Dangerous Infrastructure Bill: Flooding America's Suburbs with High-Density Housing Projects



   This proposal... amounts to "abolishing the suburbs" by making them more like cities.

   Apartment buildings.... could be built in the middle of any suburban neighborhood, and there is nothing you could do to stop it. A housing project could be built next door to your home. One-acre lots could be subdivided to cram in as many houses as possible.

   They claim that cities are undesirable places to live because they are crowded, hot, and lack nature, so it is unfair that people have to live there. Ironically, their solution seems to be to make more of them....

   Worse, local governments presumably know what is best for their communities. That is why communities have local governments rather than a federal government deciding everything for everyone. If residents desired different zoning, their officials would have already made those changes on their own.....That is probably why it is being hidden within a massive bill and not talked about.

   The federal government has no power to force this change, but the president has floated withholding federal money that towns rely on for things like roads unless the towns comply.... What town can afford to lose all federal transportation dollars — funded with taxes that they pay?..,, Basically, it is not far from extortion.

   Most cities, and most low-income people, vote for Democrats. For politicians, this means that if you can make the countryside into cities, in 10 years, everyone will be voting for only one party.

   Many counties will find it hard to resist the temptation to take the cash. But in the long-term they are saddling themselves with a huge influx of poverty whose financial effects will outweigh any grants. Of course, they will also completely change the aesthetics and culture of the neighborhood — and irrevocably alter its political makeup.

Gatestone Institute: President Joe Biden's "infrastructure" proposal says that money granted to towns and counties will come with a condition: eliminating "prohibitions on multifamily housing" and zoning restrictions such as "minimum lot sizes." This proposal, it has been said, amounts to "abolishing the suburbs" by making them more like cities.

Rosiak: Yes. Apartment buildings as well as duplexes — essentially carving up suburban homes into multiple apartment units — could be built in the middle of any suburban neighborhood, and there is nothing you could do to stop it. A housing project could be built next door to your home. One-acre lots could be subdivided to cram in as many houses as possible. If you bought into a neighborhood of one-acre lots and enjoy a bit of privacy, your neighbor could soon be able to sell his acre to a real estate developer who could put eight buildings on it.

GI: What is the purpose of this?

Rosiak: As USA Today put it: "A house with a white picket fence and a big backyard for a Fourth of July barbecue may be a staple of the American dream, but experts and local politicians say multifamily zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice, and the nation's growing affordable housing crisis." As part of the administration's desired $2.3 billion infrastructure plan, "cities would allow... apartment buildings with fewer than six units to be built next to a traditional house...."

Part of the "purpose" is the claim that we need to spread out poverty to make things more "equitable." They claim that cities are undesirable places to live because they are crowded, hot, and lack nature, so it is unfair that people have to live there. Ironically, their solution seems to be to make more of them by cutting down trees in the suburbs and putting up tall buildings. They also claim it will help the environment because if Americans live more densely, they are more likely to take mass transit and use fewer cars.

GI: Is this what Americans want? More poverty and increased population density in their suburbs?

Rosiak: Plenty of Americans love the big-city lifestyle; but they are already living in cities. Many other Americans have chosen big backyards for their kids to play in and to have some privacy. If you moved into a neighborhood based on certain expectations – whether it was one house on each quarter-acre, half-acre, or acre – you likely do not want that thrown out the window. With rising crime rates and remote work, people's preferences have actually been shifting to moving even further out in the country, to have even more space than before.

Worse, local governments presumably know what is best for their communities. That is why communities have local governments rather than a federal government deciding everything for everyone. If residents desired different zoning, their officials would have already made those changes on their own. This tells you that the move will most likely be horrifically unpopular among voters of both parties. That is probably why it is being hidden within a massive bill and not talked about.

The federal government has no power to force this change, but the president has floated withholding federal money that towns rely on for things like roads unless the towns comply.

President Biden's campaign platform called to "Eliminate local and state housing regulations that perpetuate discrimination" through a bill called the HOME Act. It would make "surface transportation funding and community development block grants contingent on" eliminating policies such as "ordinances that ban apartment buildings from certain residential areas or set a minimum lot size for a single-family home.'" What town can afford to lose all federal transportation dollars — funded with taxes that they pay?

Since the infrastructure bill is sending billions of dollars to local governments, the administration appears to be using it for the same purpose, saying that local governments will not be eligible for some of this money unless they make zoning changes. Basically, it is not far from extortion.

GI: So the administration wants to turn the suburbs into cities? Why would a political party want to do that?

Rosiak: Most cities, and most low-income people, vote for Democrats. For politicians, this means that if you can make the countryside into cities, in 10 years, everyone will be voting for only one party. In fact, one of the best predictors of how a person will vote is population density. If you live on an acre or more, you are probably a Republican, and if you live in a high-density area, there is a good chance you are a Democrat.

Politically, control of America comes down to the suburbs. Right now, they are the only areas that are "purple." If you can move residents of the suburbs to the "left" by 10 points by adding high-density housing, then you have secured permanent political control.

Many voters will be furious, but to the politicians, that will not matter: the new residents are sure to give one party the majority it wants. That is what the infrastructure bill conditions are really about: securing a one-party control of government. Who's in charge of your county or town is incredibly important: it determines criminal justice policy, school boards, and spending. The population shift could also tip congressional seats and impact the electoral college. And of course, added high-density housing could also come with traffic, never-ending construction, crime, and gangs.

GI: Is this infrastructure bill a done deal?

Rosiak: It is still in the negotiations stage, and details have so far been essentially secret. But the current administration has repeatedly said it intends to include zoning provisions along these lines, and other politicians have not given any indication that they understand the significance of what is being done or that they intend to fight it.

