppose a 2024 rent control measure.
Leadership Ties: Business journalism notes that several leaders have ties to the real estate industry. Support for Developer Projects: In Chicago, YIMBY has supported luxury projects like Nick Anderson’s Old Town Canvas. Critics argue such support favors market-rate developments that don’t improve affordability, with some describing YIMBYs as vocal allies for luxury buildings backed by private developers.
reply
briananderson1201
You can, and should, acknowledge the full property rights of homeowners. They are entitled to move into higher income neighborhoods, which necessarily limits access to people above a certain threshold of wealth. This is normal and has been going on for millennia. However, homeowners should not be allowed to unnecessarily limit what their neighbors do. In particular, zoning restrictions should not be used to prevent a builder from purchasing a home and converting it into 2-4 apartments/condos. As long as adequate garage space is available and height restrictions are observed, anyone who wants to densify a neighborhood should be allowed to do so. States can pass legislation permitting this 90% of the time (with a few exceptions for historic or environmentally sensitive areas. The free market will provide all the housing you need (it could easily double the number of residences.
Low income/public housing projects on the other hand are matters for the legislature (not the courts. Nobody has a constitutional right to a home, so if our representatives vote to build only in low-income areas, that's entirely consistent with democracy.
reply
You can, and should, acknowledge the full property rights of homeowners. They are entitled to move into higher income neighborhoods, which necessarily limits access to people above a certain threshold of wealth. This is normal and has been going on for millennia. However, homeowners should not be allowed to unnecessarily limit what their neighbors do. In particular, zoning restrictions should not be used to prevent a builder from purchasing a home and converting it into 2-4 apartments/condos. As long as adequate garage space is available and height restrictions are observed, anyone who wants to densify a neighborhood should be allowed to do so. States can pass legislation permitting this 90% of the time (with a few exceptions for historic or environmentally sensitive areas. The free market will provide all the housing you need (it could easily double the number of residences.
Low income/public housing projects on the other hand are matters for the legislature (not the courts. Nobody has a constitutional right to a home, so if our representatives vote to build only in low-income areas, that's entirely consistent with democracy.
reply
69johndz
The video literally says that Ethel and her NINE children could have moved to Camden or Philadelphia. But what. it wasn't good enough for her, so she demanded to live in the nice, ritzy areas
I grew up in the ghetto. I was surrounded by violent crimes and theft (including rpe. So, I left and went to a community college. That led to a 4-year-degree and then a Masters. Now I make 6 figures a year and I can afford to move my family to a safer, more stable area. And now, I am supposed to be ok with letting the criminal element ruin my neighborhood Screw that.
This is not a socialist country (as much as many people here wish it were. This is a capitalist country.
There is nothing wrong with a group of capable people wanting to build a community based on their own values in the name of keeping their children safe. I love that I can now walk down the street without getting jumped by, um. the urban youth. And I plan on fighting to keep it that way. There is no shame or guilt in that. My family will always come before yours. Deal with it.
reply
The video literally says that Ethel and her NINE children could have moved to Camden or Philadelphia. But what. it wasn't good enough for her, so she demanded to live in the nice, ritzy areas
I grew up in the ghetto. I was surrounded by violent crimes and theft (including rpe. So, I left and went to a community college. That led to a 4-year-degree and then a Masters. Now I make 6 figures a year and I can afford to move my family to a safer, more stable area. And now, I am supposed to be ok with letting the criminal element ruin my neighborhood Screw that.
This is not a socialist country (as much as many people here wish it were. This is a capitalist country.
