[HN Gopher] Americans stand united on one thing: NIMBYism (2020)
___________________________________________________________________
Americans stand united on one thing: NIMBYism (2020)
Author : mgh2
Score : 32 points
Date : 2023-01-29 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (therealdeal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (therealdeal.com)
| jmclnx wrote:
| Yes and to me, this is far more dangerous then the US political
| issues. House and Rent exponential price rises can be directly
| linked to this.
|
| To get a house and especially apartment buildings are almost
| impossible in many parts of the US.
| locustous wrote:
| Zoning is the foundation system for nimby to exist and be
| effective.
| davidw wrote:
| It's certainly true that it spans political divides. YIMBYs are
| starting to notch up some wins, though, and both these pro-
| housing organizations are growing rapidly:
|
| * https://yimbyaction.org/
|
| * https://welcomingneighbors.us/
| mistermann wrote:
| As always, there's more going on behind the scenes as well. I'm
| a big fan of TikTok for getting insight into "what's out there"
| in the broad public psyche, and there are _a lot_ of people[1]
| on there expressing in no uncertain terms their "displeasure"
| with the current system design. They tend to not get into
| details about to what extent they're willing to go to modify
| this state of affairs (or seek revenge), but history[1] well
| illustrates how carried away people can get when they are
| angry.
|
| [1] And I'm not talking the usual suspects (Trump supporters,
| "conspiracy theorists", etc)
|
| [2] Even as recent as January 6, 2021
| rainsford wrote:
| I appreciate what those organizations are doing and I agree
| with their arguments, but like I said in my other top level
| reply to this article, I think those organizations would be
| more successful if they talked about why people should want
| more housing where they live specifically by focusing on the
| benefits for existing residents. Framing it entirely in terms
| of affordable housing or fighting homelessness or undoing
| racial segregation makes it really easy for people to take the
| position that we should absolutely build more housing in
| general, but why does it have to be where _I_ live? The whole
| idea of NIMBYism is not necessarily opposing the idea of more
| housing, but just not wanting it in your neighborhood, and
| neither of those organizations seem to be making much of a
| counter-argument.
|
| I don't think YIMBY organizations should stop making those
| arguments, since it's certainly an important part of the
| debate. But I think they should also try appealing to people's
| self-interest by highlighting personal benefits like density
| building local businesses and services that wouldn't be
| possible otherwise. Give people a reason to not only want more
| housing, but want more housing where they already live.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| It spans political divides because it's a class issue not a
| culture one.
| patientplatypus wrote:
| [dead]
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| Maybe, if NIMBYism is so prevalent across the political spectrum
| in the united states, maybe the NIMBYs have a somewhat valid
| perspective that we should at least consider?
| notacoward wrote:
| There are _many_ legitimate reasons to oppose any particular
| development. In another comment I mentioned concerns about
| historical and environmental preservation, for example. Those
| are valid concerns, which I often share. However, across many
| cases they have to be weighed against concerns about equity and
| sustainability. In a better world each "side" would win some
| and lose some. The problem is that the way municipal government
| works _systematically_ favors opposition to any kind of new
| development even of a positive sort - e.g. mass transit, higher
| density. It 's easier to block than to push forward. Any
| sufficiently motivated group of NIMBYs can win practically all
| of these battles, and thus things that need to happen
| _somewhere_ never do _anywhere_.
|
| Put another way, NIMBYism is not so much prevalent (i.e. a
| majority hold that view) as dominant (i.e. it prevails
| nonetheless). They're not the same thing.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Well but it IS CONSIDERED. In fact its currently the only thing
| that is considered.
|
| This is a concentrated 'harm' vs distributed gain, except there
| really is very little 'harm'.
| notacoward wrote:
| This really drives me nuts. I live in a very liberal but also
| very NIMBY town. Just today I was informed of a new petition to
| resist a zoning change near the town center, to preserve
| "historic character" that practically none of the signers gave a
| damn about before. Not a year has gone by, out of 24 I've lived
| here, when that same excuse hasn't been used to stymie more
| affordable higher-density development or new transit options.
