7 ms·

I suspect there is a mutual understanding with his constituents that his job is to prevent big new development projects. It explains to me the half-assed talkin

I suspect there is a mutual understanding with his constituents that his job is to prevent big new development projects. It explains to me the half-assed talking point, since almost anything is more palatable than 'the wealth of my constituents depends on restricted housing'.

ryandrake 9y ago
I hate to always be siding with NIMBYs but it's not always about wealthy people's wealth. Can't it also be about families simply not wanting to be stacked and packed into dense urban sardine can housing? As amazing as it sounds, some people like suburban life and not everyone wants their neighborhood to transform into a big city.
- antitouchscreen 9y ago
  Those should move to the actual suburbs then.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Why? Moving is expensive, stressful, and potentially fraught with risks as any major change in life can be. You do that, all while knowing with certainty that of the 7+ billion on Earth, few would move to accommodate you. So why? Out of the unrequited goodness of your heart?
    - closeparen 9y ago
      Because a higher level of government recognizes that maintaining your neighbors’ lots exactly as they are in perpetuity is destructive to society as a whole.
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        Right, and it’s an adversarial process between that higher level of government, and local interests. What you’re suggesting is akin to asking people to forgoe the use of an attorney during criminal proceedings. The idea is that competing interests can find compromise where necessary, or at least that the adversarial nature of the process is preferable to alternatives.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Having apartment buildings along transit corridors in your neighborhood is really nothing like being convicted of a crime. The right to due process protects you from imprisonment, not neighborhood change.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Moving to the suburbs is not enough. These fights are often about developers wanting to roll into existing suburban areas and stacking dense housing in them.
- sidlls 9y ago
  There is plenty of space in California for low density suburban style housing. That space should be far away from mass transit.
- rayiner 9y ago
  If you don’t want to live in the big city, go live in the suburbs. If you move somewhere and don’t want it to change, then buy the necessary rights from surrounding property owners. What NIMBY’s do is to use government coercion to prevent property developers from doing what they want with their property. Now, I’m not one of those “no government men,” and I think government coercion and impairment of property rights is appropriate to protect civil rights or the environment, etc. But homeowner’s aesthetic preferences? Give me a break! It’s an illegitimate use of the government’s monopoly on violence.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Most repliers are missing the point. I'm not arguing for turning the city into suburbs. Nobody is arguing for this, I'm arguing against turning the suburbs into a city, which is what most of these development fights are about. Say I like suburbs. I move into a suburb. I expect a suburban life when I do that. My neighbors expect a suburban life. Now developers want to roll in and stack apartment buildings all over the place. If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. I'll turn the argument around. If you want to pack yourselves into cities, go move into cities. Go build more dense apartments in the cities. Why are the aesthetic preferences of suburban dwellers invalid and the aesthetic preferences of city dwellers valid?
    - harryh 9y ago
      If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. Yes, exactly. You are putting your aesthetic preferences above the property rights of landowners to do what they want with their own property as well as the ability of other people to find affordable housing. You're also (in most cases) using the power of the state to push up the value of your home and put money in your pocket. This isn't really up for debate. That is literally what you are doing (in this theoretical scenario). Now, maybe doing that is good. Maybe that is ok. Maybe those values are fine. But you have to confront the reality here. Why are the aesthetic preferences of suburban dwellers invalid and the aesthetic preferences of city dwellers valid? The aesthetic preferences of no one are valid. If someone wants to buy a plot of land in the middle of NYC and build a single family home on it they are free to do so as long as they have the cash.