There is nothing wrong with a group of capable people wanting to build a community based on their own values in the name of keeping their children safe. I love that I can now walk down the street without getting jumped by, um. the urban youth. And I plan on fighting to keep it that way. There is no shame or guilt in that. My family will always come before yours. Deal with it.
reply
BelichickInaMech
As someone who moved to nj a few years ago for my wife. My observation is, the way they build here is straight ass. It’s so overcrowded. It’s even more overcrowded than the population density numbers suggest. They have so much land locked up as unbuildable or preserved. This causes them to build on existing neighborhoods just packing more and more people into the same spot. Like in my area the population density says 1000 people per sq mile but it doesn’t account for the over 30, 000 acres that are locked up and out of the way, it includes it as if it were buildable and people actually live there within the total land mass. Thats why I was questioning why I moved from a 3, 000 people per sq mile population density in another state to one that only has a 3rd of that here in nj yet it felt far more busy and noisy. Too many people in the same little area too many highways, too many towns butting up against eachother. It’s trash design due to zoning restrictions.
reply
As someone who moved to nj a few years ago for my wife. My observation is, the way they build here is straight ass. It’s so overcrowded. It’s even more overcrowded than the population density numbers suggest. They have so much land locked up as unbuildable or preserved. This causes them to build on existing neighborhoods just packing more and more people into the same spot. Like in my area the population density says 1000 people per sq mile but it doesn’t account for the over 30, 000 acres that are locked up and out of the way, it includes it as if it were buildable and people actually live there within the total land mass. Thats why I was questioning why I moved from a 3, 000 people per sq mile population density in another state to one that only has a 3rd of that here in nj yet it felt far more busy and noisy. Too many people in the same little area too many highways, too many towns butting up against eachother. It’s trash design due to zoning restrictions.
reply
craigwall4008
Also notable: While the Mt. Laurel Doctrine was undergoing legal challenges for 10 years, conventional wisdom was that the NJ Supreme Court would strike it down. So all these wealthier towns started approving new construction with 0% affordable units during that 10-year period. Towns thought, even if the NJ courts upheld Mt. Laurel, they're not going to make it retroactive, right You going to make us build more housing when we're out of space
Well, yes, the courts upheld it, and made it retroactive lol. They owed affordable units of housing for all the 0% affordable development they knowingly approved over like 10 years.
And you can rarely get a developer to build a 100% affordable complex without a tax abatement. Instead, to get 100 affordable units, you've got to build 500 units and make 20% of it affordable housing.
That created a HUGE backlog of housing obligations that still hound most of these towns today.
reply
Also notable: While the Mt. Laurel Doctrine was undergoing legal challenges for 10 years, conventional wisdom was that the NJ Supreme Court would strike it down. So all these wealthier towns started approving new construction with 0% affordable units during that 10-year period. Towns thought, even if the NJ courts upheld Mt. Laurel, they're not going to make it retroactive, right You going to make us build more housing when we're out of space
Well, yes, the courts upheld it, and made it retroactive lol. They owed affordable units of housing for all the 0% affordable development they knowingly approved over like 10 years.
And you can rarely get a developer to build a 100% affordable complex without a tax abatement. Instead, to get 100 affordable units, you've got to build 500 units and make 20% of it affordable housing.
That created a HUGE backlog of housing obligations that still hound most of these towns today.
reply
arts. 4014
Sorry, but there are two sides. The MT Laurel case made 'the builder's remedy' into a Trojan Horse that allowed huge developments that overwhelmed townships because their low percentage of affordable set-asides meant the developers could put in massive, unwanted developments. It's what turned NJ into the gigantic suburbia it is today.
The low income housing was built and New Jersey being New Jersey meant that the oversite jobs were political favors and no real oversite occurred. It's a very corrupt system. Yes, there was some good that came from it, but you painted a one sided picture.
The original problem - the 1890s law carving up of New Jersey into a myriad of townships, which caused the housing issue, is still there. Only Princeton unwound the Boro/Township split (originally created for racial and economic reasons) and merged. All of the hundreds of other township splits remain.
reply
Sorry, but there are two sides. The MT Laurel case made 'the builder's remedy' into a Trojan Horse that allowed huge developments that overwhelmed townships because their low percentage of affordable set-asides meant the developers could put in massive, unwanted developments. It's what turned NJ into the gigantic suburbia it is today.
