Post

A lot of people assume that the housing market circa 1975-2005, when urban housing was cheap even without new development thanks to rapid sprawl and white flight, is the natural state of the world and not an historically anomalous period shaped by housing and transportation policy choices.

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈

@maxdubler.com

This unquestioned assumption leads people to some very weird conclusions, like the idea that investment in formerly-redlined neighborhoods is bad because it changes the character of the community, or that fair housing efforts to open up the suburbs are harmful because they disperse voters of color.

26/6/26, 6:52 pm20 reposts240 likes

Sam

@very-simple.com

26 June

They also seem to confuse ‘making it easier for people to move into and out of various neighborhoods’ with whatever the housing equivalent of forced busing in the 1970s would be.

Nich💀 𐃥

@adjectivalnoun.bsky.social

27 June

The equivalent is urban renewal, and I remember literally saying “it’s not urban renewal we’re talking about” in a thread long ago about allowing apartments to be built and having someone respond “yes it is!”.

Exia Ross

@exiaross.bsky.social

26 June

I wonder if this has to do with the sort of merging/conflating of two separate thoughts. One: better infrastructure in neighborhoods can lead to price pressure for long-time residents. Two: that this is inherently bad & destroys the existing community.