11 ms·

YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

davidw 7y ago
Cache invalidation is hard too. ... woosh .... I guess.
notJim 7y ago
Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- irq11 7y ago
  I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling people names and yelling ”just build, dammit!” will not get you what you want. I think, if you talk to most of these folks, you find that many/most abstractly support the idea that building is required. It’s the specifics where the problems lie, and calling people names doesn’t resolve fundamental issues. This is why the “Yes in your Backyard” line is such a devastating rhetorical criticism: everyone favors development of projects that don’t affect them.
  - XMPPwocky 7y ago
    "not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actually impacts them, well! That particular project is just flawed for various reasons. The general idea is good! But it won't work here. It's the equivalent of the boss who totally supports unions but, you know, a union just wouldn't be right for our particular company culture. So, yeah, "yes in your backyard" is just the original definition of a NIMBY.
    - davidw 7y ago
      This is an issue that actually doesn't align very well on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Most of the YIMBY folks I've met tend towards the liberal end of things, but there are also "market urbanism" groups out there that are fairly libertarian. I've had great conversations with local politicians of all stripes. There are both liberals and conservatives who are very NIMBY. In other words, it's not a very useful way to look at the issue in my opinion.
      - XMPPwocky 7y ago
        Just to clarify- I very much do not mean "liberal" as "the opposite of conservative", here. Trying to map the high-dimensional "vector space" of political views onto a 1D line is very, very lossy, and definitely not useful outside of the very narrow context of general elections in a two-party system.
      - krtong 7y ago
        Thank you. I'm so tired of reddit's influence on this discussion and this tireless effort to frame this discussion as nimby vs yimby, nimby being a pejorative term for local while yimby is a self-aggrandizing term for transplant who wished they had more purchasing power, and is social-media-savvy enough to realize if they want something they better make it sound like an existential crisis.
    - irq11 7y ago
      Yes In Your Backyard is literally everybody. That’s the point. It isn’t ideological. Most folks love the idea of building when it doesn’t affect their own lives! Even most “YIMBY” supporters are actually “Yes In Your Backyard”, because nearly everyone has some local environment they want to protect. Don’t want a pork rendering plant or a sewage treatment center or a strip club next door to your home? Congratulations: you’re a “NIMBY” too! It’s a sophomoric epithet that makes you feel good and superior to fling around, but does nothing to convince people who don’t already agree with you. If you don’t understand this, you are doomed to fail to achieve your goals.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Well of course. It does not surprised me that a wealthy landowner would not want competition, and would not want housing to become more affordable. Just because someone's self interest is rational, does not me that I cannot criticize it. Creating more affordable housing, and lowering rents, is obviously something that some people out there would not want, because they make money from rents being high.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    You're absolutely right. People are rarely self-consciously irrationally opposed to any given proposal to build housing. In theory, it should be possible to address any given rational concern! Too tall? Make it shorter. Not enough public space? Make the area in front of it a parklet! Not enough subsidized housing? More BMR units and a donation to a neighborhood group will solve that one. Doesn't fit with the style or is otherwise ugly? Pay attention and design a building that fits, it's not that hard. Although there might be tricky ones, like maybe the neighbors have been treating the lot as a park and would like to keep it that way or someone is afraid of losing the all-day sun on their backyard garden. Still, all of these should be solvable in principle, right? Again, as you wisely point to, all of these possible concerns are individually eminently reasonable and addressable. Certainly insulting the people who are just trying to keep their homes and communities they way they like it isn't going to win them over! With all that said, might there be problems in aggregate? When people are empowered to throw up essentially arbitrary roadblocks, no matter how reasonable their complaints, the result can be near-infinite stonewalling. This has happened enough that some people have lost trust in the process that enabled good, kind, compassionate people to get their perfectly reasonable concerns addressed. So perhaps there's some room for subtlety here. How do you think YIMBYs should frame things, to avoid the issues you rightly point to?
    - irq11 7y ago
      Well, I think that pretty much anything is more effective than calling people names. But rhetorically, it’s probably a lot more effective to just be honest about what you want: shared sacrifice for lower rents. It’s cynical to call it YIMBY, because a) it mirrors the name-calling, and b) anyone who is intellectually honest knows that YIMBY really means YIYBY for most people. So stop it. Own that you want something that will be at least a little bit painful for everyone. Then sell the positives.
      - Kalium 7y ago