The low income housing was built and New Jersey being New Jersey meant that the oversite jobs were political favors and no real oversite occurred. It's a very corrupt system. Yes, there was some good that came from it, but you painted a one sided picture.
The original problem - the 1890s law carving up of New Jersey into a myriad of townships, which caused the housing issue, is still there. Only Princeton unwound the Boro/Township split (originally created for racial and economic reasons) and merged. All of the hundreds of other township splits remain.
reply
nicholasgrippo1754
Instead of trying to insert more housing into places, it doesn't really need it. Just start changing the zoning laws and allowing for mixed-use buildings. A lot of locations don't even allow for living on top of businesses anymore. I think this is one of those main struggles with these mandates. You could totally have multi-family living in more dense locations inside of Town centers but the zoning law and the building code doesn't allow it. Building codes need to be updated to accommodate this and no one wants to do that because we throw the word safety around like it's the end all be all. We built places like this in the '30s and they're still standing today. There are modern building practices that can help improve the fire safety of structures so we should move towards buildings that accommodate these housing needs
reply
Instead of trying to insert more housing into places, it doesn't really need it. Just start changing the zoning laws and allowing for mixed-use buildings. A lot of locations don't even allow for living on top of businesses anymore. I think this is one of those main struggles with these mandates. You could totally have multi-family living in more dense locations inside of Town centers but the zoning law and the building code doesn't allow it. Building codes need to be updated to accommodate this and no one wants to do that because we throw the word safety around like it's the end all be all. We built places like this in the '30s and they're still standing today. There are modern building practices that can help improve the fire safety of structures so we should move towards buildings that accommodate these housing needs
reply
quartkneek3670
Contrarian view but I don't see the injustice. You're starting from a position of housing as a human right and it is not. Stop with the political grandstanding and moralistic virtue signals. Activists are volunteers, they aren't victims. They are cry bullies operating decades before the term was coined. Regardless of race, we've seen how a low income building becomes a low income area which eventually becomes 'the wrong side of the tracks' or 'the bad part of town. ' Every stage of this slippery slope requires subsidies, benefits, and extra resources to be a net drain on a community. Low and middle income units mixed in with more expensive and luxury units are far more effective. City planners wanted a posh enclave, they should be allowed to have it.
reply
Contrarian view but I don't see the injustice. You're starting from a position of housing as a human right and it is not. Stop with the political grandstanding and moralistic virtue signals. Activists are volunteers, they aren't victims. They are cry bullies operating decades before the term was coined. Regardless of race, we've seen how a low income building becomes a low income area which eventually becomes 'the wrong side of the tracks' or 'the bad part of town. ' Every stage of this slippery slope requires subsidies, benefits, and extra resources to be a net drain on a community. Low and middle income units mixed in with more expensive and luxury units are far more effective. City planners wanted a posh enclave, they should be allowed to have it.
reply
Br3ttM
This could all be solved by the courts saying that owning property means you can use it in any way that doesn't harm other people, and making the government prove any restriction is necessary to prevent _specific_ harm. Lowering property values is mostly supply and demand, which isn't harm to the property owner, it is a market providing cheaper products. Zoning should be limited to restricting things like noise and pollution that spread across property lines, and anyone that wants a community with restrictions on who can live there or what buildings are allowed should have to work through deed restrictions and contracts that require the land owners to agree to them, not be able to use the government to force those rules on property owners who don't agree.
reply
This could all be solved by the courts saying that owning property means you can use it in any way that doesn't harm other people, and making the government prove any restriction is necessary to prevent _specific_ harm. Lowering property values is mostly supply and demand, which isn't harm to the property owner, it is a market providing cheaper products. Zoning should be limited to restricting things like noise and pollution that spread across property lines, and anyone that wants a community with restrictions on who can live there or what buildings are allowed should have to work through deed restrictions and contracts that require the land owners to agree to them, not be able to use the government to force those rules on property owners who don't agree.
