5 ms·

You’re definitely correct that NIMBYism is a form of conservatism (in the classic sense of the word), but what I find really interesting is how effectively NIMB

You’re definitely correct that NIMBYism is a form of conservatism (in the classic sense of the word), but what I find really interesting is how effectively NIMBYism crosses party lines. I’ve noticed both very liberal and very conservative people will both be anti-development, but their rationales will change. The conservative will raise objections around things like “neighborhood character” and “small businesses”, while liberals will raise objections around “the environment” or “displacing disadvantaged communities”. Either way, the resultant viewpoint is the same: everything is perfect the way it is right now and nothing should ever change.

smnrchrds 6y ago
In support of your point, Margaret Atwood (the author of The Handmaid's Tale) is famously NIMBY [0]. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-controversy-in-toronto/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-con...
- dmitriid 6y ago
  On the other hand the article calls "8-storey 16-unit building" a "modest condo development". I'm not NIMBY, and I would be opposed to that.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Well then you are NIMBY, just for some things and not others, like every other person.
  - CalRobert 6y ago
    OK, where should those people live instead?
    - michaelt 6y ago
      When you're a NIMBY, depending on your political persuasion they might say: * I don't care, just not here * One of the housing developments in other towns, which I don't oppose * Working from home is the future, why do people need to move here anyway? * Further out, served by improved public transport infrastructure. * Homelessness is really more of a mental health services problem. So the real solution here is healthcare reform. * The problem is billion-dollar corporations all centralising in one place for no good reason. We should spread the jobs out. * Who says the population has to grow at all? Capitalism is the problem, the endless growth it demands isn't possible. * The solution is a bay-area-wide master plan to deliver an integrated response, addressing our current and future needs for jobs, homes, schools, equality, desegregation, mass transit, homeless and mental health services, and a response to the climate crisis. Needless to say, these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. But the NIMBY's alternative is only to assuage their conscience, so realism isn't important.
      - CalRobert 6y ago
        If only these meetings included the kids who don't know their parents because mom and dad have commutes where they leave at 6 AM and get home at 8 PM. But the problem with "consulting with the community" is it doesn't give a voice to the people who might _like_ to live in Berkeley, but are stuck commuting from Stockton because they're not millionaires.
        throwaway20148 6y ago
        Yep won’t some please think of the children.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        There's also a whole range of possibilities between "people don't have a place to live" and "oh, let's build sixteen 8-storey buildings". > these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. Unfortunately, as I see it in trends around the world, this is what's happening in almost every country. Why create a "master plan to deliver an integrated response" when you can plop down a few apartment buildings and be don with it.
        smnrchrds 6y ago
        > They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. The reason we have gotten to this point is building out instead of up, sprawl instead of vertical expansion. Surely the solution is not more sprawl.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        There's definitely a sweet spot in between.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      There's a whole range between "sixteen 8-storey buildings" and "people don't have where to live"
ponker 6y ago
The line that NIMBYism doesn't cross is the property owner / renter line.
- FreakyT 6y ago
  That even depends. In San Francisco, where there is extensive rent control, I've noticed even renters tend to also be extreme NIMBYs, because any change to the neighborhood might result in them losing their $500/month legacy rent-controlled unit.
  - ponker 6y ago
    What changes to the neighborhood could cause that?
    - FreakyT 6y ago
      I believe one possible sequence would go something like this: 1. The area that contains your rental unit is rezoned, allowing higher density 2. The current owner of the building you rent in is now able to sell the property to a developer interested in demolishing the building in favor of a taller, denser one 3. You get kicked out, and have to find an apartment at market rate (Your building being demolished is one of the few ways you can kick a tenant out in San Francisco IIRC)
dageshi 6y ago
When people have lived in a place for long enough their memories and to a certain extent their identity are bound up with that area. Development, especially low density to high density development can feel a bit like too much change too fast and irrational or not it feels like part of your home and your past are being destroyed. People will come up with any number of reasons to oppose it as you suggest, but the core reason I think is simply people don't want their homes and neighbourhoods to change dramatically, they find comfort from them remaining roughly the same over time.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s not always about that kind of diffuse NIMBY objections. At 2% growth a county takes 35 years for the population to double. However, that growth is rarely spread evenly. The difference between living next to farmers and having a giant subdivision, 5,000 kid summer camp, or an airport next door are huge. We rarely see direct compensation for the negative impacts of such change so people have little reason to support change that negatively impacts themselves.