        That's a very helpful insight! Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your positivity and genuineness. In my personal experience, I've often found it to be extremely difficult to sell shared sacrifice to people who are empowered to refuse to share. After all, why can't this building go in some other neighborhood? Away from them? If you're being honest, it probably can. The next neighborhood over will probably have the same question. Also, SF has the wrinkle that a lot of people see building housing as pushing up rents, making the framing you suggest very difficult on multiple counts. Attempting to discuss this with people seldom goes as well as could be hoped. This belief seems to have become totemic, making it functionally impossible to discuss. Perhaps you've had different results than I. I sincerely hope so. I have found name-calling and coherent branding to be pretty effective at providing people a banner to gather under. It doesn't do anything for those it makes into enemies, but it does something for people who might be your allies. When the NIMBYs are already well organized and Californians For Lowering Rent Through Shared Sacrifice isn't, I can see where someone might make that calculation.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    The essence of NIMBYism is wanting to make the value of your own property increase, not by adding any value, but by restricting others from competing with you. That's a net harmful behavior so I think it's fair to describe it as "an evil force to be mocked and dismissed". Kind of like if Google lobbied the government to ban search engines which weren't Google Search. People would see that as evil too.
  - ScottBurson 7y ago
    That's why it's "YIMBY" and not "YIYBY" :-)
fra 7y ago
Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.
- bluGill 7y ago
  If it is only in your backyard it is better for your property value in the long run: eventually someone will offer you a ton of money to replace your house with a large apartment complex. If it is everywhere that can build, than the builders can take whatever property comes up - and because they have to compete with other developers for renters they are likely to build smaller so on both counts property values don't increase as fast.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    That's what I don't understand, increasing density usually means price / sqft for all real estate in the area goes up. I often wonder if the analysis on why people shoot down zoning changes is incorrectly attributed to price or property tax, and is mostly people resisting any change.
    - mertd 7y ago
      Not every NIMBY is motivated by greed. Some just want to stay put, pay property taxes like it's 30 years ago and drive to their favorite burger shack in under five minutes. That particular generation also holds on to the doctrine that density is bad for environment.
      - pc86 7y ago
        There's only a generational correlation because the 80 year old retiree is much more likely to own nice property with low property taxes (if you live in a state that only reassesses at sale) than the 28 year old with a young family. Young couples with money can be just as viciously NIMBY-esque as old couples with money.
    - darawk 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
darksaints 7y ago
Fact: No YIMBY, no matter how powerful, can force you to put something in your back yard. They can allow your neighbor to put something in their back yard. You don't own your neighbor's back yard.
- jellicle 7y ago
  Civilization is a balancing of competing interests. Your rights in your property are enforced by the community, with limits and conditionally. The community which you are asking to enforce for you has interests too.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Fact: NIMBY doesn't refer to literal backyards.
  - darksaints 7y ago
    Of course. Which nullifies any argument about whether it is Yes-in-my-back-yard or yes-in-your-back-yard. You only get to make that distinction if you're talking about your own literal back yard.
    - notJim 7y ago
      I think this comment is accurate just from a logical standpoint. Backyard has two possible meanings here: * Literal backyard: in this case, then maybe one could argue that if we accept the premise[1] that YIMBYs aren't homeowners, then they are in fact arguing about other people's backyards. * Figurative backyard: in this case, then whether someone is a homeowner is irrelevant, because the backyard refers to the general area, shared by all residents. Of course, as we know from this thread, backyard in [N|Y]IMBY refers to the figurative backyard. Therefore, we must reject the argument that people are arguing over other's backyards. [1]: As I argue elsewhere in this thread, I don't think we should accept this premise.
triceratops 7y ago
NIMBY could also be more properly called "I want to control property I don't own"
sidlls 7y ago
People who don’t own property are entitled to the same representation, rights, and political activities as those who do. That includes activism and advocacy for housing that serves all the community and not just homeowners.
avocado4 7y ago
Rent seeking is bad for economy, and is antithetical to a free capitalist society.
rowborg 7y ago
When a developer wanted to build a 5 story condo building on an entire block across the street from the SF property I've owned for the last ten years, many of my neighbors opposed it. I wrote to our building's ownership and told them that we should support that project and that my only question was "can they add a few floors?" Repeal prop 13 and my taxes will go up enormously--and I'll vote for that repeal at any opportunity. Some of us do actually believe that the long term common good is worth sacrificing our own personal short term gain.