reply
seanmack7903
While zoning in wealthy areas may be too restrictive, the lack of zoning enforcement in the lower income areas is often even more of a problem. I've seen this in certain cities and towns in both Mass and RI, where they turn an aesthetically well built yet run down historic neighborhood into a mish-mash of single and multi family homes, that have no uniform design standards. The newer buildings tend to be built as cheaply as possible with absolutely no architectural detail. Some will be built to the curb, some set back. Seemingly random heights, widths, roof angles and asymmetrical layouts. It creates a jarring and unwelcoming aesthetic, thereby ensuring that these areas will remain at the lower end of the real estate market in perpetuity.
reply
While zoning in wealthy areas may be too restrictive, the lack of zoning enforcement in the lower income areas is often even more of a problem. I've seen this in certain cities and towns in both Mass and RI, where they turn an aesthetically well built yet run down historic neighborhood into a mish-mash of single and multi family homes, that have no uniform design standards. The newer buildings tend to be built as cheaply as possible with absolutely no architectural detail. Some will be built to the curb, some set back. Seemingly random heights, widths, roof angles and asymmetrical layouts. It creates a jarring and unwelcoming aesthetic, thereby ensuring that these areas will remain at the lower end of the real estate market in perpetuity.
reply
haexxa9923
Just FYI: As probably anyone who looked into Japanese joinery can agree it's usually more complex and hence more difficult to assemble. When you say it is easier to put together because it uses Japanese joinery that's a very irritating claim. And the specific joints this bed seems to use are just castle joints and (half-lapped) dovetails, which aren't specifically Japanese. Sure they're also used in japan, so it's technically not wrong, but ascribing all these attributes to a part of Japanese culture looks a lot like orientalism to me. I'm assuming both you and flexispot don't want to be part of that, so maybe you can be a little more careful with your claims, focusing more on precision manufacturing for example.
reply
Just FYI: As probably anyone who looked into Japanese joinery can agree it's usually more complex and hence more difficult to assemble. When you say it is easier to put together because it uses Japanese joinery that's a very irritating claim. And the specific joints this bed seems to use are just castle joints and (half-lapped) dovetails, which aren't specifically Japanese. Sure they're also used in japan, so it's technically not wrong, but ascribing all these attributes to a part of Japanese culture looks a lot like orientalism to me. I'm assuming both you and flexispot don't want to be part of that, so maybe you can be a little more careful with your claims, focusing more on precision manufacturing for example.
reply
fritscheric
The problem I have with Mt Laurel, the builder's remedy, and some YIMBYs, is that they often end up on the other side of land preservation. NJ is the most densely populated state in the entire country. We have lost the majority of our trees. But I've spent 4 decades watching more and more and more new development on previous green land. Our environment is in a 5 alarm emergency here. We need rewilding, not more pavement. I'm happy for multifamily housing and apartments to be built, but not at the expense of our already overdepleted forests and meadows. Builders should build higher on existing developed areas (we have plenty of vacant buildings, not build out and destroy what little habitat is left.
reply
The problem I have with Mt Laurel, the builder's remedy, and some YIMBYs, is that they often end up on the other side of land preservation. NJ is the most densely populated state in the entire country. We have lost the majority of our trees. But I've spent 4 decades watching more and more and more new development on previous green land. Our environment is in a 5 alarm emergency here. We need rewilding, not more pavement. I'm happy for multifamily housing and apartments to be built, but not at the expense of our already overdepleted forests and meadows. Builders should build higher on existing developed areas (we have plenty of vacant buildings, not build out and destroy what little habitat is left.
reply
josephfisher426
Sounds like they got their name on a court decision rather than being screwed over in practical fact. It's a pretty distant suburb of Philly. Looks boring.
