• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Twenty-story highrises? Yeah, I get it. ‘Welcome to living in the shadow of a monolith! No sky for you.’ Perfectly reasonable for people to say, ‘can you not.’

    If they were objecting to four-over-ones, nah, fuck 'em.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I have not seen NIMBYism taken to this extreme before.

    Like, objecting to a mall I can understand.

    Objecting to green spaces and high-quality neighbourhoods? Like WTF, man?

  • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    lol @ dumbasses who didn’t look at how their area was zoned before buying a house.

    Pound sand, crybabies.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      How an area is zoned should be flexible and therefore should not be relevant for making that judgement.

      This opposition to housing is bad, but that lack of zoning research is not part of what makes it bad.

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    if you don’t want condos - buy the lot yourself and leave it the way you like. done.

    with investment comes risk. people need homes. that outweighs all of that risk when you choose not to buy the property yourself.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        To an extent, I agree, but I also disagree. At minimum, you’re going to be investing time and emotional attachment to it, if not money. Where you live is probably the one of the most important parts of your life, next to who you’re living with.

        I don’t think people should be allowed to invest in property to not live in it though. It shouldn’t be purely for financial gain. Primarily the purpose should be about giving people a place to live.

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I don’t think people should be allowed to invest in property to not live in it though.It shouldn’t be purely for financial gain.

          I believe that’s what the person you replied to was implying.

          I don’t think of it in terms of “investing” when I’m making my home my own and maintaining it properly so I can continue to live there.

        • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Yes, I meant in a way that prioritizes monetary gain. Improving property for ones own enjoyment is totally fine. Homes should not be thought of a good monetary investment vehicle, though. In fact, they usually aren’t when all costs are properly factored in.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      ‘Oh, did you expect sunlight in the house you could afford? Should’ve bought ten million in additional property!’

      Be serious.

    • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The new housing minister would disagree, housing prices need to go up. Brookfield is a job creator and owns residential real estate.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot And now these new developers, They want to tear it all up.

    Don’t it always seem to go, That somebody’s always going to complain? When you put in a garden, and stick some condos on top.