6 ms·

Usually the opposition to density is just cloaked in environmentalism. When it comes down to it, these are individuals who don't want outsiders moving their co

Usually the opposition to density is just cloaked in environmentalism. When it comes down to it, these are individuals who don't want outsiders moving their community, or new units driving down the explosive growth in property values they have experienced. As usual, it is just greedy people wanting more.

holy_city 7y ago
As a carpetbagger in Southern California, I totally understand the resistance to people like myself moving in. It's not greedy to wish you could maintain the same standard of living and advocate for policies that protect it. It may be unrealistic and have huge costs, but it's not malicious. I'd hate it if I moved into my neighborhood 15 years ago in a low density unit or single family home, and now have to deal with nonstop construction, noise, traffic, and general overcrowding as people keep moving in, property taxes/rents go up, and wages stay the same.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tsss 7y ago
Or maybe they just don't want more density. You talk like there's only upsides to high-density cities but the people who are living there right now might not be amused about more people, more cramped spaces, more noise and pollution. You can call it greed but it is, as a matter of fact, a downgrade in quality of life for most of the residents.
- nerfhammer 7y ago
  No one ever called NIMBYs irrational, it's just that when they always win shortages just get worse and worse and worse
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  In order to save humanity we ALL need to downgrade the quality of our lives. That's exactly the point.
  - davidw 7y ago
    What's odd is that tons of Americans spend a whole bundle of money every year to go to Europe, and talk about how great it is. Having lived there for a number of years, it's just different, really, and certainly not "worse" than the US, if you're an adaptable person. Our rental here in the US has a massive front lawn that is a complete waste of land and water - to keep the stupid lawn that no one ever, ever uses green. It has a big back yard too. Our kids like it, but to be honest, I think they preferred the situation in Italy, where we had no yard, but a park close by where they'd often find friends to play with.
    - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
      Even Europe lives at unsustainable levels. The impoverished world wants better lives too. There's no way the west can continue to grow consumption. The world will run out of trees.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Or maybe they just don't want more density. Which is a fine thing to want -- so go live somewhere that occurs naturally without regulatory restrictions. There are plenty of areas in the US, or even within California, with low and medium density that require no artificial restrictions to keep them that way.
  - shados 7y ago
    The thing is somewhere that occurs naturally could change tomorrow. I live in a quiet dead end by a small park with nothing interesting near by. Or well, nothing USED to be interesting near by. A small family shop around the corner sold their lot and a giant apartment building via special permit is replacing it, and with it a bunch of other conversions around happened, all in the span of a few MONTHS. And now it's a permanent construction zone and heavy traffic. No one would have guessed that was going to happen. The area was a freagin slum with no one wanting to touch it with a stick until then. Until we (and people like us) decided to make it nicer. Often with our own money. Some people definitely care about their property value and generally use their house as an investment and a retirement plan. A heck of a lot of people just want to be able to keep sleeping at night. Short of buying a lot in the middle of nowhere, it's ALWAYS going to be a gamble, and its pretty natural to expect it not too change too much if there's no indication it will. I'll give you that if you buy a single family in SF today and think it's going to stay that way, you're pretty silly. But it was well within my lifetime/adulthood where it wasn't that crazy an idea.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > The thing is somewhere that occurs naturally could change tomorrow. So could a million other things. The local government could become corrupt and raise taxes while cutting services to divert money to cronies, leaving you in the middle of a violent slum with a high unemployment rate. Your employer could move its offices thirty miles further from where you live. Climate change could put your whole town underwater. The solution to things changing in a way you don't like is to vote with your feet. And at least in this case you're effectively being compensated for it, because an area that is being developed will cause your land to be worth more. Some developer will pay you a lot of money to put up more apartments or condos where you are, and then you have all that money to go somewhere else -- where the land will generally be less expensive, yielding you a nice profit to compensate you for your trouble. You can live in any kind of place you want. You can't expect that place to never change. And predicting this isn't really that hard. I can predict with reasonable certainty that twenty years from now Des Moines will still not have the population density of New York City, and a person making the same prediction twenty years ago would also have been right. San Francisco is the exception, not the rule.

