4 ms·

Yeah. If nimbys don't want stuff built, imo they should buy the land themselves. I don't know what happened to property rights in CA.

davidw 9y ago
Somewhere, there are probably some reasonable positions like "it'd be great if they didn't build a fireworks factory right next to my house", but we've gone so far beyond those in the US.
- phil21 9y ago
  We've gone so far we've went into the opposite direction - "it'd be great if there wasn't a fireworks factory next door to the house I'm building". As someone who has spent close to the last decade trying to figure out where to put down "roots" it's utter insanity to me. It's clear as day that one of the most evil parts of American society is tying what is typically far and away your largest "investment" to housing. It creates insanely perverse incentives. It seems to me that most folks have lost their collective minds and forgot the reason we needed housing in the first place.
- dionidium 9y ago
  It's important to see that it's not a mere case of taking an existing principle and extending it too far; it's an entirely new principle. What is NIMBYism? NIMBYism is opposition to necessary structures (that we all want) being built in specific places (e.g. near me). NIMBYism is saying that, while you understand that we need a water treatment plant -- you agree that we should build one -- you want to locate it on the other side of town (i.e. not in my backyard). That's not what this is. This is the desire to limit building entirely. It's the desire to prevent certain areas from growing, getting bigger. It's an opposition to density. It's a reactionary, conservative, nostalgic preference for the past. It's the belief that San Francisco should look like it did on the day you bought your house for the rest of all time. And it's an attempt to lock in enormous housing gains. These are not the same thing. One is not "taking the other too far." It's a totally different thing.
ng12 9y ago
It's really baffling. In NYC you have to put your money where your mouth is and buy airspace rights. For large buildings this usually entails building a public park in the empty space.
afpx 9y ago
Under that logic, if individual property rights are all that matter, you might as well throw out 90% of the San Francisco City code while you’re at it. Like, if your neighbor decides to jackhammer at 2 AM, well, it’s her property.
- lopmotr 9y ago
  That's too extreme an example. Noise restrictions affect what comes into your property so it's fair to have them. Sunlight, views and privacy are more reasonable things to be concerned about. People should be able to buy a guarantee of those things, I think. I suppose they can by putting a covenant on he neighboring properties but most people get them for free so they wouldn't feel it's fair to have to pay just to guarantee it.

davidw 9y ago

Somewhere, there are probably some reasonable positions like "it'd be great if they didn't build a fireworks factory right next to my house", but we've gone so far beyond those in the US.

phil21 9y ago
We've gone so far we've went into the opposite direction - "it'd be great if there wasn't a fireworks factory next door to the house I'm building". As someone who has spent close to the last decade trying to figure out where to put down "roots" it's utter insanity to me. It's clear as day that one of the most evil parts of American society is tying what is typically far and away your largest "investment" to housing. It creates insanely perverse incentives. It seems to me that most folks have lost their collective minds and forgot the reason we needed housing in the first place.
dionidium 9y ago
It's important to see that it's not a mere case of taking an existing principle and extending it too far; it's an entirely new principle. What is NIMBYism? NIMBYism is opposition to necessary structures (that we all want) being built in specific places (e.g. near me). NIMBYism is saying that, while you understand that we need a water treatment plant -- you agree that we should build one -- you want to locate it on the other side of town (i.e. not in my backyard). That's not what this is. This is the desire to limit building entirely. It's the desire to prevent certain areas from growing, getting bigger. It's an opposition to density. It's a reactionary, conservative, nostalgic preference for the past. It's the belief that San Francisco should look like it did on the day you bought your house for the rest of all time. And it's an attempt to lock in enormous housing gains. These are not the same thing. One is not "taking the other too far." It's a totally different thing.

ng12 9y ago

It's really baffling. In NYC you have to put your money where your mouth is and buy airspace rights. For large buildings this usually entails building a public park in the empty space.

afpx 9y ago

Under that logic, if individual property rights are all that matter, you might as well throw out 90% of the San Francisco City code while you’re at it. Like, if your neighbor decides to jackhammer at 2 AM, well, it’s her property.

lopmotr 9y ago
That's too extreme an example. Noise restrictions affect what comes into your property so it's fair to have them. Sunlight, views and privacy are more reasonable things to be concerned about. People should be able to buy a guarantee of those things, I think. I suppose they can by putting a covenant on he neighboring properties but most people get them for free so they wouldn't feel it's fair to have to pay just to guarantee it.