Doing away with single family homes, even in rural areas, and forcing people to live in high density housing, i.e. apartment blocks.
In many Democrat areas, they are attempting to force multi-family housing in areas that are typically single family in suburban and rural areas, because single family housing is raaaaacist and bad for ‘climate change’.I do not understand how single family residences are ‘raaaaacist’. Many people of various races own single family residences. Many people of various races own units in condo buildings. Many people of various races rent single family residences. Many people of various races rent units in duplexes, triplexes, and apartment buildings.
If there issues with racism in housing, then perhaps the people making the accusation should look to the very people who created that situation – city officials and the rent seekers – as well as the very same watermelon environmentalists making those accusations. Between restrictive housing regulations and environmental restraints, building affordable housing isn’t possible. Thinking it will be any different in thinly settled suburban and rural areas is laughable. In a lot of cases there is no infrastructure to support high density housing, meaning municipal water and sewer systems. But the watermelons don’t care about that. I am also going to assume they don’t care about taking away people’s property without compensating them for it. Certainly the Soviets didn’t care, seizing property “in the name of the State”. They even went so far as to execute landowners when they protested. They murdered farmers and seized or burned crops in Ukraine – the so-called “Holomodor” - when the farmers refused to collectivize. Millions died of famine. And all of it was “in the name of the State”.
The watermelons aren’t much different, at least from what I’ve heard more than a few of them write about or say. More than a few have stated that two-thirds of the human population should be eliminated in order to “save” the planet. (Sound familiar?)
Am I being over the top here? Maybe. But maybe not.
In my home state there’s been a move to allow the state to override local zoning or housing regulations and apply a one-size-fits-all solution in order to ‘encourage’ more affordable housing to be built. The problem is that such encouragement usually means taxes will go up to pay for it all, but very little benefit will be gained from all those new taxes and the towns will have little or no control over any of the money collected or where such housing will be built.
...it could have dire consequences for a state that currently stands out from others economically, simply because we have avoided these types of mandates in favor of organic development trends.Considering a large majority of the towns here in New Hampshire have populations under 5,000, with most of those with populations of 1,000 or less, such low-income/high-density housing may not be a viable because of the aforementioned lack of supporting infrastructure. Not that it would stop the developers from building it anyways, using state funds, of course.
We reported on the Governor’s October 30 announcement regarding his bi-partisan plan to mitigate the “housing shortage” in NH. It is a bold plan to defy the voting rights of the townspeople while stealing their money for redistribution to reward developers.
The left-wing Carsey School of Public Policy claims that only 2% of the housing stock in New Hampshire is available for sale or rent. The problem? The government has NO constitutional right to step in and interfere with the ebb and flow of housing availability, specifically with regard to what types should be built and where, and for whom. Nor does it have the right to redistribute our tax dollars to developers as incentives to flood the state with low-income/high-density housing where it is NOT wanted.