Cache invalidation is hard too. ... woosh .... I guess.

Ahh the classic NIMBY move, whether it's homeless folks or just people who want bike lanes: "These people aren't from here!"

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
irq11 7y ago
I’m not a “NIMBY”, but I believe the YIMBY moniker is counter-productive to your cause. It automatically frames the question in a sophomoric way, where the “other side” is an evil force to be mocked and dismissed. In reality, there is no such thing as a “NIMBY”, just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Until and unless you address these interests, calling people names and yelling ”just build, dammit!” will not get you what you want. I think, if you talk to most of these folks, you find that many/most abstractly support the idea that building is required. It’s the specifics where the problems lie, and calling people names doesn’t resolve fundamental issues. This is why the “Yes in your Backyard” line is such a devastating rhetorical criticism: everyone favors development of projects that don’t affect them.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  "not in my backyard" is exactly what you describe- the stereotypical liberal response of "yes, we should build affordable housing, but not HERE, where I live- put it somewhere else, where I'm not affected by them- can you imagine all the crime that the Poors would bring to such a nice area". in other words, virtue-signalling about vague, general principles of increased development...buuut when that development actually impacts them, well! That particular project is just flawed for various reasons. The general idea is good! But it won't work here. It's the equivalent of the boss who totally supports unions but, you know, a union just wouldn't be right for our particular company culture. So, yeah, "yes in your backyard" is just the original definition of a NIMBY.
  - davidw 7y ago
    This is an issue that actually doesn't align very well on the liberal/conservative spectrum. Most of the YIMBY folks I've met tend towards the liberal end of things, but there are also "market urbanism" groups out there that are fairly libertarian. I've had great conversations with local politicians of all stripes. There are both liberals and conservatives who are very NIMBY. In other words, it's not a very useful way to look at the issue in my opinion.
    - XMPPwocky 7y ago
      Just to clarify- I very much do not mean "liberal" as "the opposite of conservative", here. Trying to map the high-dimensional "vector space" of political views onto a 1D line is very, very lossy, and definitely not useful outside of the very narrow context of general elections in a two-party system.
    - krtong 7y ago
      Thank you. I'm so tired of reddit's influence on this discussion and this tireless effort to frame this discussion as nimby vs yimby, nimby being a pejorative term for local while yimby is a self-aggrandizing term for transplant who wished they had more purchasing power, and is social-media-savvy enough to realize if they want something they better make it sound like an existential crisis.
  - irq11 7y ago
    Yes In Your Backyard is literally everybody. That’s the point. It isn’t ideological. Most folks love the idea of building when it doesn’t affect their own lives! Even most “YIMBY” supporters are actually “Yes In Your Backyard”, because nearly everyone has some local environment they want to protect. Don’t want a pork rendering plant or a sewage treatment center or a strip club next door to your home? Congratulations: you’re a “NIMBY” too! It’s a sophomoric epithet that makes you feel good and superior to fling around, but does nothing to convince people who don’t already agree with you. If you don’t understand this, you are doomed to fail to achieve your goals.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
- stale2002 7y ago
  > just a collection of people with differing - often rational - interests concerning any given project. Well of course. It does not surprised me that a wealthy landowner would not want competition, and would not want housing to become more affordable. Just because someone's self interest is rational, does not me that I cannot criticize it. Creating more affordable housing, and lowering rents, is obviously something that some people out there would not want, because they make money from rents being high.
- Kalium 7y ago
  You're absolutely right. People are rarely self-consciously irrationally opposed to any given proposal to build housing. In theory, it should be possible to address any given rational concern! Too tall? Make it shorter. Not enough public space? Make the area in front of it a parklet! Not enough subsidized housing? More BMR units and a donation to a neighborhood group will solve that one. Doesn't fit with the style or is otherwise ugly? Pay attention and design a building that fits, it's not that hard. Although there might be tricky ones, like maybe the neighbors have been treating the lot as a park and would like to keep it that way or someone is afraid of losing the all-day sun on their backyard garden. Still, all of these should be solvable in principle, right? Again, as you wisely point to, all of these possible concerns are individually eminently reasonable and addressable. Certainly insulting the people who are just trying to keep their homes and communities they way they like it isn't going to win them over! With all that said, might there be problems in aggregate? When people are empowered to throw up essentially arbitrary roadblocks, no matter how reasonable their complaints, the result can be near-infinite stonewalling. This has happened enough that some people have lost trust in the process that enabled good, kind, compassionate people to get their perfectly reasonable concerns addressed. So perhaps there's some room for subtlety here. How do you think YIMBYs should frame things, to avoid the issues you rightly point to?
  - irq11 7y ago
    Well, I think that pretty much anything is more effective than calling people names. But rhetorically, it’s probably a lot more effective to just be honest about what you want: shared sacrifice for lower rents. It’s cynical to call it YIMBY, because a) it mirrors the name-calling, and b) anyone who is intellectually honest knows that YIMBY really means YIYBY for most people. So stop it. Own that you want something that will be at least a little bit painful for everyone. Then sell the positives.
    - Kalium 7y ago
      That's a very helpful insight! Thank you for sharing. I appreciate your positivity and genuineness. In my personal experience, I've often found it to be extremely difficult to sell shared sacrifice to people who are empowered to refuse to share. After all, why can't this building go in some other neighborhood? Away from them? If you're being honest, it probably can. The next neighborhood over will probably have the same question. Also, SF has the wrinkle that a lot of people see building housing as pushing up rents, making the framing you suggest very difficult on multiple counts. Attempting to discuss this with people seldom goes as well as could be hoped. This belief seems to have become totemic, making it functionally impossible to discuss. Perhaps you've had different results than I. I sincerely hope so. I have found name-calling and coherent branding to be pretty effective at providing people a banner to gather under. It doesn't do anything for those it makes into enemies, but it does something for people who might be your allies. When the NIMBYs are already well organized and Californians For Lowering Rent Through Shared Sacrifice isn't, I can see where someone might make that calculation.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  The essence of NIMBYism is wanting to make the value of your own property increase, not by adding any value, but by restricting others from competing with you. That's a net harmful behavior so I think it's fair to describe it as "an evil force to be mocked and dismissed". Kind of like if Google lobbied the government to ban search engines which weren't Google Search. People would see that as evil too.
- ScottBurson 7y ago
  That's why it's "YIMBY" and not "YIYBY" :-)

