Read on Twitter
What to make of anti-cycling, car-dependent suburban sprawl defending ‘environmentalists’? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
I suppose if you’re a NIMBY it’s easier to push your views as an ‘environmentalist’ instead.
‘Dense housing is bad because it will make congestion worse!’
‘Hey, surely you can’t build dense housing with a requirement that tenants don’t own a car while they live there!’
Incredible. https://twitter.com/Justwantclarity/status/1333550729324277761
‘Hey, surely you can’t build dense housing with a requirement that tenants don’t own a car while they live there!’
Incredible. https://twitter.com/Justwantclarity/status/1333550729324277761
But cyclists!
“mass immigration”
Does Caroline think that bikes and cars mix well?
Sometimes claims of “corruption” are really just code for ‘I don’t like xyz’.
Same anti-cycling ‘environmentalist’ shit, different NIMBY.
Opposing dense developments but then getting performatively outraged that doing so could necessitate building out into the greenbelt. It’s so sad and predictable.
We can’t build more housing because someone has used a tree for exercise! 
Is there any credible independent analysis about the impacts of more residents visiting the parks? Or whether there’s even any net environmental benefit of ‘just build houses somewhere else’, and what would that even look like?
A lot to unpack here, but it’s easiest to understand that Caroline’s starting point is opposition to building more housing which explains the inane reasons given to try and support that position.
...what?
Side note on the purpose of this thread: Shah and others promote themselves as - and are held by others to be - authoritative local voices on environmental issues. Sadly a lot of their activism is rooted in reactionary & regressive nimbyism, which this thread serves to document.
Opened the petition and wondered why I recognised the name Meenakshi, ah yes she liked that weird tweet complaining about a bus with a single passenger.
Vanishingly little in the petition about how this ‘equalities campaigner’ thinks housing inequality should be tackled.
“London does not have a housing shortage, it has a people excess.”
Grim.
Grim.
Rather than insufficient affordable housing being a problem, Malcom states the issues is ‘a people excess’ for which the solution is ‘market conditions’, i.e. only rich people should be able to afford homes in London. If you’re poor then too bad, jog on, according to Malcom.
Struggling to understand how you could, in good faith, oppose a development over concerns about gentrification, but endorse pricing people out of owning homes in London.
What has the pandemic taught us about high density housing? Well we’ve learnt that nimbys will cynically use it as justification for their nimbyism.
Shah might have heartily agreed with Malcolm about London having a ‘people excess’ for which the solution is allowing housing to become even more unaffordable, but she’s not RTing the logical conclusion of that: building in the greenbelt. At least Malcom is honest about it.
Might have finally gotten to the bottom of Caroline’s ‘environmentalist’ opposition to building more housing: her house price might suffer!
:s/she/he/g
