What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant serving food from the owner's home kitchen. Something that can start off as a side business yet can advertise without getting into legal trouble and grow into more if it's successful.
You get a few of those in an area and someone decides it's a good place to knock down a house and put up a five story building with condos on top and a coffee shop and a bakery on the ground floor.
You have to let it grow organically like that or you just end up with abandoned "commercial" buildings because businesses fear moving in when they know their success would lead to increased rents as a result of the limited amount of designated-commercial real estate in the area.
Shop house is a flexible creature. It can be a business, but is also easily converted into living quarters, if necessarily, or a parking garage, or whatever you want. It’s just a flexible, convertible space.
I did have one friend that ran a shop and lived above -- it seemed great -- but he owned the building and had done a lot of modernizing of the apartment. It doesn't fit the suburban dream, though. No yard -- the green space for my friend was the county court house square across main street from his shop.
Ottawa, Canada has these too on Bank St. Toronto has many of these streets also, for example Queen West. These are generally the most vibrant neighborhoods.
The solution to having lack of backyard space is to have public parks. Montreal has this more right than any other city I’ve seen.
Of course, from my apartment I hear karaoke late at night, roosters early in the morning, and construction, always construction.
So there are drawbacks. It would be disruptive, especially in suburbia. But I would love some middle ground between crazy Saigon and cultural desert suburban Atlanta.
Blaming the disappearance of tiny businesses in residential neighborhoods by saying "It's all those middle class white women" seems both very shallow and specious.
Using a name meant to paint a picture of a suburban white woman is no different than describing someone as a Jamal, Yousef, Goku, Carlucci, Vladimir, Shenequa, Herschel, or Juan. If a news outlet used any of those names to describe a person in a news story they’d be immediately flagged as racist. And yet we see the term used to describe white woman gracing articles on the front page of even the NY Times.
It is. There are plenty of decent people named Karen who do not deserve to have their name appropriated as an insult.
Better to say "entitled jerk" or something similar. That way, the only person you're insulting is whomever you're calling a jerk.
Because it’s tied to behaviour. Stop behaving like an a-hole and you stop being called a Karen.
You can’t stop being black or a woman.
That’s the key difference.
We wouldn't call illegal gardeners a Hernandez, or terrorists from the middle east Mohammeds. Those are behaviors too.
What makes it wrong is picking an ethnic name to associate with that behavior. Karen is a euphemism for suburban, white, female.
The sexist part doesn’t really fit for me either, as we generally reserve insults for genders too. Bitch vs bastard are prime examples.
By the way, the male version of “Karen” in my part of the world is much worse.
This is very much a straw man. If I see a term that is derogatory towards black people, I have every right to object even though I'm not black. And if I see a term that is derogatory towards women, I have every right to object, even though I'm not a woman.
In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. If true, that would simply invalidate the opinion of everyone who objects. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type. Especially if you're objecting to the specific term, not to the principle of insulting that personality type.
Edit: to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.
Karen isn't derogatory to women, it's only derogatory to Karens. There is no implication that women are all Karens, only that Karens are contemptible.
> In fact you seem to be claiming, in this case, that you would only ever object to the term "Karen" if you actually have the characteristics that the term refers to. But, just like with race and gender, you can object to that term even if its implied meaning genuinely doesn't match your personality type.
Except that race and gender aren't personality types, whereas that's exactly what "Karen" is, and it's just the personality type that would object to the term.
> to make it a bit more concrete, imagine the term "little black men" had been used instead. Upon objection, you replied "no, no, no, the term term doesn't necessarily refer to actual black men, just people that behave a bit like black men". That is very much what the term "Karen" is like.
The analogy to "little black men" would be something like "white female busybodies" which is completely different because it's putting the focus specifically on that race and gender.
I would dispute this point. The term is, at least, derogatory to women who are named Karen -- whether or not they are "Karens".
What you're really doing there is showing why it isn't sexist even though it's implicitly female. The detail is only there for color, not as a core component of the archetype.
You argue that "Karen" doesn't refer to whiteness, the middle-classes or the female gender - it just refers directly to the stereotype and therefore it's OK.
I invite you follow the same logic here.
Consider the stereotype of a gun-toting street gang member. Our prejudices may tell us that person is probably a young black male that lives in a big city. So he gets a name we associate with the young black urban male like "Deshawn" .
The logic is the same, yes?
If you're OK with "there goes Karen calling the cops on the Walmart clerk again", you should be OK with "there goes Deshawn shooting the neighborhood up again".
Are you?
Only a serious level of bigotry would make someone pretend it's not racist or sexist if the word can also mean something else, in this case a simple name. It's what you meant by it and what you associated that with that matters.
