constantine
@cchrisafis.bsky.social
UW landscape architecture & urban planning • opinions are my own
Reposted by constantine
While renters are "growth" that must be "mitigated" by requiring every part of the city to accept a fair share of them, house owners are "community" who deserve a veto over whether and how anyone else can live near them
September 18, 2025 at 7:13 PM
While renters are "growth" that must be "mitigated" by requiring every part of the city to accept a fair share of them, house owners are "community" who deserve a veto over whether and how anyone else can live near them
Reposted by constantine
Again, the desires of incumbent homeowners not to allow renters near them should not be the primary basis for land-use decisions that will determine where new residents can live, and whether existing residents who don't own houses will be able to stay here, for the next 20 years.
September 18, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Again, the desires of incumbent homeowners not to allow renters near them should not be the primary basis for land-use decisions that will determine where new residents can live, and whether existing residents who don't own houses will be able to stay here, for the next 20 years.