6 ms·

Folks - please add immigration. Why on earth people don't grasp that when population is increasing mostly due to newcomers it affects housing ... this bothers

Folks - please add immigration. Why on earth people don't grasp that when population is increasing mostly due to newcomers it affects housing ... this bothers me - because it's politicized, nobody can talk about it it seems. Immigration is just a reality, it's part of the equation - it has real effects on housing costs and wages, one can't ignore it because sometimes the answers might not jive with one's politics. So, immigration (or rather, population change, which can include births etc.) - is an important driving factor. Which includes migration between states/regions obviously.

ouid 9y ago
just build more housing.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Not everyone wants to live in a super over-populated / densely populated area... In general, more saturation of humans == more problems. People make fun of NIMBY, but at the end of the day who better to manage the neighborhood than the people who are already invested in it..?
  - OrwellianChild 9y ago
    You wish to extend control of property beyond the borders of what they own outright?
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      But that happens all the time. Neighborhood zoning restrictions, restrictive covenants, homeowner association rules, and so on. So Danihan's position is, de facto, what the situation already is in many instances. So: You wish to not allow any control of property by anyone other than the property owner? Are you sure you really want that?
      - OrwellianChild 9y ago
        You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me think that you've probably found yourself in the majority most of your life. It's worth considering what these systems mean for folks who fall outside of the majority on any of these issues.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        OK, but I don't have to be part of the minority to understand why I don't want my neighbor to be able to tear his house down and replace it with a 7-11, or an oil refinery, or a landfill. Do any of those things throw up red flags for you? I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don't regard opposing a 7-11 on my neighbor's property as "tyranny of the majority" - or at least I regard letting my neighbor freely choose to do those things as "tyranny of the minority", which I regard as worse. Now, obviously you can take this to extremes, and you can get upper-middle-class white-bread cisnormative-with-2.3-kids neighbors who insist that you have to have exactly 2.3 kids or you can't live in the neighborhood. Also, your garage has to be painted the right shade of blue. That's definitely tyranny of the majority, and I agree that it can be oppressive. And I guess opposing a 7-11 next door, or an oil refinery, or a landfill is exactly NIMBY-ism. But I moved into a neighborhood where part of the restrictive covenants said that I couldn't open a convenience store on my lot - because it was going to conflict with the one that they were planning for a block or two away, on the corner of the subdivision. That was known in advance to everyone who bought into (or built in) the subdivision, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with an oil refinery next door, either, if I know it's coming when I buy the property. (I would probably not buy, but if I did, I would know what I was signing up for.) And I didn't have a problem with the neighbor two doors down starting a hair salon in her house, even though I didn't know that was coming when I bought into the neighborhood. There was a mechanism where anyone who had a problem with it had a chance to be heard, though. (I don't know if they could have blocked it, or if someone else got to judge the seriousness of the objection.) TL;DR: I'm not opposed to people being able to do things. I'm opposed to people being able to do things that significantly harm the value of their neighbor's property in ways that the neighbors didn't know was coming at the time they bought the property.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > Not everyone wants to live in a super over-populated / densely populated area... Then don't live in an urban center. That is the nature of cities, and given that land is a scarce, precious resource, it seems perfectly natural to me to not allow property ownership to be absolute and without strings.

ouid 9y ago

just build more housing.

Danihan 9y ago
Not everyone wants to live in a super over-populated / densely populated area... In general, more saturation of humans == more problems. People make fun of NIMBY, but at the end of the day who better to manage the neighborhood than the people who are already invested in it..?
- OrwellianChild 9y ago
  You wish to extend control of property beyond the borders of what they own outright?
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    But that happens all the time. Neighborhood zoning restrictions, restrictive covenants, homeowner association rules, and so on. So Danihan's position is, de facto, what the situation already is in many instances. So: You wish to not allow any control of property by anyone other than the property owner? Are you sure you really want that?
    - OrwellianChild 9y ago
      You just listed the principal agents in the NIMBY crusade, which I suppose it's clear I am in pretty strong opposition to in most cases. Tyranny of the majority is a serious problem in race, class, social, and wealth spectra, and these groups represent that form of tyranny in action. They're great right up until you do something that the majority disagrees with. Not recognizing the red flags this throws up makes me think that you've probably found yourself in the majority most of your life. It's worth considering what these systems mean for folks who fall outside of the majority on any of these issues.
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        OK, but I don't have to be part of the minority to understand why I don't want my neighbor to be able to tear his house down and replace it with a 7-11, or an oil refinery, or a landfill. Do any of those things throw up red flags for you? I mean, sure, it changes the value of my property if my neighbor doesn't keep his bushes neatly trimmed. But there's stuff that he can do that's a lot more serious than that. I don't regard opposing a 7-11 on my neighbor's property as "tyranny of the majority" - or at least I regard letting my neighbor freely choose to do those things as "tyranny of the minority", which I regard as worse. Now, obviously you can take this to extremes, and you can get upper-middle-class white-bread cisnormative-with-2.3-kids neighbors who insist that you have to have exactly 2.3 kids or you can't live in the neighborhood. Also, your garage has to be painted the right shade of blue. That's definitely tyranny of the majority, and I agree that it can be oppressive. And I guess opposing a 7-11 next door, or an oil refinery, or a landfill is exactly NIMBY-ism. But I moved into a neighborhood where part of the restrictive covenants said that I couldn't open a convenience store on my lot - because it was going to conflict with the one that they were planning for a block or two away, on the corner of the subdivision. That was known in advance to everyone who bought into (or built in) the subdivision, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with an oil refinery next door, either, if I know it's coming when I buy the property. (I would probably not buy, but if I did, I would know what I was signing up for.) And I didn't have a problem with the neighbor two doors down starting a hair salon in her house, even though I didn't know that was coming when I bought into the neighborhood. There was a mechanism where anyone who had a problem with it had a chance to be heard, though. (I don't know if they could have blocked it, or if someone else got to judge the seriousness of the objection.) TL;DR: I'm not opposed to people being able to do things. I'm opposed to people being able to do things that significantly harm the value of their neighbor's property in ways that the neighbors didn't know was coming at the time they bought the property.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > Not everyone wants to live in a super over-populated / densely populated area... Then don't live in an urban center. That is the nature of cities, and given that land is a scarce, precious resource, it seems perfectly natural to me to not allow property ownership to be absolute and without strings.