If a bill passes with these strings attached, suburbs are likely to go the way of Loudoun County, Virginia. Loudoun was a semi-rural community until a few years ago, when its local representatives permitted the construction of thousands of townhouses. The first thing the new residents did was to vote those representatives out and their representatives in. Now Loudoun County is more like San Francisco on the Potomac.

Many counties will find it hard to resist the temptation to take the cash. But in the long-term they are saddling themselves with a huge influx of poverty whose financial effects will outweigh any grants. Of course, they will also completely change the aesthetics and culture of the neighborhood — and irrevocably alter its political makeup.

The infrastructure provisions are not the only way the current administration is methodically seeking to increase the population density and poverty rate of suburbs. In June, the president signed an executive order affecting Department of Housing and Urban Development money, "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing," with similar goals.

COOHMP

The administration has no constitutional authority over local zoning laws. Fuck off.

All part of the plan to destroy the middle class. That will destroy the backbone of this country.

If this passes - and it almost certainly will - then every state and county in the country needs to sue. I don't see how this is constitutional. It's in direct contravention to the principles of federalism.

If that doesn’t happen first, Blackrock will buy out all the single family homes and rent them to liberal families.

Lexington, KY experimented with this concept many decades ago. I suspect other cities did as well.

This time around, start with the neighborhoods where Congress, POTUS, MSM, and the Judiciary live.

If they cared to,that money could rehab a lot of neighborhoods in blighted urban areas. Make liveable neighborhoods for the people they want to push out into suburbia

No they don't, but they can put strings on federal money requested by cities for whatever projects they want help funding.
oblunder the cocksucker was doing this during his time in office. Someone found out that just making a few democgraphic changes in relatively few counties in - I think it was half a dozen states - would move them from the red column to the blue column and ensure the dems would retain national power.

Remember when they decided to destroy Europe with African refugees and they would quickly try and build relocation centers in small towns.

Some of those towns decided to torch the buildings to save the local populace.

Seemed to work

more proof obama is still running the white house

Waste of money.  Every time they put money into trying to make any of the projects look nicer the trolls just tear it up; from tearing down fences that make them walk an extra ten feet to anything they can sell for scrap to new surfaces to spray paint on or just break, etc.  Projects should all be made with poured wall construction and with minimal fixtures or anything else they can tear up.  They're not supposed to be placed people aspire to live in, they're supposed to be way-stops on the way up.

No it couldn't.

The problem in the hood isn't lack of money. The problem in the hood is a generation of garbage human beings. No amount of money is going to fix that.

Get.
Fucked.

Now all those single family homes being bought in the suburbs by the big corps can be turned into multi family housing. It's a glorious future.

But we were assured by the media that this was just a conspiracy theory

Not “Liberal”, Section 8. They’ve told us what they want—American suburbs and rural towns aren’t diverse enough so they’re going to help us out.

Zoning laws? Pffft… We’re in ‘Post Rule Of Law America’.

Politicians are corrupt, Judges are corrupt, the cops are complicit and the military is run by a woke officer corps.

TC

People are going to die.

Social engineering at its finest. Sad to say but dems NEVER learn.

Reverse Gentrification, nice

I know a lots of places where that really will not go over well..............

For example; Xiden's neck of the woods and north, northwest and east to a point of him, well it just ain't gonna happen.

This:



Goes with this:



Hell of a time to be alive!

Didn't we all praise T$ when he signed something banning this very thing from happening?

Easiet way to turn red areas blue.

Kiss your nice safe neighborhoods goodbye.  

In a decade, after it's too late to matter, the Supreme Court will rule that the plaintiff didn't have standing.  

Thinking about what it would be like to live in the housing project pictured, gives me unbelievable anxiety.
Don't know how people do it.

No. They are…

Attached File


TC

Own your property and enough property around you so that you don’t have to worry about your neighbors.

If that fails, buy a D5 and start welding.

So very this.  We don't need no steenking laws.

Truth!

You fuck with people's property values and I don't care what party they affiliate with, you make enemies fast.

but experts and local politicians say multifamily zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice, and the nation's growing affordable housing crisis.

Liberalism always backfires. Always.

What Liberals really want to do is eliminate Black People.

Yep.

That's great.  The inner city needs to be brought to suburbia and rural areas.

Think of it like a new fresh air kids program.

That's funny right there. Those neighborhoods are like that BECAUSE of who lives there.

Why do you think Blackrock is buying up suburban properties? They in bed with gubbmint for those swwweeet HUD bux!

This right here.  We are the peasants, the serfs.   We can not risk having any chance of upwards mobility.

The Dims are not trying to learn or improve anything or anyone. They look at the suburban middle class as a threat to their agenda and control, thus this is just another step in the process to diminish or hopefully destroy the middle class.

Add to this their attacks on the rule of law, their attacks on Christian moral values and their approval of rioting and violence free from prosecution, as necessary steps to achieve their socialist-commie global control of America.

I understand that, but I'd rather have them tearing up their own neighborhood than mine after a section eight complex gets built on my street

Lol, tried and failed because, demographics. Now they just want to drag everyone into the shadow of the castle.

That’s the plan, Stan…they can’t buy the HOA’s so they buy the land and take over by attrition.

See post above. If they take a blighted street in Detroit, build a section eight building there on land that's currently burned out husks, it's keeping them in that neighborhood.
As long as the burned out shells are still standing, they have an excuse to build in my neighborhood

You'll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.

Start with Martha's Vineyard.

That doesn’t acheive the goal of blotting out the middle class.  You can’t vote against them turning your hood into the Hood….