| Similarly, there's a petition to impose strict rules on removal
| of trees. More than half the signers either had trees removed
| from their own properties already, or bought in on lots where
| that had happened recently. Seems like they didn't really give a
| damn about that issue either, until it no longer inhibited their
| own choices and actions. Then _those very same people_ also
| complain about how the town center is dying, with half the space
| taken by banks because those are the only entities that can
| afford the sky-high rent. Not much "historic character" left,
| but at least no poor people either so they think that's OK.
|
| I fight them every chance I get. I point out that if you oppose
| every individual move to make something good happen, over and
| over again, then you don't really support it happening at all.
| But it's hard to win when people are so good (having been well
| trained at law school etc.) at hiding their real motivations
| behind high-sounding excuses like history or environmental
| concern. At least right-wing NIMBYism is honest about
| motivations.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Is the town center historic or is it actually just a 1960 car-
| depended dead wasteland? Are there historical parking lots?
| notacoward wrote:
| It actually is historic, "shot heard around the world" and
| all that, but the "historic" label is applied far more
| broadly than reason would suggest. For example, a couple of
| years ago there was a proposal to build several townhouses on
| a lot _miles away_ from the town center. Nobody but neighbors
| ever saw the house that was there, which had fallen into
| serious disrepair because _nobody cared_. Then suddenly, when
| a higher-density replacement was proposed, those same
| neighbors got very interested in the fact that the original
| architect had achieved some slight fame in the 1800s, slapped
| the "historic" label on it, and blocked the development.
|
| AFAIK the property has fallen even further into disrepair
| since, and that's just fine with the NIMBYs. Effectively more
| space for them to enjoy, without actual burden of ownership.
| Everybody knew that it was a thin excuse, used cynically to
| advance the interests of a few, but the residents had
| demonstrated their ability/willingness to outspend any
| possible opponents so they got away with it. More relevantly,
| similar stories have repeated _over and over_ here, with the
| effect that the town is actually in the state 's crosshairs
| for its failure to meet affordable-housing or transit
| standards. Whatever beliefs the residents might loudly
| espouse, this is revealed preference at its most blatant.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Just because we have a quirky epithet for it doesn't make it
| morally wrong. Where I live is desirable because I am a steward
| of my environment and culture, and because of the absence of
| others. Nature is beautiful because it's not paved over and full
| of the environmental degredation that poverty and tourism
| creates. The solution to poverty isn't to consume more nature or
| spread it into neighborhoods and communites. It's to have
| perimeters that preserve them so that when people manage to
| improve their situations, there is somewhere for them to arrive.
|
| To be anti-NIMBY is like being anti-anything, where it's just a
| proxy for suppressed aggression, and it has absolutely no
| connection to a sense of compassion or selflessness toward the
| people they are ostensibly "helping" by exporting poverty into
| areas where people have worked very hard to pull themselves up
| and leave it.
|
| Mainly, anti-NIMBY'ism is to establish a beach head of people who
| depend on public services in the district or riding who will vote
| for politicians who promise spending on them, or worse, people
| who just want to center themselves as managing the chaos of their
| own invention. It's pure, cynical, realpolitik and all the
| epithets in the world do not change that.
|
| Journalists stand united on one thing too: manufactured conflict
| for the sake of spectacle, and being setup as a hate effigy, for
| any reason, including because I don't want to live around
| poverty, is petty and obnoxious.
| tspike wrote:
| http://archive.today/MsgNs
| TruthShare wrote:
| [dead]
| dirtsoc wrote:
| I think most of this stems from the fact that local governments
| are notoriously bad at improving infrastructure at the same speed
| as approving high density housing developments. They will agree
| to add hundreds of homes or apartments and just ignore the need
| for a better city or county public transportation system.
| rainsford wrote:
| I wonder how much of American NIMBYism is due to framing the
| debate exclusively in terms of giving more people a place to live
| (i.e. helping other people) instead of looking at the benefits of
| housing density to the people who already live there. The poll
| results for Democrats in particular suggest they view building
| more housing as a thing you do to help other people, so they're
| in favor of it, but they view it as a negative for existing
| residents, so they'd rather it happened somewhere else.
