Great post. The Demsas view is also wrong because, when normal people associate cities with encampments, vagrants and public drug use, they turn anti-city. In other words, if Demsas had her way and encampments were protected, even only as a way to spite anti-housing cities, her agenda would suffer. The encampments motivate anti-density a…
Great post. The Demsas view is also wrong because, when normal people associate cities with encampments, vagrants and public drug use, they turn anti-city. In other words, if Demsas had her way and encampments were protected, even only as a way to spite anti-housing cities, her agenda would suffer. The encampments motivate anti-density attitudes. People see the encampments, the packs of lingering drunks, and they understandably freak out. Because people associate cities with social dysfunction, they’re more than happy to oppose reforms that would allow more and bigger apartment buildings. They see apartments as a nuisance and, frankly, under the Demsas view, they are!
Great post. The Demsas view is also wrong because, when normal people associate cities with encampments, vagrants and public drug use, they turn anti-city. In other words, if Demsas had her way and encampments were protected, even only as a way to spite anti-housing cities, her agenda would suffer. The encampments motivate anti-density attitudes. People see the encampments, the packs of lingering drunks, and they understandably freak out. Because people associate cities with social dysfunction, they’re more than happy to oppose reforms that would allow more and bigger apartment buildings. They see apartments as a nuisance and, frankly, under the Demsas view, they are!