Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

How 'vasectomy zoning' makes childless cities

Posted by freya 
How 'vasectomy zoning' makes childless cities
February 12, 2019
The tone of this article is pro-breeder and against 'vasectomy zoning.'
I guess some east coast cities are coming to the realization that kids are very expensive and a big tax burden.
Also, from what I've seen of senior housing it is typically immaculate especially when compared with apartments that have playgrounds, which tend to be noisy, cluttered and likely to be an eyesore.

Link: https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/01/family-planning-day-care-costs-zoning-cities-children/580279/

Apparently a bill was introduced which if passed would have zoned out building of day care centers from being built in a large part of NW Philadelphia. It wasn't passed because the breeders went nuts when they heard about it. Also in some areas in New Jersey apartments that are 3 bedroom are no longer being built. This sounds very promising for all the people living in the area that aren't breeders. And if infrastructure can't support the current number of kids it won't be able to support additional ones. An equilibrium needs to be maintained, even if it means some breeders are going to have to move to a more breeder-friendly area. There are plenty of those. It takes years to build new schools after all.

Good news in the article:

Quote
Article quote
High housing costs are likely forcing many young couples to make difficult lifestyle changes, such as delaying children.

Reality based on budget. Not everyone has $500K available to raise a potential cancer curer.

Quote
Article quote
When housing eats up too much of a young couple’s budget, they reluctantly forgo having children.

The smart ones do, reality doesn't stop the dummies though.

Quote
Article quote
In Nutley, New Jersey, another New York suburb, a July zoning fight came with assurances that three-bedroom units—and the children that come with them—weren’t part of the plan. In the Garden State more broadly, municipalities increasingly meet their state-mandated fair-share affordable housing requirements by building only senior housing.

For a long time New Jersey has been notorious for having the highest property taxes in the country so this makes sense. Why make it any worse on the residents?
Re: How 'vasectomy zoning' makes childless cities
February 12, 2019
I'm one of those NJ people who owns a home.

A 2000 square foot, 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath home with an attic and an unfinished basement.

Down the street from the best elementary school in the area. You can walk to the middle school, too.

The house is 90+ years old.

Our property taxes in this decent area are $13.5k/year. At least 2/3 of that figure go directly to the public schools. Schools in my town are good, but they are tapped out in terms of class sizes. Adding high density housing in a good suburban town is just going to decrease the standard of living for everybody here.

People fight the construction of 3 bedroom condos and public housing in their nice, suburban towns in NJ because it brings CHILDREN. Children cost a shit ton of money and the people who can least afford to live here want us locals to subsidize their life. These people breed like rabbits, rent apartments or live in public housing, soak up lots of public services which we homeowners pay for, then leave for another place as soon as it becomes easy. Meanwhile our property taxes go higher and higher to pay for these "young families."

Read up about the Mount Laurel decision. All new developments must reserve some units for low-income (read: welfare) housing. The senior housing trick has been going on for a LONG TIME now in NJ, because it allows local seniors to stay in town on a reduced income, while allowing the town to fulfill their low income housing requirements. It also keeps out the breeder welfare types from Camden and Newark, and the crime (gangs) that always seems to follow them.

I don't blame some towns for limiting day care facilities in certain areas. Towns have to consider everybody in their locality, not just the breeders. There's noise ordinances to consider. Not everybody wants to live next to a day care, with the endless screaming, shrieking, and plastic crap everywhere. Then there is zoning. Can you imagine the traffic nightmares on the streets surrounding the day care, especially at rush hour, as breeders drop and pick up their kids every day? I can also imagine the big drop in property values around the day care, as nobody in their right mind would willfully buy a home next to a building full of shrieking kids. Then there is liability, if the day care is on a busy street, and a kid gets loose and runs into the street.

And for the record, municipalities don't raise the cost of apartments and homes in NJ. The housing market sets the prices. It's pure capitalism, supply and demand.

I don't see the problem with potential population decline. The planet is beginning a new mass extinction, whole species are being wiped out, predictions are that most insects will be gone by 2100, and people still think having lots of children is a good idea?? thinks someone else is crazy

The authors (both white men, it figures) make it seem that all women are foregoing their dreams of "baby joy," because the mean suburbs aren't pandering to them. I'd love to womansplain to these sexist creeps that not all women want children. Young, educated women especially aren't considering kids because they know you cannot have it all, and they are starting to choose themselves over a mythical child that doesn't exist. The ones breeding are the uneducated, GED types, and they can't afford to live here anyways.
Re: How 'vasectomy zoning' makes childless cities
February 12, 2019
"Vasectomy Zoning"?? GMAFB. How many people are getting vasectomies that don't already have brats?

There is so much denial in general about overpopulation and the consequences of breeding in general that it's monumentally absurd. Who cares if the birth rate in the U.S. is at an all time low. Look around, does it look like we're lacking people? Earth's population has doubled in my four decades on this planet. Since then all I've seen is increased wealth and resource access inequality, greater exploitation of the poor, war in impoverished and corrupt nations to favor the people who already own everything, widespread racism and nationalism, worsening climates, increasing costs of living practically everywhere, people who are developing chronic diseases younger and younger all the time. But by all means, let's pretend that if we make more people it will result in more Kancer Kurers (a guilt trip for breeding that I've heard for at least 30 years now and still we have cancer so WTF).
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login