|
| I think a lot of the debate would change and YIMBYism would be
| more popular if there was more emphasis on why you want more
| housing where you live, and not just as an act of charity to
| would-be homeowners. It's not for everyone and it's not 100%
| upside, but increased housing density has a lot going for it
| because it encourages building stuff close to where you live that
| simply would not exist without a critical mass of people.
| peyton wrote:
| You'd do better with some kind of insurance for property values
| I think. That's what people are worried about.
| djg321 wrote:
| I would mention that it may actually cause property values to
| go up for single family homeowners. Reason being a developer
| would have the ability to buy the whole property and build an
| apartment building.
|
| Each apartment may cost less than the house that was there
| before, but the value of property together (land + apartment
| building + individual units) is sure to cost more than when
| only a single home was on it.
|
| Condo owners, on the other hand, would see the value of their
| units decrease with the extra competing supply. This, of
| course, being one of the _benefits_ of YIMBYism for everyone
| else (increases affordability).
| kcplate wrote:
| > I would mention that it may actually cause property
| values to go up for single family homeowners.
|
| This is an exception more than a rule, and generally only
| for specific areas that might be gentrifying or for home
| owners in very old properties that might border a larger
| land area a developer might buy.
|
| And then you always have holdouts which could spoil the
| deal, which leads to IMO one of the most evil government
| things there is in the US in modern times--eminent domain
| nonford150 wrote:
| Others, though, see increased higher density housing as
| more traffic, increased crowding in existing schools, and
| lowering property values. At least in the US, higher
| density housing in the surburbs is seen as a negative, even
| if there may be some benefits, however nebulous.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The problem is that zoning is so incredibly restricted, if
| any place becomes even vaguely developed in a modern mix use
| way, property prices go up like crazy.
|
| If simply everything was getting developed, then the impact
| would be much more distributed.
|
| There is also systematic bias and failure in the property
| assessment system. Strongtowns has been doing a lot of work
| on that.
| rainsford wrote:
| I get the concern for sure, but is it actually a risk that
| needs mitigation, or just a concern that needs better
| information?
|
| I haven't conducted a comprehensive study, but my general
| sense is that the value of any given housing unit correlates
| fairly positively with density. An average sized single
| family house in the middle of a dense city is generally going
| to be worth _way_ more than the same house located in an
| exurb. I 'm sure there are counter examples, but I'd be
| willing to bet that for the most part, the denser the area,
| the more valuable the housing.
|
| Basic supply and demand might suggest the value of your house
| would go down the more housing is built in your neighborhood,
| but that ignores that more housing might create even more
| demand because the increased population and density makes it
| a more desirable place to live. And if you own lower density
| housing from before all that growth, your house can demand a
| premium for people who want the benefits of density but are
| able to pay for more space for themselves.
| kiba wrote:
| Houses are for living, not to be your piggy bank.
| nonford150 wrote:
| But for decades, the US economy has sold SFH as just
| that. Every time I go to the bank, I get solicited by a
| bank employee to take out a HELOC.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > the benefits of housing density to the people who already
| live there
|
| In other words, propagandize them?
|
| Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.
| calt wrote:
| > Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.
|
| Except that no one builds their opinions in a vacuum. There
| are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't consider
| without outside influence.
|
| False NIMBY narratives run deep.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > There are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't
| consider without outside influence
|
| This goes nowhere, except towards censorship. Maybe the
| NIMBYs did hear the YIMBYs arguments but didn't buy them.
| calt wrote:
| > This goes nowhere, except towards censorship.
|
| I don't understand what you're talking about. How could
| sharing views and facts could lead towards censorship?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| well, you said "False NIMBY narratives run deep." There's
| a worldwide move towards censoring "misinformation" which
| certainly sounds like what some people want. Do those
| "false NIMBY narratives" need to be suppressed?
|
| If you just want to provide other views, then carry on.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _In other words, propagandize them?_
|
| Why make this comment? Maybe I'm capable of seeing things in
| the OP's comment for myself.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| It's not an explanation of OP; it's a characterization.
| You're free to disagree with it.
| eknkc wrote:
| NIMBY, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard," describes the
| phenomenon in which residents of a neighbourhood designate a new
| development (e.g. shelter, affordable housing, group home) or
| change in occupancy of an existing development as inappropriate
| or unwanted for their local area.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-29 23:02 UTC)