smnrchrds 6y ago

In support of your point, Margaret Atwood (the author of The Handmaid's Tale) is famously NIMBY [0]. [0] https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-controversy-in-toronto/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3707723/margaret-atwood-condo-con...

dmitriid 6y ago
On the other hand the article calls "8-storey 16-unit building" a "modest condo development". I'm not NIMBY, and I would be opposed to that.
- ponker 6y ago
  Well then you are NIMBY, just for some things and not others, like every other person.
- CalRobert 6y ago
  OK, where should those people live instead?
  - michaelt 6y ago
    When you're a NIMBY, depending on your political persuasion they might say: * I don't care, just not here * One of the housing developments in other towns, which I don't oppose * Working from home is the future, why do people need to move here anyway? * Further out, served by improved public transport infrastructure. * Homelessness is really more of a mental health services problem. So the real solution here is healthcare reform. * The problem is billion-dollar corporations all centralising in one place for no good reason. We should spread the jobs out. * Who says the population has to grow at all? Capitalism is the problem, the endless growth it demands isn't possible. * The solution is a bay-area-wide master plan to deliver an integrated response, addressing our current and future needs for jobs, homes, schools, equality, desegregation, mass transit, homeless and mental health services, and a response to the climate crisis. Needless to say, these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. But the NIMBY's alternative is only to assuage their conscience, so realism isn't important.
    - CalRobert 6y ago
      If only these meetings included the kids who don't know their parents because mom and dad have commutes where they leave at 6 AM and get home at 8 PM. But the problem with "consulting with the community" is it doesn't give a voice to the people who might _like_ to live in Berkeley, but are stuck commuting from Stockton because they're not millionaires.
      - throwaway20148 6y ago
        Yep won’t some please think of the children.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      There's also a whole range of possibilities between "people don't have a place to live" and "oh, let's build sixteen 8-storey buildings". > these are well beyond the power of someone building a few condos. They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. Unfortunately, as I see it in trends around the world, this is what's happening in almost every country. Why create a "master plan to deliver an integrated response" when you can plop down a few apartment buildings and be don with it.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        > They are probably within the power, but they really don't care. It's cheaper and faster to build a few apartment blocks in a limited space (usually putting a strain on existing infrastructure — from water and sewage to roads to kindergartens and schools) than to invest in building out. The reason we have gotten to this point is building out instead of up, sprawl instead of vertical expansion. Surely the solution is not more sprawl.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        There's definitely a sweet spot in between.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    There's a whole range between "sixteen 8-storey buildings" and "people don't have where to live"

ponker 6y ago

The line that NIMBYism doesn't cross is the property owner / renter line.

FreakyT 6y ago
That even depends. In San Francisco, where there is extensive rent control, I've noticed even renters tend to also be extreme NIMBYs, because any change to the neighborhood might result in them losing their $500/month legacy rent-controlled unit.
- ponker 6y ago
  What changes to the neighborhood could cause that?
  - FreakyT 6y ago
    I believe one possible sequence would go something like this: 1. The area that contains your rental unit is rezoned, allowing higher density 2. The current owner of the building you rent in is now able to sell the property to a developer interested in demolishing the building in favor of a taller, denser one 3. You get kicked out, and have to find an apartment at market rate (Your building being demolished is one of the few ways you can kick a tenant out in San Francisco IIRC)

dageshi 6y ago

When people have lived in a place for long enough their memories and to a certain extent their identity are bound up with that area. Development, especially low density to high density development can feel a bit like too much change too fast and irrational or not it feels like part of your home and your past are being destroyed. People will come up with any number of reasons to oppose it as you suggest, but the core reason I think is simply people don't want their homes and neighbourhoods to change dramatically, they find comfort from them remaining roughly the same over time.

Retric 6y ago
It’s not always about that kind of diffuse NIMBY objections. At 2% growth a county takes 35 years for the population to double. However, that growth is rarely spread evenly. The difference between living next to farmers and having a giant subdivision, 5,000 kid summer camp, or an airport next door are huge. We rarely see direct compensation for the negative impacts of such change so people have little reason to support change that negatively impacts themselves.