Perhaps it's better for everyone if people of lower income are scattered about rather than being concentrated, but it's a tough thing to enforce and the passage through of the turnpike is another factor that may influence decisions (no thanks, we will choose not to import crime. I drive through Salem, NJ on my way to the beach. It has a neat little downtown. It's also very obviously depressed. Can't blame people for wanting to stay out of doom loops. Also the township structure in NJ plays a big role in how development is arranged.
reply
Sounds like they got their name on a court decision rather than being screwed over in practical fact. It's a pretty distant suburb of Philly. Looks boring.
Perhaps it's better for everyone if people of lower income are scattered about rather than being concentrated, but it's a tough thing to enforce and the passage through of the turnpike is another factor that may influence decisions (no thanks, we will choose not to import crime. I drive through Salem, NJ on my way to the beach. It has a neat little downtown. It's also very obviously depressed. Can't blame people for wanting to stay out of doom loops. Also the township structure in NJ plays a big role in how development is arranged.
reply
city_beautiful
I’m very much a YIMBY, but my concern is that we often advocate for affordable housing in car dependent areas, or specifically in California, rich hilly areas with major fire risk.
I moved from California to NJ and it’s crazy how car dependent it is here and how their development plan was for much of the commercial infrastructure to be built along divided highway stroads. While mixed income is a worthy goal (and I currently live in a mixed income apartment building, so is urbanism and in general trying to push people to live in walkable cities.
I’m seeing a pretty big conflict between the goals of mixed income YIMBYism and urbanism that I haven’t seen addressed much.
reply
I’m very much a YIMBY, but my concern is that we often advocate for affordable housing in car dependent areas, or specifically in California, rich hilly areas with major fire risk.
I moved from California to NJ and it’s crazy how car dependent it is here and how their development plan was for much of the commercial infrastructure to be built along divided highway stroads. While mixed income is a worthy goal (and I currently live in a mixed income apartment building, so is urbanism and in general trying to push people to live in walkable cities.
I’m seeing a pretty big conflict between the goals of mixed income YIMBYism and urbanism that I haven’t seen addressed much.
reply
piskooooo
I work in RE in south NJ so I follow this stuff closely. It's still pretty bad. We have around 500 units planned for my town but the locals are trying to fight it because it requires some affordable housing to be built along with it because of the Mt Laurel doctrine. They are very blatant with their reasoning for opposing the building it's going to bring crime into our town! and say no to affordable housing. They've now resorted to the NIMBY ultimatum, which is trying to stop the construction of all 500 units. They're trying to stop us from getting local light rail for the same reason. You might have already made a video on it, but it's the GCL (Glassboro Camden Line.
reply
I work in RE in south NJ so I follow this stuff closely. It's still pretty bad. We have around 500 units planned for my town but the locals are trying to fight it because it requires some affordable housing to be built along with it because of the Mt Laurel doctrine. They are very blatant with their reasoning for opposing the building it's going to bring crime into our town! and say no to affordable housing. They've now resorted to the NIMBY ultimatum, which is trying to stop the construction of all 500 units. They're trying to stop us from getting local light rail for the same reason. You might have already made a video on it, but it's the GCL (Glassboro Camden Line.
reply
riverbellamy6735
I've always considered myself a YIMBY, but I couldn't disagree with this more. The point of YIMBY is to let housing be built where and of the type that people can pay for, not to subsidize anyone. Building housing specifically for low income people makes no economic sense, it just makes everyone poorer. Housing is supposed to be built for people who can pay for new housing, and as richer people move into that new housing, poorer people move into the houses that those richer people just moved out of. The mayor was right. If you can't afford to live in a place, then you move somewhere else. That is how capitalism works, and it makes everyone richer.
reply
I've always considered myself a YIMBY, but I couldn't disagree with this more. The point of YIMBY is to let housing be built where and of the type that people can pay for, not to subsidize anyone. Building housing specifically for low income people makes no economic sense, it just makes everyone poorer. Housing is supposed to be built for people who can pay for new housing, and as richer people move into that new housing, poorer people move into the houses that those richer people just moved out of. The mayor was right. If you can't afford to live in a place, then you move somewhere else. That is how capitalism works, and it makes everyone richer.
reply
MykePagan
FWIW, I lived in Mount Laurel for 4 years right after college. We made our own affordable higher-density housing by putting 4 low income young people in a rented house.
