this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
-5 points (42.4% liked)
Casual Conversation
2045 readers
231 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Zoning laws are largely at play. The rebuild could change zoning for density and therefore greatly incentivise change.
The building code has already proved itself as a failure. So preventing rebuilding under the same standard is essential to prevent reoccurrence. This means that rebuilding cannot be entirely strait forward. By allowing densities like New York or Paris, as random examples, you are essentially greatly increasing the property values in these areas. That should help with those that cannot rebuild and it should result in developers buying out a considerable portion of homes. Displacing large numbers of people will never be cheaper or easier than it is right now. All it takes is allowing the height restrictions to change and allowing properties to use every bit of available space like most major cities around the globe. The fire code changes are a given. That is not a real problem for large scale development. It is a major issue for piecemeal and spotty development over time like what had happened. The actual protections and code should not rely on separation and the proximity of foliage. It should rely on non flammable materials and homes that can withstand any blaze by design. The materials should not be single sourced, monopolized, or patented either. The gov should only write standards required, but that should encompasses products available in a competitive open market.
The chief issue is zoning. If the ancient outdated single family home and condos zoning stays, so do all the problems of exorbitant housing costs, climate ruin, and a car centric dystopia. All of these problems are due to a lack of zoning reform to increase density.
Thanks, that's a really clear and detailed explanation.
Still, though, on an individual basis, I'm not sure how I'd feel if my house had been burnt down and then the government said that I couldn't rebuild it how it was before.
You are placing yourself above your neighbors. You should be asking his you'd feel after rebuilding when nothing has changed and the same recipe of events will produce the same outcome. Change is required.
I'm not involved at all, just saying that suddenly not being able to rebuild your family home could be quite devastating!
The whole thing is awful for sure. If it happened to me, with my disability, it would be beyond devastating to go through.
I am largely abstracting in a disconnect from my sense of empathy, and that can seem cold. There are many harsh realities that must come from this. Rebuilding might be possible in some instances using updated materials and codes, but I think stuff will play out differently.
It would be interesting to know how many homes were owned by by the residents. I bet at least half or more were not. The opportunity to create the changes and the future we really need is too great to pass up. Creating that future must come at the cost of someone's present normal. It is a far lower cost to pay for someone that is holding onto nostalgia for a place and time that no longer exists. That harsh reality will take time to sink in and greave. I totally understand that difficulty far more than most. With becoming physically disabled, in many ways I have had to greave my own death, in that I lost most of what previously defined and was important to me.
The best thing possible to help people going through these difficult times of loss is to help them out financially. Zoning changes for density and height greatly increase property values. So whether they are financing or selling, the rezoned property is essentially gifting them a financial buffer without a burden to the taxpayer. The potential for better integrated public transit, cheaper safer housing, and walkable communities could be seen as just a side effect relative to doing everything possible to help those in need. Nostalgia will never recreate the past. Chasing that rainbow leads to heartache.