- epistasis 9y ago
  You misunderstand, nobody is being asked to relocate from their homes. What's being asked is to be allowed to build density. Some people don't want to live "like sardines" and that's just great. What's not great is those people deciding how everybody else has to live.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  It's sort of like those arguments against gay marriage: why should we allow it, I don't want to forced to be in a gay marriage!
  - ntuaeo09 9y ago
    That's the stupidest straw man I've heard in a while. The argument was not, "why should we allow it? I don't want to live in that kind of housing!" The argument is that that kind of housing affects the housing around it by increasing noise, traffic, blocking out the sky, etc., and has its own set of problems (increased likelihood of spreading disease when people live more closely together, for example). We can argue the merits of any given argument, but you've just made up an argument to argue against and it's completely false.
    - jonny_eh 9y ago
      It's like being against gay marriage because you'll be forced to see gay people happy.
    - nerfhammer 9y ago
      Read OP again: "Can't it also be about families simply not wanting to be stacked and packed into dense urban sardine can housing?" Who is doing the "stacking and packing" in that sentence? Who is forcing anyone to live in an apartment building? OP seems to believe that anyone living in an apartment was taken and put there. Does OP find it so literally impossible to imagine that anyone might not share his over-the-top, grandiose disgust for apartments?
      - ryandrake 9y ago
        Nope, but if enough people do share it, they should be able to elect a local government that will help to keep them out. Just like if the people in a neighborhood find pig farms to be stinky, they should be allowed to, through zoning, keep a property owner from building a pig farm next door.
        9y ago
- closeparen 9y ago
  Sustaining that charmed suburban life in booming metros requires making everyone else mega-commute or stay underemployed in more stagnant areas. People who have already “made it” are not the only ones whose well-being matters. A mid-rise next door is not going to hurt you anything like a 2-hour commute or turning down a dream job hurts someone else.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > A mid-rise next door is not going to hurt you anything like a 2-hour commute or turning down a dream job hurts someone else. If it's displacing your access to transit, it may hurt you exactly like a 2 hour commute hurts someone else.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit. High density that, as some have suggested in this thread, displaces parking access to the transit, prevents people not in the new high-density development who previously used the mass transit from accessing it; it might (or might not) induce, with the long lead time that major capital improvements have, projects which provide new infrastructure and access to replace what is lost, but that's likely a decade or longer delay after the negative impact to, maybe, get back to status quo ante for those adversely affected. Of course, that optimisticallty, assumes that there isn't an active political move to prevent transit access to those not in high-density developments, an agenda which some in this thread supporting the new bill have endorsed.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Communities whose voters highly value parking should feel free to acquire sites and provide it at public expense. I’m very glad that Berkeley does downtown, for example.
- megy 9y ago
  I understand what you are saying, you buy into a location because you like that location. People do a lot of research before they move. Then it start changing right before your eyes. But part of living in a city and society is that things change. One of the things that needs to change is higher density housing, located around travel hubs.

