5 ms·

People choose to buy in neighborhoods they like (if they have a choice). It doesn’t make them cynical schemers if they then don’t want the neighborhood to chan

People choose to buy in neighborhoods they like (if they have a choice). It doesn’t make them cynical schemers if they then don’t want the neighborhood to change.

romed 8y ago
Is there another part of the market where you apply this twisted reasoning? I thought 1992 was a pretty good year for Japanese sports cars. I think building new cars after 1992 should have been illegal. We can keep 1992 cars affordable through price controls.
- api 8y ago
  That's the best analogy to NIMBY housing policy I've ever read.
  - megablast 8y ago
    That says more about you than the analogy.
- trevelyan 8y ago
  Bad analogy. A 1992 car does not change when new models are released to others. But changes to neighbourhoods from increased density can be negative to quality of life, such as having a quiet road suddenly become a connector road for large amounts of commuter traffic (kids no longer playing outside), or schools get overcrowded, or there is standing-room only on the subway for a long commute into town.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Traffic is a consequence of segregated uses and insufficient density. Densification is how a quiet residential neighborhood might come to support pedestrian life, service its resident’s need without making them get on a collector road, fund additional public transit capacity, etc. Some mid-rise condos down the block are far better than another suburban subdivision a few miles down the road, as traffic goes.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      What about all the people who would prefer lower density over all those other things that you mention?
      - kspaans 8y ago
        The problem is that due to the way most property taxes and house prices work those people are getting a free ride off of the prosperity of the city: a tragedy of the commons. Assuming this quiet neighbourhood is near an urban area with nice jobs/schools/amenities etc, the value of the 'hood is created by the network effects of the city. Growth of the city means growth in the value of that 'hood. The people living there usually aren't doing a lot to increase the value of their properties. But as property assessments lag market values, or the way taxes are structures, those owners can see flat costs for their housing while their values rise. Meanwhile by refusing to add density to their neighbourhood they are driving up the costs for others. When they eventually sell or move they get all of the gains in property value all the while having very low carrying costs. If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do. If the market were better organized then their behaviour would be dampened by higher taxes as their property values rise. Owners would then have an economic choice: resist density in your 'hood and pay more for that privilege, move somewhere cheaper, or allow more density which will keep costs flat.
        int_19h 8y ago
        > If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do. Well, I did move out to a smaller town, pretty much as far away from the regional megapolis as I could while still being within reach of its metro area. But it seems that demand for "moving out" is such that it turns small towns into big towns pretty quickly, which kinda defeats the purpose. I'm not opposed to paying higher property taxes to keep the neighborhood low-density, but it's not like we even get that option.
        8y ago
nate_meurer 8y ago
The nature of a NIMBY is to label any change as bad, regardless of the benefits to other people. If that isn't cynical, I don't know what is. Would you defend segregationists, who tried desperately to preserve the racial makeup of their neighborhoods, schools, and buses? It's a rhetorical question of course -- I know you would not. My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes. There's no reason our civil society has to put up with with this nonsense.
- dcow 8y ago
  Just because a certain principle can be used destructively does not mean the principle itself is flawed.
  - nate_meurer 8y ago
    That's kind of a strange thing to say. I'd argue it's clearly not true in this case. Do you disagree? Can you maybe explain why?
    - dcow 8y ago
      I read your comment as arguing that people who structure their social systems based on conservative principles e.g. we like our neighborhood a certain way so we resist rapid change (barring explicit racism, of course) are a tax on society. I agree with your example and agree that people wanting an explicitly racially segregated community are cynical and racist. But an similarly conservatively principled person may simply prefer a low-density lifestyle and act in ways that resist change for that reason. There may even be scenarios where we can look back and correlate responsible, well meaning, application of certain principles with undesirable social trends, but I don't think that alone invalidates the principle. I don't know if I misread your comment, but it was odd to see a broad critique on conservatives and their principles: > My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes. I could use plenty of sound logic to defend despicable causes, but fact that the cause is despicable does not alone invalidate the logic if the logic is sound. When sound logic argues for despicable things (which it often does) we introduce ethics and morality to judge whether we should actually act on the logical conclusion. I think a better way to phrase your comment would be, "We shouldn't have to put up with despicable causes, period". I'm being a little pedantic, yes.