It's the same reason calling someone a "fag" is meant as an insult for both that person (even if they are straight), and for homosexuals since you obviously consider this trait of theirs only suitable for an insult. It's an attack both on the people you address it to, and on the ones you based your insult on. Something an uneducated bigot would readily use but never realize why. They usually feel threatened by everything they don't understand or like (different gender, color, sexual or religious orientations) and "weaponize" that as a cover for their own ignorance. ;)
You could argue that Karen was chosen over Steve or Jeff purely by coincidence because obviously 50% of people are female so why shouldn't it be a female name? Actually a technical author I really like, who doesn't like the singular "they", solves the problem by just using the pronoun "she" for every unspecified person ("if the reader doesn't believe this theorem she can check it herself..."), which I think is fantastic... why not use she over he? But the fact this is so surprising is exactly because it is so unusual. It is, sadly, the default, to use male pronouns and names for things, so when a female name comes up it usually has a connotation (although I just gave an exception). Whether you mean it or not, using "Karen" for someone with that type of personality type heavily suggests that women are more likely to be like that.
That is all already true without an additional fact: historically, it is sadly a stereotype that women's opinions are more petty and unimportant than men's. The use of the word "Karen" for someone with unimportant, ill-informed opinions is directly playing into an existing stereotype. And it is totally avoidable.
Suppose I use "Shaq" as a stand in for a generic basketball player. I'm obviously making reference to a specific famous basketball player who happens to be a black man, so is that racist and sexist? Asians can play basketball. Women can play basketball.
It's not chosen at random, it's chosen as an exemplar of the category. The original Karen (from /r/FuckYouKaren) was a real person named Karen.
> historically, it is sadly a stereotype that women's opinions are more petty and unimportant than men's. The use of the word "Karen" for someone with unimportant, ill-informed opinions is directly playing into an existing stereotype. And it is totally avoidable.
I don't think it is avoidable. If using a woman's name is sexist then so would using a man's name. Either way it would cause the reader to be more likely to picture the person with the contemptuous attitude as that gender. But so would not specifying one at all, which we know generally causes people to picture a male. So you have to make a choice one way or the other.
And if it's "fantastic" to select a female in the contexts where the subject is a meritorious student or engineer, sometimes it goes the other way too.
Assuming you mean a negative stereotype, so for example not just a basketball player but one who does it instead of studying academic subjects: then certainly, yes. Imagine someone saying "oh those guys won't have a clue, they're just a bunch of Shaqs". Even if Shaq is the name of a real person, the racist undertone is clear.
> ... so is that ... sexist?
Not so much, maybe borderline, just as Karen is only borderline racist.
> The original Karen (from /r/FuckYouKaren) was a real person named Karen.
I dispute that many people using the term know exactly who that Karen is, and even moreso the people hearing it. To most, it simply sounds like a generic name that white middle-class women are likely to have.
(After a little Google research it seems there actually isn't an original Karen. KnowYourMeme (not exactly a reliable publication but relevant here!) had a few candidates but no clear winner - in fact the main contender was just a bad comedian using it for an unspecific annoying woman. In a post I found on /r/FuckYouKaren itself no one had any ideas. But that's all irrelevant anyway, if people using the term don't know.)
> If using a woman's name is sexist then so would using a man's name. ... And if it's "fantastic" to select a female ... sometimes it goes the other way too.
Actually, by "avoidable" I meant there's no reason to use any name at all. But let's put that aside.
Look, I get it, I honestly do. Equality really means treating people equally, and that means if we're allowed to use a male name as an insult then we ought to be able to use a female one too, right? I actually do think it makes a lot of logical sense.
The problem is that it only makes sense if the current base line is men and women already being treated equally - then adding extra opportunities, compliments and even insults equally would preserve equality. In practice, current societal norms are absolutely flooded with little microagressions that subconsciously make men and even women themselves think of women as somehow less important than men. I remember a very awkward encounter at a team building exercise where a colleague (actually a fantastically nice guy) jokingly let me go first at something with a cheeky "ladies first" comment, only to realise a female colleague was actually nearby (near enough to cause a bit of confusion!). Note that one woman jokingly accusing another of being a man would never be an insult, even jokingly.
Yes I realise there's the odd extreme feminist that genuinely thinks men are less important or worthwhile than women (e.g. those that say that men accused of sexual assault by women should be assumed guilty). But those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by men who think less of women. In that context, your idea (allowing insults that reinforce stereotypes against women in the name of equality) does not make sense.
I think it would be more like calling a random middle eastern terrorist a Mohammed.
If you haven't suffered the Karens, you might be a Karen...
When could society ever be characterized by an ethos of "let's tolerate people"? ISTM that now anyone might receive for criticism for objectionable behavior, not just poor black young men.
