6 ms·

NIMBY psychology strikes again?

by mahyarm 11y ago

nefitty 11y ago
"NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"), or Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away."
- morganvachon 11y ago
  Pejorative it may be, but it's accurate in this case. It was also used by the article's author. I'm normally one to champion a homeowner's rights to reduce trespassing, loitering, and destruction of property, and I do understand where the homeowners in this case are coming from. I have a little turd of a neighbor who revels in illegally driving his four wheeler across my yard but the police say I'm in a catch-22; unless they are camping out in my driveway waiting to catch him, they can't arrest him for it, and of course they don't have the resources to dedicate to that. He knows this of course, and rides by at random times, flipping me off if I'm outside at the time and tearing mud holes across the lawn. My point being, the folks in Hollywoodland who are threatening the author and coercing Google and Garmin are barking up the wrong tree. They should be seeking a solution that reduces traffic in their neighborhood without limiting the public's right to visit the park, and without threatening some guy who is already trying to do the right thing by steering tourists away from the neighborhood and towards the approved viewing areas. Just as I can't erect tire-gouging spikes in my yard or hire a thug to intimidate my neighbor into submission, these folks shouldn't be threatening people and illegally marking their curbs and signs to discourage tourists.
  - isaacdl 11y ago
    Small nitpick - why can't you erect tire-gouging spikes in your yard? It's your yard, is it not?
    - kaybe 11y ago
      Or how about, let's say, a full-concrete birdbath on a column?
    - anon4 11y ago
      Or a small fence? Not tall enough to stop someone from walking over, but enough that it would be damaged by him driving over it. Together with a security camera.
    - noxToken 11y ago
      IANAL, nor am I directly citing anything. However, I believe that you cannot willfully setup something with intent to cause damage or harm to people or property that isn't your own. I believe it's akin to drenching your sandwich with Dave's Insanity Sauce to catch the co-worker who has been stealing your lunch. If your enjoy eating your hot sauce with a side of sandwich, that's fine. It's the intent of how you're using the sauce that matters.
      - JackFr 11y ago
        IANAL either, but I think the prohibition is on items that threatan life and saftely rather than trespassers property. From Wikipedia: > Mantraps that use deadly force are illegal in the United States, and there have been notable tort law cases where the trespasser has successfully sued the property owner for damages caused by the mantrap. There is also the possibility that such traps could endanger emergency service personnel such as firefighters who must forcefully enter such buildings during emergencies. As noted in the important US court case of Katko v. Briney, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property." Thinking in those terms, a few spike strips on your lawn should be fine.
        abruzzi 11y ago
        Unless someone walks across the lawn, steps on a spike, and develops tetanus. The point is it might be legal but you run the risk that it could blow back pretty badly.
    - 11y ago
  - x1798DE 11y ago
    Why would they need to physically see him? Can't you just set up a camera?

NIMBY psychology strikes again?

by mahyarm 11y ago

NIMBY psychology strikes again?

"NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"), or Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away."

morganvachon 11y ago
Pejorative it may be, but it's accurate in this case. It was also used by the article's author. I'm normally one to champion a homeowner's rights to reduce trespassing, loitering, and destruction of property, and I do understand where the homeowners in this case are coming from. I have a little turd of a neighbor who revels in illegally driving his four wheeler across my yard but the police say I'm in a catch-22; unless they are camping out in my driveway waiting to catch him, they can't arrest him for it, and of course they don't have the resources to dedicate to that. He knows this of course, and rides by at random times, flipping me off if I'm outside at the time and tearing mud holes across the lawn. My point being, the folks in Hollywoodland who are threatening the author and coercing Google and Garmin are barking up the wrong tree. They should be seeking a solution that reduces traffic in their neighborhood without limiting the public's right to visit the park, and without threatening some guy who is already trying to do the right thing by steering tourists away from the neighborhood and towards the approved viewing areas. Just as I can't erect tire-gouging spikes in my yard or hire a thug to intimidate my neighbor into submission, these folks shouldn't be threatening people and illegally marking their curbs and signs to discourage tourists.
- isaacdl 11y ago
  Small nitpick - why can't you erect tire-gouging spikes in your yard? It's your yard, is it not?
  - kaybe 11y ago
    Or how about, let's say, a full-concrete birdbath on a column?
  - anon4 11y ago
    Or a small fence? Not tall enough to stop someone from walking over, but enough that it would be damaged by him driving over it. Together with a security camera.
  - noxToken 11y ago
    IANAL, nor am I directly citing anything. However, I believe that you cannot willfully setup something with intent to cause damage or harm to people or property that isn't your own. I believe it's akin to drenching your sandwich with Dave's Insanity Sauce to catch the co-worker who has been stealing your lunch. If your enjoy eating your hot sauce with a side of sandwich, that's fine. It's the intent of how you're using the sauce that matters.
    - JackFr 11y ago
      IANAL either, but I think the prohibition is on items that threatan life and saftely rather than trespassers property. From Wikipedia: > Mantraps that use deadly force are illegal in the United States, and there have been notable tort law cases where the trespasser has successfully sued the property owner for damages caused by the mantrap. There is also the possibility that such traps could endanger emergency service personnel such as firefighters who must forcefully enter such buildings during emergencies. As noted in the important US court case of Katko v. Briney, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights of property." Thinking in those terms, a few spike strips on your lawn should be fine.
      - abruzzi 11y ago
        Unless someone walks across the lawn, steps on a spike, and develops tetanus. The point is it might be legal but you run the risk that it could blow back pretty badly.
  - 11y ago
- x1798DE 11y ago
  Why would they need to physically see him? Can't you just set up a camera?