Really dumb newspaper article: "Affordable housing vs. protecting open lands"

[KamaAina]

Here's what readers of our Gannett-owned cat box liner were exposed to on today's front page:



:puke: :puke: :puke:

Apparently the notion of building higher-density affordable housing near work, shopping, and transit (like the light-rail system O'ahu is planning) escapes these geniuses.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NEWS03/708200351/1001

While a recent survey showed 61 percent of Hawai'i residents wouldn't mind paying higher taxes to protect the environment, the number drops when the respondents are renters instead of home owners....

James Dannemiller, of SMS Research and Marketing Inc., which conducted the survey, isolated the survey results for renters and those living in non-rented homes. He said that renters seemed more inclined to favor changes that would lead to more affordable housing, even if it meant encroaching on land zoned for farming.

They were twice as likely as homeowners to say that unused land should be used for housing.

Way to go, Cat Box Liner! Pit us poor, downtrodden renters against those elitist haole preservationists! :sarcasm:

A shorthand way to say "encroaching on land zoned for farming" is "sprawl" -- exactly what we should NOT be doing, especially on an island! My transit-dependent self, for one, has no desire to live on somebody's old taro patch, miles from shopping or even a bus line. Time to start thinking outside the (cat) box, guys!

[nxylas]

1. Have you had a visit from Wendell Cox yet?

If not, I'm sure one is on its way.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. Based just on the pie charts shown, here's how I would analyze the replies.

A majority of those polled are interested in keeping Hawaii green (first and last pies)even if it means that the obviously pressing need of additional housing is not met (pie 3, with pie 2 showing ambivalence.)

Pie # 4, permitting and land use rules, elicited a strong negative because of the phrasing. Better to have separately asked about each. As the question stands there is no way to tease out which half of it drove the choices.

The article would have been vastly improved had it included a link to the actual survey results and methodology description. "(Renters) were twice as likely as homeowners" sounds good, but what are the actual numbers?


Good thing you have a cat box.