Yet now, it seems all sorts are labeling people based upon sex, colour, ethnic background, etc. It is, quite literally, the definition of sexual, racial, age discrimination. It is linking "external characteristic" with "way a person acts".
I don't care what anyone's political stance is, but if you are using terms like 'Karen', you are 100% contributing to sexism, racism, etc.
Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia.
0. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891177904/whats-in-a-karen
The above NPR, states that a Karen is a new label, started in the 2010s (which is just last year, even). It also shows how the Karen label is different from other, prior labels.
It delineates how a Becky is different, a "Miss Ann" is different.
We've historically had labels like this for people, which are racially linked. But this is 2020, this is a NEW label, and other NEW labels keep popping up.
We need to collectively STOP this. No more racist, sexist, ageist, anything-ist labels. It's all wrong.
(Not saying you were defending label use... just clarifying my position)
Slurs are not new. And as I mentioned, what you showed were not Karens, but 'white women who act poorly in certain ways'.
"Kaben" has unique connotations, a specific meaning. While I agree that "white women have had slurs" before 'Karen', I'm going to have to disagree that it's germane here.
"Asshole" is as common as salt in our everyday language, but "Karen" is the spice.
Except that Karens and assholes are different. Karens can be assholes, sure, but a Karen is a specific type of asshole. Football hooligans may be assholes but they're generally not Karens. It means something different, and there isn't another word that means the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
A lot of these terms link specific behaviour, to specific ethnic/sex/cultural groups. I guess they're OK too?
I find it utterly disgusting, that some people think some things are 'one way'. That racism is OK, but only "one way". Sexism is OK, but only against men. The list goes on.
Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
No?
Then why is it OK with 'Karen'?
You'd don't cure social ills by creating more of them.
"An eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind." is highly accurate, I think.
Maybe you're seen this. I haven't, and many people seem to have the specific definitions listed above.
Well then it's a good thing that it can.
> Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?
That is a racial slur. Its meaning is defined by race.
A Karen is defined by behavior.
cries in San Francisco
So apt.
Something like this actually happened to a former colleague of mine. They installed a safety rail on their front porch. Someone complained.
Maybe in the cabinetry case there was a giant van with a company logo parked out front.
Either way, permits shouldn't be required for non-disruptive (and a van being in someone's driveway is not disruptive), non-structural changes to a house.
I’m aware that zoning and permitting laws have been an issue for a while (like a lot of Millenials I haven’t been able to afford to buy a home), but it does feel a bit authoritarian for the local permitting office to look for signs of “black market” modifications to one’s own property.
Most places like not places like Oakland, Berkeley and Santa Cruz County, this sort of thing depends on the neighbors. It's inane what neighbors will go running to the city for. Or not. Friend of mine in the east bay completely gutted and remodeled his house no problem. In San Jose neighbors complained to the city about a disused dishwasher in my garage.
I really don't think people have perspective these days. You think this is the era of officious busybodies?! Seriously?
It's just that these days, things aren't covered up. Or, are seen more due to the Internet.
For example, you think cops are MORE violent now? MORE racist? HELL NO! No, no, no!
They're MUCH better than they were. Much. All of that needs to be stopped, of course, there's zero call for it. However in the past, you wouldn't even hear of it. A black man would be beaten to death, and it wouldn't even make the news!
Go find an older black gentleman from rural Alabama from the 50s, and ask him some questions. Compare that, and police treatment, to now.
So with respect to 'busybodies', I think you need to think back to small town American (and Canada, where I'm from), a mere 50 years ago. Canada is pretty much atheist now, and the US certainly is, compared to back then.
And along with all that religious baggage, came the 'holier than thou' lot. Said lot would always work to dominate committees, town councils, you name it. Religious groups would constantly rail on TV series, movies, even newspaper comics like the 'Far Side' would get hate mail, over crazy silly supposed slights.
The media was controlled, out of fear of retribution.
Oh no, nothing you complain about now even remotely compares to that. And while I say "You literally, clearly, have no idea.".. don't feel bad. Feel lucky you don't.
Real estate is the most "advantaged" businesses out there. They tend to support local political figures heavily and get heard.
Really we should pull that and the mortgage deduction, because at this point both distort the market in favor of people who can afford to own property.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kle...
tl;dr: post 9/11 criminal money laundering activity switched from banks to real estate
Charging tax on property (building + land) mostly just disincentivizes more intensive buildings.
Tax is also incentive. You want to tax things you want to discourage more than things that you want to encourage.
They're physical luxury goods that deteriorate as you use them, like cars. They appreciate largely because of nearby corporate and government investment (in office complices, schools, utilities).
