I do not understand why so many places make themselves target examples for the right, by being unlivable for working class people on one income stream.
One of the most sane and often repeated arguments regarding liberal ideology is that you can’t afford to live in it. Then, Seattle, Portland, and California are pointed to. It’s a fair take. I read a real estate article re homes across states, “affordable” pockets vs not. WA state, for example, has seen an 888% home price increase across the last decade, higher than any other state, including Hawaii and California.
Why? Why is it always blue?
Meanwhile, Minnesota is steadfastly blue, even through the Reagan years, and is affordable.
Because overseas real estate investors don’t want to lose money, so they invest in places of value. They’re certainly not investing in bumblefuck Alabama.
Agreed. In many of the bluest places there seems to be a lot of NIMBY-ism. So, while it used to be an affordable place to live, the older folks that bought their homes decades ago don’t want their home prices to go down. This seems to make things like re-zoning for multi-family (or denser) housing, restricting car parking, etc. much harder than it should be.
It feels short-sighted because living in a dense, walkable city is a really great experience, and it’s the only thing I miss about the East Coast. Everything else there I’m glad to be away from.
I’ll admit to not having seen the lion’s share of Portland’s neighborhoods, but the most walkable ones seem to be closer to the river. However, there’s no reason this can’t spread from there if we actually allow it too. Neighborhood bars, walking distance to a grocery store, more parks, MORE SIDEWALKS, etc.
I would posit that the HOA structure of new housing effectively undermines any sensical structuring involved in incorporating a new neighborhood of anything into a larger city space.
That’s a good point. I’m lucky enough that I don’t live within an HOA, but I’m sure many of my neighbors would raise a stink if someone tried to build a duplex on one of the lots.
The bigger issue around me is actually real estate investors buying the houses to use as rentals. It means people don’t stay at the house long term, and it can change the dynamics of the neighborhood. I don’t have a solution to this specific problem, but I’d love something that skewed outcomes to be more financially beneficial to people buying a house to live in.
In either case it’s because cities are hot real estate markets and capitalism erodes social policies that stand in the way of market access. Doesn’t have much to do with red vs blue.
I do not understand why so many places make themselves target examples for the right, by being unlivable for working class people on one income stream.
One of the most sane and often repeated arguments regarding liberal ideology is that you can’t afford to live in it. Then, Seattle, Portland, and California are pointed to. It’s a fair take. I read a real estate article re homes across states, “affordable” pockets vs not. WA state, for example, has seen an 888% home price increase across the last decade, higher than any other state, including Hawaii and California.
Why? Why is it always blue?
Meanwhile, Minnesota is steadfastly blue, even through the Reagan years, and is affordable.
Again. Why?
Because overseas real estate investors don’t want to lose money, so they invest in places of value. They’re certainly not investing in bumblefuck Alabama.
Capitalism sucks the life out of nice things.
My point is, MN is somehow making it work. Why just MN?
Agreed. In many of the bluest places there seems to be a lot of NIMBY-ism. So, while it used to be an affordable place to live, the older folks that bought their homes decades ago don’t want their home prices to go down. This seems to make things like re-zoning for multi-family (or denser) housing, restricting car parking, etc. much harder than it should be.
It feels short-sighted because living in a dense, walkable city is a really great experience, and it’s the only thing I miss about the East Coast. Everything else there I’m glad to be away from.
I’ll admit to not having seen the lion’s share of Portland’s neighborhoods, but the most walkable ones seem to be closer to the river. However, there’s no reason this can’t spread from there if we actually allow it too. Neighborhood bars, walking distance to a grocery store, more parks, MORE SIDEWALKS, etc.
Also, Minnesota is amazing.
I would posit that the HOA structure of new housing effectively undermines any sensical structuring involved in incorporating a new neighborhood of anything into a larger city space.
That’s a good point. I’m lucky enough that I don’t live within an HOA, but I’m sure many of my neighbors would raise a stink if someone tried to build a duplex on one of the lots.
The bigger issue around me is actually real estate investors buying the houses to use as rentals. It means people don’t stay at the house long term, and it can change the dynamics of the neighborhood. I don’t have a solution to this specific problem, but I’d love something that skewed outcomes to be more financially beneficial to people buying a house to live in.
Is it? Rent costs in Portland and Minneapolis look almost identical.
In either case it’s because cities are hot real estate markets and capitalism erodes social policies that stand in the way of market access. Doesn’t have much to do with red vs blue.