[HN Gopher] The Left-NIMBY Canon
___________________________________________________________________
The Left-NIMBY Canon
Author : coryfklein
Score : 38 points
Date : 2021-01-20 21:39 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (noahpinion.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (noahpinion.substack.com)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mdoms wrote:
| In New Zealand no one is more conservative than the progressive
| left. They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs.
| They demand the preservation of a single decades-old tree over
| housing. They demand more deference be given to traditional
| tribespeople over and above the progression of cities and housing
| the homeless. No one stands in the way of housing more than the
| left in this country.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| In the US, at least, I've experienced that the well-meaning
| progressive left pursues these laws in the legislature, but
| then they are (ab)used by those who don't actually care about
| the left causes, they are just looking for any means to
| obstruct construction that they don't want.
|
| I sometimes joke that the right is "NIMBY" but the left is
| "NIYBY" (not in your backyard).
| [deleted]
| majormajor wrote:
| The induced demand aspect is one I've found interesting for a
| long time.
|
| The linked studies are interesting, but they seem to be looking
| at just short-term impacts, which I don't think would reveal
| anything of a potential "high demand -> new housing -> new
| commercial/business development to serve and take advantage of
| higher density -> even higher demand -> higher prices" cycle.
|
| In developed countries, prices seem to be highest in the most
| developed, densest cities, which is why I suspect this loop
| exists.
|
| (The counter-argument, which you could make based on SF, would
| probably be something like "a business cycle of growth like that
| can happen even without new residential construction, and then
| you just have even higher prices and more displacement as a
| result than if you'd built residential to match the business
| growth." But I wonder if this is ideal for the long-term health
| of the city or state/country at large, in cases of a bubble or
| compared to some of that business growth being spread out in more
| regions.)
| closeparen wrote:
| Many usages of "induced demand" in this debate are really
| talking about increase in quantity demanded, i.e. more people
| will buy housing at a lower price.
|
| The YIMBY response is "of course, that's the point" but for
| many left-NIMBYs the point was to reduce pressure on the
| budgets of existing households; accommodating these new buyers
| is not helpful (and might be harmful).
| maxthegeek1 wrote:
| "New buyers" == immigrants.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Geography is important for those cities too. Nobody "builds up"
| in the US unless there's no place for the sprawl to go. Compare
| Atlanta and Houston to New York and San Francisco.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| In the US, "spread out" == suburbanization which is a huge
| failure failure on so many levels. (Bad for environment, causes
| loneliness and isolation, and plain less ROI because proximity
| creates the dynamic economy).
|
| Unless we have a fully "post-growth" economy, we need more
| Urban core.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-20 23:01 UTC)