People choose to buy in neighborhoods they like (if they have a choice). It doesn’t make them cynical schemers if they then don’t want the neighborhood to change.

romed 8y ago

Is there another part of the market where you apply this twisted reasoning? I thought 1992 was a pretty good year for Japanese sports cars. I think building new cars after 1992 should have been illegal. We can keep 1992 cars affordable through price controls.

api 8y ago
That's the best analogy to NIMBY housing policy I've ever read.
- megablast 8y ago
  That says more about you than the analogy.
trevelyan 8y ago
Bad analogy. A 1992 car does not change when new models are released to others. But changes to neighbourhoods from increased density can be negative to quality of life, such as having a quiet road suddenly become a connector road for large amounts of commuter traffic (kids no longer playing outside), or schools get overcrowded, or there is standing-room only on the subway for a long commute into town.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Traffic is a consequence of segregated uses and insufficient density. Densification is how a quiet residential neighborhood might come to support pedestrian life, service its resident’s need without making them get on a collector road, fund additional public transit capacity, etc. Some mid-rise condos down the block are far better than another suburban subdivision a few miles down the road, as traffic goes.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    What about all the people who would prefer lower density over all those other things that you mention?
    - kspaans 8y ago
      The problem is that due to the way most property taxes and house prices work those people are getting a free ride off of the prosperity of the city: a tragedy of the commons. Assuming this quiet neighbourhood is near an urban area with nice jobs/schools/amenities etc, the value of the 'hood is created by the network effects of the city. Growth of the city means growth in the value of that 'hood. The people living there usually aren't doing a lot to increase the value of their properties. But as property assessments lag market values, or the way taxes are structures, those owners can see flat costs for their housing while their values rise. Meanwhile by refusing to add density to their neighbourhood they are driving up the costs for others. When they eventually sell or move they get all of the gains in property value all the while having very low carrying costs. If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do. If the market were better organized then their behaviour would be dampened by higher taxes as their property values rise. Owners would then have an economic choice: resist density in your 'hood and pay more for that privilege, move somewhere cheaper, or allow more density which will keep costs flat.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        > If they wanted a quiet neighbourhood they could move to a smaller town or further out from the city centre, but I don't think they do. Well, I did move out to a smaller town, pretty much as far away from the regional megapolis as I could while still being within reach of its metro area. But it seems that demand for "moving out" is such that it turns small towns into big towns pretty quickly, which kinda defeats the purpose. I'm not opposed to paying higher property taxes to keep the neighborhood low-density, but it's not like we even get that option.
        8y ago

nate_meurer 8y ago

The nature of a NIMBY is to label any change as bad, regardless of the benefits to other people. If that isn't cynical, I don't know what is. Would you defend segregationists, who tried desperately to preserve the racial makeup of their neighborhoods, schools, and buses? It's a rhetorical question of course -- I know you would not. My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes. There's no reason our civil society has to put up with with this nonsense.

dcow 8y ago
Just because a certain principle can be used destructively does not mean the principle itself is flawed.
- nate_meurer 8y ago
  That's kind of a strange thing to say. I'd argue it's clearly not true in this case. Do you disagree? Can you maybe explain why?
  - dcow 8y ago
    I read your comment as arguing that people who structure their social systems based on conservative principles e.g. we like our neighborhood a certain way so we resist rapid change (barring explicit racism, of course) are a tax on society. I agree with your example and agree that people wanting an explicitly racially segregated community are cynical and racist. But an similarly conservatively principled person may simply prefer a low-density lifestyle and act in ways that resist change for that reason. There may even be scenarios where we can look back and correlate responsible, well meaning, application of certain principles with undesirable social trends, but I don't think that alone invalidates the principle. I don't know if I misread your comment, but it was odd to see a broad critique on conservatives and their principles: > My point is just that your logic can be (and is) used to defend any number of despicable causes. I could use plenty of sound logic to defend despicable causes, but fact that the cause is despicable does not alone invalidate the logic if the logic is sound. When sound logic argues for despicable things (which it often does) we introduce ethics and morality to judge whether we should actually act on the logical conclusion. I think a better way to phrase your comment would be, "We shouldn't have to put up with despicable causes, period". I'm being a little pedantic, yes.