4 ms·

I'm dubious that a few bribes will give pause to people who consider their homes in jeopardy.

dingaling 11y ago
I think the objective is to wash-out the casually-opposed with the bribe of reduced property taxes, leaving the smaller hard-core opposition to be tackled. However they don't offer any novel ideas to address the often-genuine concerns of that hard-core of 'NIMBYs'. Those are the ones opposed on principles or personal experience. For example in my neighbourhood the building of new developments had resulted in hugely increased road-noise [0], to the extent that it's no longer pleasant to sit in in the front garden. So naturally I'll oppose any further development. No amount of trivial-tax-tinkering will convince me otherwise, since it's my quality-of-life being affected. [0] multiplied more-so by the fact that modern car tyres are much noisier, but planning permission only considers the number of cars and not their cumulative noise
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  That's a good example of where orthodox economics breaks down; Money doesn't substitute for a quiet garden.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    The problem is more that it could, but necessary amount of money isn't feasible to pay. Though on the other hand, that sort of problem is solved by building taller buildings, because then if you don't want to hear the traffic you can live on the 20th floor.
    - teacup50 11y ago
      At which point you have a whole bunch of other problems, including not having a garden in the first place. That said, money does solve that problem too -- if a home owner accepts that they're being pushed out by development, there's a pretty penny to be made in selling out to developers.
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  We are talking about city planning. Sitting in a private, quiet garden is not one of the use cases for a city. If you live in a suburb, then it's a legitimate complaint. If the suburb has a lot more jobs than houses though, the commuters who want to live closer also have a legitimate concern that should be balanced against yours.
- someguydave 11y ago
  I suggest abandoning centralized government planning through zoning and strengthen nuisance torts - if you want to build a big tower in the neighborhood, pay off the neighbors to like it or else they sue.

I think the objective is to wash-out the casually-opposed with the bribe of reduced property taxes, leaving the smaller hard-core opposition to be tackled. However they don't offer any novel ideas to address the often-genuine concerns of that hard-core of 'NIMBYs'. Those are the ones opposed on principles or personal experience. For example in my neighbourhood the building of new developments had resulted in hugely increased road-noise [0], to the extent that it's no longer pleasant to sit in in the front garden. So naturally I'll oppose any further development. No amount of trivial-tax-tinkering will convince me otherwise, since it's my quality-of-life being affected. [0] multiplied more-so by the fact that modern car tyres are much noisier, but planning permission only considers the number of cars and not their cumulative noise

Gibbon1 11y ago
That's a good example of where orthodox economics breaks down; Money doesn't substitute for a quiet garden.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  The problem is more that it could, but necessary amount of money isn't feasible to pay. Though on the other hand, that sort of problem is solved by building taller buildings, because then if you don't want to hear the traffic you can live on the 20th floor.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    At which point you have a whole bunch of other problems, including not having a garden in the first place. That said, money does solve that problem too -- if a home owner accepts that they're being pushed out by development, there's a pretty penny to be made in selling out to developers.
jeffdavis 11y ago
We are talking about city planning. Sitting in a private, quiet garden is not one of the use cases for a city. If you live in a suburb, then it's a legitimate complaint. If the suburb has a lot more jobs than houses though, the commuters who want to live closer also have a legitimate concern that should be balanced against yours.
someguydave 11y ago
I suggest abandoning centralized government planning through zoning and strengthen nuisance torts - if you want to build a big tower in the neighborhood, pay off the neighbors to like it or else they sue.