4 ms·
The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In
by ancap 10y ago
The chief problem with the idea of NIMBY is that it is not really the concerned party's back yard. A more accurate term for the concept might be NIMNBY (Not In My Neighbors' Back Yard).
NIMBY is an affront to the concept of property rights. But, some say, the concerned party has the legitimate concern that development on a neighboring property will negatively impact the value of their own property. While an understandable concern to have, it does not justify the prevention of allowing the neighbor to develop on their rightfully owned property; just as company A should not be allowed to prevent company B from creating widgets because the extra competition will impact company A's bottom line.
- ghaff 10y agoBackyard in this context means something more akin to neighborhood/city/etc. as opposed to patch of green behoind hous Many property rights are limited in various ways--often by zoning in the case of land. And, typically, those limitations would be known at the time of purchase. Most would agree some level of zoning is reasonable; no incinerators or drilling for oil in residential neighborhoods for example. I actually agree that excessive permitting processes that block otherwise allowed development are often a problem. But some level of zoning (whatever you call it) is effectively required for a functioning city or other community.
- Retric 10y agoZoning is a wide topic. Requiring buildings to be safe for the area is one thing. Forcing Residential and Commercial property to widely different areas is a common if terrible idea. Central planning rarely works well. At best zoning could penalize some types of development to cover very real external costs, but not outlaw them.
- davidw 10y agoI think most of us have some fuzzy concepts about some things being 'a step too far', but I'll admit to not having a great idea where or how to draw the line. It would suck to have an outdoor, late night heavy metal venue open up in an adjacent property, for instance. OTOH, a lot of the limits on housing height and density and car requirements seem like bunk to me. And I'd rather live closer than farther to basic amenities like a grocery store, some restaurants, a small bar... stuff like that. I loved that about life in Italy.
- ancap 10y agoYour example is already a solved problem with the theory of homesteading. Whoever homesteaded the property first has the right to enjoy their property in the manner they originally possessed it. In this case, the outdoor, heavy metal music would be a trespass upon adjacent properties (unless they received an easement). Conversely in homesteading theory, if the outdoor, late night heavy metal venue was there first, you could not move in adjacently and expect to shut them down for excessive noise.
- davidw 10y agoOk, but what about... Someone: * buys an apartment and decides to turn it into an office for a few accountants. * buys a house and decides to build a corner store, like this: https://goo.gl/maps/jcHex9ndsFv https://goo.gl/maps/jcHex9ndsFv * buys a house and tears it down to create a small used clothing store. * buys a house and turns it into a small restaurant. * buys a house and turns it into a bar. My guess is that people are going to complain about some of these things, but not others. However, if you don't allow anyone to change things ever, you get a very rigid and brittle city. What would we do with the stables if they had never been allowed to change into something else?
- ancap 10y agoI'm not sure what the issue is with any of those scenarios. If someone rightfully obtains a property they are in the same position as the original homesteader.
- davidw 10y agoSo... the original homesteader builds a house somewhere. Other houses are built nearby. It's a quiet neighborhood. I buy the original homesteader house and open my heavy metal venue? And that's ok? I bet the neighbors won't be happy. I get the concept of "you chose to build your house next to a heavy metal venue and they were there first, so you can put a sock in it", but it's kind of incomplete.
- mc32 10y agoI like the idea which they mention Massachusetts is bandying about: require cities to set aside areas (maybe proportionally 25% ?) where they will not impose cumbersome building restrictions.
- chris_wot 10y agoI rather think there is a decent point in there, but on closer inspection this argument that the ownership of property should give you unfettered ability to do whatever you want falls apart. If the person next door wants to run a private, non-commercial meat processing plant (abattoir) then I think it's fair to object. If they wanted to setup a rifle range that ran throughout the day and night, this would also be a valid objection. Or more likely, if they were hoarders who cause a health hazard to neighbouring properties, then they eventually don't have the right to unfettered freedom at the expense of everyone else in the community. Case in point: in Bondi, Sydney there was a case where a family of hoarders caused such problems that there was a massive health risk to the entire suburb. They were forced to allow the council to cleanup their home.[1] That is fair enough. In any society, individual rights are important. However, there is a limit, even to holding property. There must be some controls over what you can do on your private property to ensure that the greater community is not adversely affected. 1. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/bobolas-family-member-arrested-at-her-bondi-hoarder-house-before-latest-courtordered-clean-up/news-story/25e31be8159464bcbd9ab01e94f9aeba http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/bobolas...
- ancap 10y agoThe problems you raise are all solved by the theory of homesteading. No additional regulations or zoning laws necessary.
- chris_wot 10y agoHow does it solve the problem? I had to look up the theory on Wikipedia and I don't follow how it resolves the issues I raise.
- ancap 10y agoRegarding the meat packing plant, I'm not really sure what the objection is so I'll have to let you explain why someone might object to it. Do they put off some smell? Make a lot of noise? In both of those cases the smell or the noise would be seen as a trespass onto the neighbors' properties. The rifle range is the same story. The new noise would be considered a trespass on existing neighbor's properties. Regarding the hoarders, whatever the thing threatening neighboring properties (rodents, smells, diseases) would be considered a trespass. Once someone has legitimate claim upon a property, they have the right to enjoy that property in the manner in which they obtained it. A lot of the protections of enjoyment of property that people seek through additional legislation would be built in if the laws held greater respect for property rights to begin with.
- recoil 10y agoThe other useful term I've heard for these people is BANANAs - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.