That people make money off of them suggests that the government isn't being nearly aggressive enough about capturing the value it's creating here.
I can travel a mile down the road and due to a "bad" neighborhood, many properties are literally negative value. They sit till they burn because demolition is more costly than the value of the land.
Markets don't price risk well. Housing markets definitely don't price capital investments or liabilities more than 5 years out well.
I live nearby one such development, and it's awesome (when there isn't a pandemic). There's a great variety of retail because they can rely on both local residents and homeowners who drive in, and it's thriving (when there isn't a pandemic).
More apartments have been built up around the development as it's grown, and while it's very detached from the urban center there is a bus route that connects it and the other apartments throughout the suburb to the light rail system.
A lot of the new mixed use developments where I live in Seattle are basically malls in how sterile and unvaried the commercial bits are. (New American upscale brunch restaurant? Check. Fad group fitness club? Check. Bank and starbucks? Check.)
Want to know the best way to protect against exceedingly high prices? Increase supply. If the market had enough supply to meet its own demand, then that situation wouldn’t be possible. The number one thing that holds back the supply of real estate is insane zoning and planning regulation.
The idea that permanently preserving nonsense like the “character” of neighbourhood, at the cost of affordable housing and business rent has to be one of the most anti-social mobility, anti-equality, openly classist ideas we have in our society. “But what if somebody builds an apartment tower next to my expensive Victorian house?”, good! Maybe there’ll be less people sleeping on the streets and in their cars because of it.
I'm sure there's that too, but a lot of it is a result of an "unholy alliance" of democracy and economics. For most people their home is the single most valuable asset they have. So they have an interest in maximizing the value of it. One way of maximizing the value is by increasing scarcity. And thus you have the well off people (as in, the ones who already own property in the area) packing the local planning boards, preventing higher density development. Or home owner associations with all kinds of anal rules how your house and yard is supposed to look and what you can do there, etc.
Of course, these types of incentive problems are everywhere. E.g. in my country, like I suppose in many developed countries, there's an under-supply of medical doctors. So how many doctors do we need? Hmm, lets ask the experts, the national medical association. Who of course has no interest in inflating the wages and job opportunities of their members..
The cynic in me thinks it’s just run of the mill political corruption. The cities where these problems are the worst have essentially been run by the same group of politicians for quite a long time, and they’re generally elected on platforms of caring about societies less advantaged groups. But time after time they get elected and incrementally make things a bit worse before being elected again. Which could suggest that you win in politics by simply saying the right things rather than actually doing them. But I don’t find that sort of “people are just dumb” line of reasoning very compelling.
In any case, the problem has gotten so bad in many places that’s it’s not possible to fix over any reasonable period of time. If you too imagine the most extreme approach of simply abolishing all zoning and planning regulations over night, housing prices and rent would certainly sharply decline. But then you would have a new problem of millions of mortgages being underwater.
But on the flip side, deciding that newcomers know better how to manage already occupied land is basically colonialism...
Building housing to support population growth is not even remotely similar to that. Permissive zoning laws (or even better, no zoning laws) don’t even prevent existing residents from using their property their property the way they always have. The restrictive regulations are about making sure that all nearby residents also continue to use their property in a particular way. The idea that buying a house in a particular area somehow entitles you to make sure nobody else who owns a house or property in that area does anything to change it just seems completely insane to me.
A neighbour saying “you can’t build affordable housing on your property, because I like your property the way it is” sounds a lot more similar to colonialism to me.
I think citizens can vote with their dollar where they want to live. I hate suburbia, but I’m also not into super central downtown living. I want something in between. I’m ok with a townhouse and no backyard, as long as there’s a park nearby. I’m up for living with neighbours in a dense area, but only if I can get something for it, like shared neighbourhood amenities and small businesses in walking distance.
Montreal is a good example for North America. Not all of it is perfect, but a lot of it is mixed zoning.
I live in Houston which is by no means very dense, and I love the lack of zoning laws.
It would probably make sense for the city/whatever to incentivise against that.
You this kind of thing in San Francisco, where decades of regulations banning and mandating everything anyone has ever thought of, makes doing nothing with a building sometimes the only remaining strategy.
I'm in NE Atlanta metro; it seems that you can't pass a traffic light without seeing a nail salon, a gas station, a cell phone store, and Subway. And these have been there for years right from the building of the building.
Also if the investor is just looking for a place to save money outside of their unstable country they may be better off losing money on the deal!
In reality, the financial system is oriented towards big capital. My aunt ran a coffee shop that was established by grandparents in 1939. It was in the lobby of a office building in he central business district of our little city. The building was bought by a Chinese investor. Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.
I live in a mixed use urban neighborhood. 50% of he storefronts are vacant or populated by death businesses like karate dojo’s.