5 ms·

> The solution to things changing in a way you don't like is to vote with your feet Or you know, just vote in municipal election or go to cityhall hearings, si

by shados 7y ago

> The solution to things changing in a way you don't like is to vote with your feet Or you know, just vote in municipal election or go to cityhall hearings, since that's how cities work, and that's exactly how people do it. It's not super weird for people living in a city to try and dictate how the city they live in work. Last time I moved cities I ended up having to move 3 times in a row because of unexpected things. Yes, some people can do that without breaking a sweat, but it sure got exhausting. If I lived to 1000, I wouldn't really care, but life is short and there's only so many times you can do life altering changes. If moving was that simple, there wouldn't be so much criticism over people getting displayed by raising housing costs, after all. > 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 Except a NIMBY thinks about "their backyard" for a reason: Who cares about the city's population density. The problem is the 10 story building popping up across the super tiny quiet street because a special permit was issued to override zoning.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Or you know, just vote in municipal election or go to cityhall hearings, since that's how cities work, and that's exactly how people do it. It's not super weird for people living in a city to try and dictate how the city they live in work. The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there but can't afford to and thereby don't get a vote even though they have a stake. So then you get efforts to overrule the cities at the state level and so on, and the outcome of that process is whoever can capture 50%+1 of the votes regardless of your preference as an individual. Whereas if you move to somewhere your preferences are likely to remain satisfied you don't have to worry about any of that. > Last time I moved cities I ended up having to move 3 times in a row because of unexpected things. Moving is work. But so is fighting everybody just so you don't have to. And the people who want to be able to live in the city don't have that option. Moving into the city is what they want, but the housing needed for all of them to do that doesn't exist, so their only option is to cause it to. > Except a NIMBY thinks about "their backyard" for a reason: Who cares about the city's population density. The problem is the 10 story building popping up across the super tiny quiet street because a special permit was issued to override zoning. Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland.
- shados 7y ago
  > Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland. You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. > even though they have a stake A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. The people who want to live there want to live in a city, i.e. a place with ten story apartment buildings. The people who are already there can continue to live there all they like, but if you don't want to live in a city with all that entails then why are you? There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. > A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. Explicitly because you're imposing rules that prohibit them from having those things, even though both they and the owners of the property that could be used to allow them to do that would like to allow it. > I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so. There is a clause in the US Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It's used as an excuse for them to regulate everything under the sun, but its purpose is to deal with conflicts between regions. If Texas has a bunch of oil companies and wants to enact protectionist rules to impede the rise of electric cars, there is a national interest in preventing them from doing that. It's no different between cities and towns. Everybody wants protectionist policies that benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else, but those policies are net negative for society and the people you're screwing over have every right to try to stop you.

by shados 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Or you know, just vote in municipal election or go to cityhall hearings, since that's how cities work, and that's exactly how people do it. It's not super weird for people living in a city to try and dictate how the city they live in work. The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there but can't afford to and thereby don't get a vote even though they have a stake. So then you get efforts to overrule the cities at the state level and so on, and the outcome of that process is whoever can capture 50%+1 of the votes regardless of your preference as an individual. Whereas if you move to somewhere your preferences are likely to remain satisfied you don't have to worry about any of that. > Last time I moved cities I ended up having to move 3 times in a row because of unexpected things. Moving is work. But so is fighting everybody just so you don't have to. And the people who want to be able to live in the city don't have that option. Moving into the city is what they want, but the housing needed for all of them to do that doesn't exist, so their only option is to cause it to. > Except a NIMBY thinks about "their backyard" for a reason: Who cares about the city's population density. The problem is the 10 story building popping up across the super tiny quiet street because a special permit was issued to override zoning. Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland.

shados 7y ago
> Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland. You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. > even though they have a stake A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. The people who want to live there want to live in a city, i.e. a place with ten story apartment buildings. The people who are already there can continue to live there all they like, but if you don't want to live in a city with all that entails then why are you? There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. > A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. Explicitly because you're imposing rules that prohibit them from having those things, even though both they and the owners of the property that could be used to allow them to do that would like to allow it. > I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so. There is a clause in the US Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It's used as an excuse for them to regulate everything under the sun, but its purpose is to deal with conflicts between regions. If Texas has a bunch of oil companies and wants to enact protectionist rules to impede the rise of electric cars, there is a national interest in preventing them from doing that. It's no different between cities and towns. Everybody wants protectionist policies that benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else, but those policies are net negative for society and the people you're screwing over have every right to try to stop you.