fra 7y ago

Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.

bluGill 7y ago
If it is only in your backyard it is better for your property value in the long run: eventually someone will offer you a ton of money to replace your house with a large apartment complex. If it is everywhere that can build, than the builders can take whatever property comes up - and because they have to compete with other developers for renters they are likely to build smaller so on both counts property values don't increase as fast.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  That's what I don't understand, increasing density usually means price / sqft for all real estate in the area goes up. I often wonder if the analysis on why people shoot down zoning changes is incorrectly attributed to price or property tax, and is mostly people resisting any change.
  - mertd 7y ago
    Not every NIMBY is motivated by greed. Some just want to stay put, pay property taxes like it's 30 years ago and drive to their favorite burger shack in under five minutes. That particular generation also holds on to the doctrine that density is bad for environment.
    - pc86 7y ago
      There's only a generational correlation because the 80 year old retiree is much more likely to own nice property with low property taxes (if you live in a state that only reassesses at sale) than the 28 year old with a young family. Young couples with money can be just as viciously NIMBY-esque as old couples with money.
  - darawk 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

darksaints 7y ago

Fact: No YIMBY, no matter how powerful, can force you to put something in your back yard. They can allow your neighbor to put something in their back yard. You don't own your neighbor's back yard.

jellicle 7y ago
Civilization is a balancing of competing interests. Your rights in your property are enforced by the community, with limits and conditionally. The community which you are asking to enforce for you has interests too.
hannasanarion 7y ago
Fact: NIMBY doesn't refer to literal backyards.
- darksaints 7y ago
  Of course. Which nullifies any argument about whether it is Yes-in-my-back-yard or yes-in-your-back-yard. You only get to make that distinction if you're talking about your own literal back yard.
  - notJim 7y ago
    I think this comment is accurate just from a logical standpoint. Backyard has two possible meanings here: * Literal backyard: in this case, then maybe one could argue that if we accept the premise[1] that YIMBYs aren't homeowners, then they are in fact arguing about other people's backyards. * Figurative backyard: in this case, then whether someone is a homeowner is irrelevant, because the backyard refers to the general area, shared by all residents. Of course, as we know from this thread, backyard in [N|Y]IMBY refers to the figurative backyard. Therefore, we must reject the argument that people are arguing over other's backyards. [1]: As I argue elsewhere in this thread, I don't think we should accept this premise.

triceratops 7y ago

NIMBY could also be more properly called "I want to control property I don't own"

sidlls 7y ago

People who don’t own property are entitled to the same representation, rights, and political activities as those who do. That includes activism and advocacy for housing that serves all the community and not just homeowners.

avocado4 7y ago

Rent seeking is bad for economy, and is antithetical to a free capitalist society.

rowborg 7y ago

When a developer wanted to build a 5 story condo building on an entire block across the street from the SF property I've owned for the last ten years, many of my neighbors opposed it. I wrote to our building's ownership and told them that we should support that project and that my only question was "can they add a few floors?" Repeal prop 13 and my taxes will go up enormously--and I'll vote for that repeal at any opportunity. Some of us do actually believe that the long term common good is worth sacrificing our own personal short term gain.