I live in Morris County NJ now. The town I live in has built several hundred units of affordable housing in recent years mostly gecause of Mount Laurel II. And surorise! Long-time residents are happy because their own kids can live in the town.
This whole thing started in the 1920s when NJ changed the laws to allow towns to balkanize, splitting the weakthy heighborhoods from the poor neighborhoods so rich people didn’t have to pay taxes supporting public schools.
reply
FWIW, I lived in Mount Laurel for 4 years right after college. We made our own affordable higher-density housing by putting 4 low income young people in a rented house.
I live in Morris County NJ now. The town I live in has built several hundred units of affordable housing in recent years mostly gecause of Mount Laurel II. And surorise! Long-time residents are happy because their own kids can live in the town.
This whole thing started in the 1920s when NJ changed the laws to allow towns to balkanize, splitting the weakthy heighborhoods from the poor neighborhoods so rich people didn’t have to pay taxes supporting public schools.
reply
mklinger23
Since we're talking about the philly area and black people, I think it's worth mentioning levittown pa. It was the second levittown built in the US and there was a very notable riot that happened when a black family moved in. When it was originally built, it was in the documents of sale that you could not sell your house to a POC. A lot of people moved there because of that. Look up videos. There are interviews with plenty of people (probably still alive) saying they specifically moved there so they didn't have to live near black people. Obviously that's illegal now, but the sentiment remains.
reply
Since we're talking about the philly area and black people, I think it's worth mentioning levittown pa. It was the second levittown built in the US and there was a very notable riot that happened when a black family moved in. When it was originally built, it was in the documents of sale that you could not sell your house to a POC. A lot of people moved there because of that. Look up videos. There are interviews with plenty of people (probably still alive) saying they specifically moved there so they didn't have to live near black people. Obviously that's illegal now, but the sentiment remains.
reply
allanflippin2453
Let me ponder something that needs consideration: funding local services by property taxes. In California, as you know, this is pretty much the rule. The result is communities are pressured to build more expensive residential neighborhoods because they're budget depends on that property tax revenue. No matter how idealistic people may be, there's no denying that the low-income housing units cut the income for the cities.
We need a better way to finance public services. The present scheme is creating incentives against serving lower-income residents fairly.
reply
Let me ponder something that needs consideration: funding local services by property taxes. In California, as you know, this is pretty much the rule. The result is communities are pressured to build more expensive residential neighborhoods because they're budget depends on that property tax revenue. No matter how idealistic people may be, there's no denying that the low-income housing units cut the income for the cities.
We need a better way to finance public services. The present scheme is creating incentives against serving lower-income residents fairly.
reply
foundobject
As a NJ resident, thanks for breaking down the Mt. Laurel decision. If cities and towns built dedicated low and moderate income housing, they would avoid the toxic builder's remedy, where greedy developers sue townships to build huge tacky, developments with a few affordable units. Towns shoot themselves in the foot by fighting low-income housing. The developers win and the towns lose control over the aesthetics and size of new developments, which creates congestion and overall ugliness, worse than a moderately sized low-income development would create.
reply
As a NJ resident, thanks for breaking down the Mt. Laurel decision. If cities and towns built dedicated low and moderate income housing, they would avoid the toxic builder's remedy, where greedy developers sue townships to build huge tacky, developments with a few affordable units. Towns shoot themselves in the foot by fighting low-income housing. The developers win and the towns lose control over the aesthetics and size of new developments, which creates congestion and overall ugliness, worse than a moderately sized low-income development would create.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