ryandrake 9y ago

I hate to always be siding with NIMBYs but it's not always about wealthy people's wealth. Can't it also be about families simply not wanting to be stacked and packed into dense urban sardine can housing? As amazing as it sounds, some people like suburban life and not everyone wants their neighborhood to transform into a big city.

antitouchscreen 9y ago
Those should move to the actual suburbs then.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Why? Moving is expensive, stressful, and potentially fraught with risks as any major change in life can be. You do that, all while knowing with certainty that of the 7+ billion on Earth, few would move to accommodate you. So why? Out of the unrequited goodness of your heart?
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Because a higher level of government recognizes that maintaining your neighbors’ lots exactly as they are in perpetuity is destructive to society as a whole.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Right, and it’s an adversarial process between that higher level of government, and local interests. What you’re suggesting is akin to asking people to forgoe the use of an attorney during criminal proceedings. The idea is that competing interests can find compromise where necessary, or at least that the adversarial nature of the process is preferable to alternatives.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Having apartment buildings along transit corridors in your neighborhood is really nothing like being convicted of a crime. The right to due process protects you from imprisonment, not neighborhood change.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Moving to the suburbs is not enough. These fights are often about developers wanting to roll into existing suburban areas and stacking dense housing in them.
sidlls 9y ago
There is plenty of space in California for low density suburban style housing. That space should be far away from mass transit.
rayiner 9y ago
If you don’t want to live in the big city, go live in the suburbs. If you move somewhere and don’t want it to change, then buy the necessary rights from surrounding property owners. What NIMBY’s do is to use government coercion to prevent property developers from doing what they want with their property. Now, I’m not one of those “no government men,” and I think government coercion and impairment of property rights is appropriate to protect civil rights or the environment, etc. But homeowner’s aesthetic preferences? Give me a break! It’s an illegitimate use of the government’s monopoly on violence.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Most repliers are missing the point. I'm not arguing for turning the city into suburbs. Nobody is arguing for this, I'm arguing against turning the suburbs into a city, which is what most of these development fights are about. Say I like suburbs. I move into a suburb. I expect a suburban life when I do that. My neighbors expect a suburban life. Now developers want to roll in and stack apartment buildings all over the place. If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. I'll turn the argument around. If you want to pack yourselves into cities, go move into cities. Go build more dense apartments in the cities. Why are the aesthetic preferences of suburban dwellers invalid and the aesthetic preferences of city dwellers valid?
  - harryh 9y ago
    If we argue against this, we're apparently terrible NIMBYs, opponents of affordable housing and stooges of the wealthy landed elite. Yes, exactly. You are putting your aesthetic preferences above the property rights of landowners to do what they want with their own property as well as the ability of other people to find affordable housing. You're also (in most cases) using the power of the state to push up the value of your home and put money in your pocket. This isn't really up for debate. That is literally what you are doing (in this theoretical scenario). Now, maybe doing that is good. Maybe that is ok. Maybe those values are fine. But you have to confront the reality here. Why are the aesthetic preferences of suburban dwellers invalid and the aesthetic preferences of city dwellers valid? The aesthetic preferences of no one are valid. If someone wants to buy a plot of land in the middle of NYC and build a single family home on it they are free to do so as long as they have the cash.
epistasis 9y ago
You misunderstand, nobody is being asked to relocate from their homes. What's being asked is to be allowed to build density. Some people don't want to live "like sardines" and that's just great. What's not great is those people deciding how everybody else has to live.
nerfhammer 9y ago
It's sort of like those arguments against gay marriage: why should we allow it, I don't want to forced to be in a gay marriage!
- ntuaeo09 9y ago
  That's the stupidest straw man I've heard in a while. The argument was not, "why should we allow it? I don't want to live in that kind of housing!" The argument is that that kind of housing affects the housing around it by increasing noise, traffic, blocking out the sky, etc., and has its own set of problems (increased likelihood of spreading disease when people live more closely together, for example). We can argue the merits of any given argument, but you've just made up an argument to argue against and it's completely false.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    It's like being against gay marriage because you'll be forced to see gay people happy.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    Read OP again: "Can't it also be about families simply not wanting to be stacked and packed into dense urban sardine can housing?" Who is doing the "stacking and packing" in that sentence? Who is forcing anyone to live in an apartment building? OP seems to believe that anyone living in an apartment was taken and put there. Does OP find it so literally impossible to imagine that anyone might not share his over-the-top, grandiose disgust for apartments?
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      Nope, but if enough people do share it, they should be able to elect a local government that will help to keep them out. Just like if the people in a neighborhood find pig farms to be stinky, they should be allowed to, through zoning, keep a property owner from building a pig farm next door.
      - 9y ago
closeparen 9y ago
Sustaining that charmed suburban life in booming metros requires making everyone else mega-commute or stay underemployed in more stagnant areas. People who have already “made it” are not the only ones whose well-being matters. A mid-rise next door is not going to hurt you anything like a 2-hour commute or turning down a dream job hurts someone else.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > A mid-rise next door is not going to hurt you anything like a 2-hour commute or turning down a dream job hurts someone else. If it's displacing your access to transit, it may hurt you exactly like a 2 hour commute hurts someone else.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > High density creates the critical mass to support better, faster, and more frequent transit. High density that, as some have suggested in this thread, displaces parking access to the transit, prevents people not in the new high-density development who previously used the mass transit from accessing it; it might (or might not) induce, with the long lead time that major capital improvements have, projects which provide new infrastructure and access to replace what is lost, but that's likely a decade or longer delay after the negative impact to, maybe, get back to status quo ante for those adversely affected. Of course, that optimisticallty, assumes that there isn't an active political move to prevent transit access to those not in high-density developments, an agenda which some in this thread supporting the new bill have endorsed.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Communities whose voters highly value parking should feel free to acquire sites and provide it at public expense. I’m very glad that Berkeley does downtown, for example.
megy 9y ago
I understand what you are saying, you buy into a location because you like that location. People do a lot of research before they move. Then it start changing right before your eyes. But part of living in a city and society is that things change. One of the things that needs to change is higher density housing, located around travel hubs.