holy_city 7y ago

As a carpetbagger in Southern California, I totally understand the resistance to people like myself moving in. It's not greedy to wish you could maintain the same standard of living and advocate for policies that protect it. It may be unrealistic and have huge costs, but it's not malicious. I'd hate it if I moved into my neighborhood 15 years ago in a low density unit or single family home, and now have to deal with nonstop construction, noise, traffic, and general overcrowding as people keep moving in, property taxes/rents go up, and wages stay the same.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tsss 7y ago

Or maybe they just don't want more density. You talk like there's only upsides to high-density cities but the people who are living there right now might not be amused about more people, more cramped spaces, more noise and pollution. You can call it greed but it is, as a matter of fact, a downgrade in quality of life for most of the residents.

nerfhammer 7y ago
No one ever called NIMBYs irrational, it's just that when they always win shortages just get worse and worse and worse
yeahitslikethat 7y ago
In order to save humanity we ALL need to downgrade the quality of our lives. That's exactly the point.
- davidw 7y ago
  What's odd is that tons of Americans spend a whole bundle of money every year to go to Europe, and talk about how great it is. Having lived there for a number of years, it's just different, really, and certainly not "worse" than the US, if you're an adaptable person. Our rental here in the US has a massive front lawn that is a complete waste of land and water - to keep the stupid lawn that no one ever, ever uses green. It has a big back yard too. Our kids like it, but to be honest, I think they preferred the situation in Italy, where we had no yard, but a park close by where they'd often find friends to play with.
  - yeahitslikethat 7y ago
    Even Europe lives at unsustainable levels. The impoverished world wants better lives too. There's no way the west can continue to grow consumption. The world will run out of trees.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Or maybe they just don't want more density. Which is a fine thing to want -- so go live somewhere that occurs naturally without regulatory restrictions. There are plenty of areas in the US, or even within California, with low and medium density that require no artificial restrictions to keep them that way.
- shados 7y ago
  The thing is somewhere that occurs naturally could change tomorrow. I live in a quiet dead end by a small park with nothing interesting near by. Or well, nothing USED to be interesting near by. A small family shop around the corner sold their lot and a giant apartment building via special permit is replacing it, and with it a bunch of other conversions around happened, all in the span of a few MONTHS. And now it's a permanent construction zone and heavy traffic. No one would have guessed that was going to happen. The area was a freagin slum with no one wanting to touch it with a stick until then. Until we (and people like us) decided to make it nicer. Often with our own money. Some people definitely care about their property value and generally use their house as an investment and a retirement plan. A heck of a lot of people just want to be able to keep sleeping at night. Short of buying a lot in the middle of nowhere, it's ALWAYS going to be a gamble, and its pretty natural to expect it not too change too much if there's no indication it will. I'll give you that if you buy a single family in SF today and think it's going to stay that way, you're pretty silly. But it was well within my lifetime/adulthood where it wasn't that crazy an idea.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > The thing is somewhere that occurs naturally could change tomorrow. So could a million other things. The local government could become corrupt and raise taxes while cutting services to divert money to cronies, leaving you in the middle of a violent slum with a high unemployment rate. Your employer could move its offices thirty miles further from where you live. Climate change could put your whole town underwater. The solution to things changing in a way you don't like is to vote with your feet. And at least in this case you're effectively being compensated for it, because an area that is being developed will cause your land to be worth more. Some developer will pay you a lot of money to put up more apartments or condos where you are, and then you have all that money to go somewhere else -- where the land will generally be less expensive, yielding you a nice profit to compensate you for your trouble. You can live in any kind of place you want. You can't expect that place to never change. And predicting this isn't really that hard. I can predict with reasonable certainty that twenty years from now Des Moines will still not have the population density of New York City, and a person making the same prediction twenty years ago would also have been right. San Francisco is the exception, not the rule.