Jennifer Maiko Bradshaw

Thank you! I’m really proud of it

Sigh, municipalities and their quest to make housing have a sin tax 🤨

That’s great! What’s the best part about it?

Me in a Drow Ranger cosplay shooting a glowy bow

Drow ranger cosplay with a bright moon background effect

Close-up of my Drow Ranger cosplay’s light blue makeup

My #dota2 Drow Ranger cosplay is finally done! Unfortunately missed the #TI14 cosplay contest due to Covid but hopefully will compete sometime in the future.

🤷🏻‍♀️ housing is an issue that goes far beyond the US.

The BS asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

Thank you to every science communicator who is doing the almost impossible work of countering misinformation every day. Every single one of you is saving lives!

Quite simply, YIMBYs do advocate for housing abundance. The capital-A Abundance thing is a very recent and more specific phenomenon in the long history of housing advocacy. I can understand where there could be confusion.

I think they’re reacting less to your nimbyism and more to your caricaturization of them, but meh. Let’s focus on policy folks.

Indeed it’s funny to me that anyone thinks us YIMBYs who want to unban housing and regulate cars more (because of the pollution+other dangers) are at all aligned with environmental deregulation.

Sounds like we agree then. I don’t have much comment on whatever the abundance agenda may or may not be, and don’t think B-tier “abundance” celebs are actually leaders. What is actually being advocated for in my local policy circles is what I describe.

Hi, environmental policy expert here. It is MUCH more effective to build policy to limit the pollution directly, than it is to limit what housing can be built near pollution.

Ban the pollution, don’t ban the housing. Not hard.

First homebuyer problems in Van… it’s pretty sad that about 70% of the housing options I can afford would basically require me to also get a car to commute to work 🙃 and it’s allegedly a buyer’s market! I have more options than usual…

City policy that forces LOTS of poor to middle income people right next to polluted arterial roads is utterly shit policy and our mayor and party in power should be ashamed of themselves

Metro Van household income by type of housing. Data shows higher density houses poorer people.

Semi-regular reminder that “luxury condo” BS notwithstanding, poorer people live in higher density housing and richer people live in low density housing. This shouldn’t be surprising ofc since low density requires lots of land and thus it’s expensive.

This is so disappointing. This means us poorer folks that can’t afford luxury detached housing is still artificially blocked from nice quiet streets by archaic city zoning.

When house owners talk about how they bought houses due to the "small neighborhood feel" what they mean is "a place where I don't have to see or tolerate renters" because renters are relegated to busy, filthy arterials outside those "small," "quaint" neighborhoods where they own property.

The Climate Systems Engineering initiative (CSEi) at the University of Chicago is seeking postdoctoral researchers interested in marine carbon dioxide removal to start in a year. 🌊🧪

Annual salary: $90,000/year
Research and travel funding: $10,000/year
Relation assistance: $3,000

I’m sorry but I refuse to educate people on reading charts on my day off. Go mansplain to a different data analyst, thanks.

Yeah, really unfortunate. It’s funny to me, in Japan some of the most affordable housing is right next to train tracks (cause the noise lowers prices)

Ugh, the latter could not be less true. Anyway, going to bow out, this convo is going nowhere and I have better things to do. Good day.

No, all wealth matters, not just the 0.01%.

Sigh. I strongly suggest you actually approach the urbanist research in the climate coalition with a modicum of curiosity. It’s very well established at this point.

Anyway, I’m not someone you need to convince for wealth taxes, I fight for more redistribution all the time. AND we need to build new housing and buildings that don’t promote a car-centric lifestyle.

It’s pretty funny how people overlook how much wealth actually is tied up in land. Just the land of one middling city like Vancouver is too expensive for even Zuckerberg or Bezos to buy. For many millionaires, it’s a huge proportion of their wealth. Which makes sense because it’s tax-advantaged.

It’s pretty disappointing to see people who genuinely believe we must work to end climate change, yet actively fight against the need to build new things like denser/greener homes outside of wildfire zones. Reducing VMT is so fucking critical.

…land is a type of wealth. It’s even much more real and easy to tax and more efficient to tax than any other asset type.

Also it’s funny that you bring up London - the anglosphere/(ex)Commonwealth has some of the worst land use laws in the world. The reason why we have mandated useless front lawns is because it was an English class signifier that showed you were rich enough to leave land unused.

I’m not American, and I support land value taxes.

No, you certainly have to build to move those. And this isn’t about maximizing resources, it’s about minimizing vehicle miles travelled.

It’s also pretty sad to me when someone clearly interested in the climate doesn’t see that houses - especially the sprawl of the US - is horrendously bad for the climate and we need a new, better, denser, greener alternative