3 ms·

The credits on the YIMBY protest photo in this article are given to Housing Rights Committee: https://shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/yimbys-friend-foe-or-chaos-ag

The credits on the YIMBY protest photo in this article are given to Housing Rights Committee: https://shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/yimbys-friend-foe-or-chaos-agent/ https://shelterforce.org/2019/02/19/yimbys-friend-foe-or-cha... You may wish to do more research on their alignment before declaring them NIMBY.

chimeracoder 7y ago
> You may wish to do more research on their alignment before declaring them NIMBY. They're not exactly NIMBY, but also not exactly YIMBY. They opposed SB50, which was the most ambitious measure to allow new housing construction in San Francisco, and they're apparently known for objecting to other developments to build affordable housing (generally because any new development in a city means displacing or impacting at least a few people).
- Scaevolus 7y ago
  The NIMBY trolley problem: better to do nothing and allow 5 people to become homeless than to approve a new development that displaces 1 person.
dcolkitt 7y ago
My understanding is that HRC broadly opposes the construction of any higher-end housing. Effectively that's a NIMBY position. In American history new housing construction has almost always been "high-end". The way housing becomes affordable is that high-end new construction displaces demand for yesteryear's construction turning it into mid-end housing. Which then in turn displaces demand for the previous mid-tier which now becomes low-tier affordable housing. In effect rich consumers subsidize poor consumers by insisting on continuously replenishing the housing supply with new modern housing conforming to the latest hip trends in architecture and design. The car market is a very good example of how this works absent arbitrary supply constraints. Arguably the used car market is the biggest single vector of wealth redistribution in America. The poor benefit from a massive oversupply of cheap but reliable used cars, because the rich insist on getting a new car every two years. HRC refuses to acknowledge this dynamic. So they may be "YIMBY" in the sense of having some sort of vision about new construction. But that vision, mass construction of new affordable housing, is completely unviable. That makes them YIMBY in principles, but NIMBY for all practical intents and purposes
- gowld 7y ago
  There aren't that many cheap used cars. Reliable uses cars hold their value, and resale adds transaction costs (especially when going through a dealer) including the nefarious sales tax that regressively taxes goods on every transfer.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  NIMBY is defined by the objection to housing only when it's in one's own backyard, and otherwise being perfectly happy to see it constructed elsewhere. You describe HRC as opposing the the construction of high-end housing regardless of location — thus, whatever else it may or may not be, it certainly isn't NIMBY. (The outcome may end up being that not enough housing is built, and that's of course terrible, but that's still not NIMBY, nor is it NIMBY-ism. It's some other form of idealism that isn't derived from the NIMBY principles.)
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >In American history new housing construction has almost always been "high-end". Anecdotally this is the case right now here in central Indiana. Fiance and I are starting to look for a house, we can get something 20-50 years old for 150-180k or the new construction physically across the street with the same square footage (and much smaller yards) is starting around 200k headed well past 300k (because, apparently, fancy counter tops and stainless appliances are worth an extra 100k eyeroll). There's a half dozen new additions going in where we're looking and the cost for a tiny 1 bedroom house will get you 2-3 bedroom house with 0.25-0.5 acres within a 1/2 mile drive door to door purely because of all of the 'features' which are almost entirely cosmetic.

chimeracoder 7y ago

> You may wish to do more research on their alignment before declaring them NIMBY. They're not exactly NIMBY, but also not exactly YIMBY. They opposed SB50, which was the most ambitious measure to allow new housing construction in San Francisco, and they're apparently known for objecting to other developments to build affordable housing (generally because any new development in a city means displacing or impacting at least a few people).

Scaevolus 7y ago
The NIMBY trolley problem: better to do nothing and allow 5 people to become homeless than to approve a new development that displaces 1 person.

dcolkitt 7y ago

My understanding is that HRC broadly opposes the construction of any higher-end housing. Effectively that's a NIMBY position. In American history new housing construction has almost always been "high-end". The way housing becomes affordable is that high-end new construction displaces demand for yesteryear's construction turning it into mid-end housing. Which then in turn displaces demand for the previous mid-tier which now becomes low-tier affordable housing. In effect rich consumers subsidize poor consumers by insisting on continuously replenishing the housing supply with new modern housing conforming to the latest hip trends in architecture and design. The car market is a very good example of how this works absent arbitrary supply constraints. Arguably the used car market is the biggest single vector of wealth redistribution in America. The poor benefit from a massive oversupply of cheap but reliable used cars, because the rich insist on getting a new car every two years. HRC refuses to acknowledge this dynamic. So they may be "YIMBY" in the sense of having some sort of vision about new construction. But that vision, mass construction of new affordable housing, is completely unviable. That makes them YIMBY in principles, but NIMBY for all practical intents and purposes

gowld 7y ago
There aren't that many cheap used cars. Reliable uses cars hold their value, and resale adds transaction costs (especially when going through a dealer) including the nefarious sales tax that regressively taxes goods on every transfer.
floatingatoll 7y ago
NIMBY is defined by the objection to housing only when it's in one's own backyard, and otherwise being perfectly happy to see it constructed elsewhere. You describe HRC as opposing the the construction of high-end housing regardless of location — thus, whatever else it may or may not be, it certainly isn't NIMBY. (The outcome may end up being that not enough housing is built, and that's of course terrible, but that's still not NIMBY, nor is it NIMBY-ism. It's some other form of idealism that isn't derived from the NIMBY principles.)
ryanmercer 7y ago
>In American history new housing construction has almost always been "high-end". Anecdotally this is the case right now here in central Indiana. Fiance and I are starting to look for a house, we can get something 20-50 years old for 150-180k or the new construction physically across the street with the same square footage (and much smaller yards) is starting around 200k headed well past 300k (because, apparently, fancy counter tops and stainless appliances are worth an extra 100k eyeroll). There's a half dozen new additions going in where we're looking and the cost for a tiny 1 bedroom house will get you 2-3 bedroom house with 0.25-0.5 acres within a 1/2 mile drive door to door purely because of all of the 'features' which are almost entirely cosmetic.