4 ms·

I think arbitrary restrictions on groups that can purchase or lease space in a neighborhood is bad for a free society. I guess people say it depends on what gro

by bko 8y ago

I think arbitrary restrictions on groups that can purchase or lease space in a neighborhood is bad for a free society. I guess people say it depends on what group you're imposing. Now it's Google which you may or may not like, but other groups can be harmed in the future. This is part of the whole NIMBY movement. As long as the group is following laws and zoning restrictions, there should be nothing preventing them from joining a community

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
keiferski 8y ago
I used to agree with you, but considering the fact that San Francisco has gone from “semi-affordable haven for weirdos and off-beat culture” to “single most expensive city in America filled primarily with tech workers and the homeless” in less than 30 years, I don’t any more. Semi-similar situations for lower Manhattan, Paris, East London, ad infinitum. A place can have a unique culture that’s worth maintaining. How to maintain it - I don’t know. But converting everything to MegaCo offices probably isn’t the solution.
- woodpanel 8y ago
  San Francisco is actually a good example of what NIMBYism does. Zoning restrictions and rent controls that are unrivaled in the US did everything to that city you've just stated as things to avoid while attributing them to "MegaCo". The housing market by its nature has a weak flexibility to adapt to new demand. NIMBYism acts like a lever on that inflexibility.
  - keiferski 8y ago
    Building more housing would not suddenly make MegaCo's presence and impact on the culture less noticable in X city.
- de_Selby 8y ago
  Not even 30 years, more like 15.
eropple 8y ago
Nobody is restricting Google from doing anything. They are expressing--in a way that is part of, and frankly should be expected of being a member of, one of those "free societies" you mention--that Google is unwelcome, and no, nobody is obligated to make you feel welcome. There are cases where not making somebody welcome kinda makes you an asshole, but that does not, frankly, apply to anybody who's got a stock ticker symbol. This is "you piss in the pool wherever you go, please stay away from our pool." This isn't NIMBY in any meaningful way and the comparison is downright mendacious.
- bko 8y ago
  > Nobody is restricting Google from doing anything From the article: In September activists occupied the building it was to be located in for several hours. That seems like the activists were preventing them > This is "you piss in the pool wherever you go, please stay away from our pool." This isn't NIMBY in any meaningful way and the comparison is downright mendacious. Saying you do [something I don't like] and I don't want you to do [thing I don't like] in my neighborhood is exactly NIMBY
  - eropple 8y ago
    You realize that Google has billions upon billions of dollars and effectively unlimited weight to throw around, yes? A few protestors hanging out in a building does not prevent them from doing anything they want to. They have run the numbers and presumably realized that having your neighbors not want you there is not worth the PR hit of doing it--but literally nobody is stopping it from happening. This poor-benighted-Google thing is gross. These companies are not on anyone's side.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > Saying you do [something I don't like] and I don't want you to do [thing I don't like] in my neighborhood is exactly NIMBY No, that's most definitely not NIMBY. NIMBY means you support something when it's farther away but oppose it happening close to you. It stands for "not in my backyard", not "not in any backyard".
urschrei 8y ago
Resistance from a community is not a "restriction", and characterising this as NIMBYism would be intellectually dishonest if it weren't so ridiculous. Google is not a group, it's a vastly wealthy and powerful corporate entity, and objecting to its presence in a community is not a slippery slope or precedent-setting in the sense which you (again, preposterously) imply.
jplayer01 8y ago
The idea of a "free society" is a myth. Something perpetuated by neo-liberals who think all that matters is absolute freedom and money. News flash: Culture matters. At least, it matters to people whose only interest is not money.

by bko 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

keiferski 8y ago

I used to agree with you, but considering the fact that San Francisco has gone from “semi-affordable haven for weirdos and off-beat culture” to “single most expensive city in America filled primarily with tech workers and the homeless” in less than 30 years, I don’t any more. Semi-similar situations for lower Manhattan, Paris, East London, ad infinitum. A place can have a unique culture that’s worth maintaining. How to maintain it - I don’t know. But converting everything to MegaCo offices probably isn’t the solution.

woodpanel 8y ago
San Francisco is actually a good example of what NIMBYism does. Zoning restrictions and rent controls that are unrivaled in the US did everything to that city you've just stated as things to avoid while attributing them to "MegaCo". The housing market by its nature has a weak flexibility to adapt to new demand. NIMBYism acts like a lever on that inflexibility.
- keiferski 8y ago
  Building more housing would not suddenly make MegaCo's presence and impact on the culture less noticable in X city.
de_Selby 8y ago
Not even 30 years, more like 15.

eropple 8y ago

Nobody is restricting Google from doing anything. They are expressing--in a way that is part of, and frankly should be expected of being a member of, one of those "free societies" you mention--that Google is unwelcome, and no, nobody is obligated to make you feel welcome. There are cases where not making somebody welcome kinda makes you an asshole, but that does not, frankly, apply to anybody who's got a stock ticker symbol. This is "you piss in the pool wherever you go, please stay away from our pool." This isn't NIMBY in any meaningful way and the comparison is downright mendacious.

bko 8y ago
> Nobody is restricting Google from doing anything From the article: In September activists occupied the building it was to be located in for several hours. That seems like the activists were preventing them > This is "you piss in the pool wherever you go, please stay away from our pool." This isn't NIMBY in any meaningful way and the comparison is downright mendacious. Saying you do [something I don't like] and I don't want you to do [thing I don't like] in my neighborhood is exactly NIMBY
- eropple 8y ago
  You realize that Google has billions upon billions of dollars and effectively unlimited weight to throw around, yes? A few protestors hanging out in a building does not prevent them from doing anything they want to. They have run the numbers and presumably realized that having your neighbors not want you there is not worth the PR hit of doing it--but literally nobody is stopping it from happening. This poor-benighted-Google thing is gross. These companies are not on anyone's side.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > Saying you do [something I don't like] and I don't want you to do [thing I don't like] in my neighborhood is exactly NIMBY No, that's most definitely not NIMBY. NIMBY means you support something when it's farther away but oppose it happening close to you. It stands for "not in my backyard", not "not in any backyard".

urschrei 8y ago

Resistance from a community is not a "restriction", and characterising this as NIMBYism would be intellectually dishonest if it weren't so ridiculous. Google is not a group, it's a vastly wealthy and powerful corporate entity, and objecting to its presence in a community is not a slippery slope or precedent-setting in the sense which you (again, preposterously) imply.

jplayer01 8y ago

The idea of a "free society" is a myth. Something perpetuated by neo-liberals who think all that matters is absolute freedom and money. News flash: Culture matters. At least, it matters to people whose only interest is not money.