5 ms·

In New Zealand no one is more conservative than the progressive left. They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. They demand the preservation of

by mdoms 6y ago

In New Zealand no one is more conservative than the progressive left. They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. They demand the preservation of a single decades-old tree over housing. They demand more deference be given to traditional tribespeople over and above the progression of cities and housing the homeless. No one stands in the way of housing more than the left in this country.

aidenn0 6y ago
In the US, at least, I've experienced that the well-meaning progressive left pursues these laws in the legislature, but then they are (ab)used by those who don't actually care about the left causes, they are just looking for any means to obstruct construction that they don't want. I sometimes joke that the right is "NIMBY" but the left is "NIYBY" (not in your backyard).
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  It’s also been caricatured as “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.”
gamegoblin 6y ago
Didn't Judith Collins (centre-right National party) and Jacinda Ardern (centre-left Labour party) both say they would not seek to reduce housing prices during one of the recent leaders debates?
- potatochup 6y ago
  Yup! I mean you can see why, it would be political suicide. But it also means that if you want real solutions, none of the centralist parties have the guts to do anything about it.
- mdoms 6y ago
  Yes, but only one of them campaigned on the opposite position 3 years ago.
polemic 6y ago
As usual, context is everything. > They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. I assume this is a reference to the Wellington Spatial Plan and efforts by Wellington land owners to prevent old homes being converted into apartments or larger dwellings. I agree this is a very harmful position for them to take. It's people acting in concert to drive up their land value. Whether this somehow ties into the Left-NIMBY Canon argued above though, I'm not sure. Are the land owners progressive lefties? Do they even live there? > They demand the preservation of a single decades-old tree over housing. This is a reference to the Macrocarpa tree in Avondale. What you fail to add is that this listed tree (i.e. with legal protections) on public land is blocking the development of 1 out of 6 large adjacent apartment buildings. Are people blocking the development of the other 5? No. Could the developer have planned their development to accommodate the listed tree, but choose not to? Yes. And this is an urban area with some of the lowest greenspace covereage in the city, with a long history of under-investment. Meanwhile, the right leaning inner suburbs effectively implemented a town belt through leveraging power during the development of the Auckland unitary plan. If densification is being objected to in left-leaning areas, it's partly because right-leaning areas already ensured that they wouldn't have to at all! Case in point: Kelmarna Ave in Herne bay is getting a small supermarket because the community, via applying soft influence, made the planned development of apartments at the location politically infeasible. Oh, and did I mention successive right-wing city councillors of the 80s and 90s running infrastructure into the ground so that good urban development was just that much harder for everyone? > They demand more deference be given to traditional tribespeople over and above the progression of cities and housing the homeless. Well, the extremely very obvious context here is contention over stolen land in sensitive areas. If you're talking about Ihuamatoa - "deference" was only granted after a long occupation of the land by extremely dedicated group of individuals. Of course, we wouldn't need to develop culturally significant land in remote parts of our city if we could intensify the places where prodominantly white, wealthy residents lived, without outcries from the politically powerful!
- Falling3 6y ago
  Thanks for providing all of that background information! I was skeptical of the parent comment's claims - particularly how overly simplistic they were. But as someone on the other side of the world, I can't easily know how unrealistic their portrayal of the situation is.
sparrc 6y ago
This exactly describes the progressive left of my city in the US (Seattle) too.
- kyleblarson 6y ago
  Case in point trying to argue that a Denny's restaurant is a historical landmark. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ballard-dennys-is-demolished/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ballard-dennys-is-...
- notJim 6y ago
  This is totally backwards. The poles of Seattle politics are around the activist-aligned progressives who support upzoning (including socialist Kshama Sawant), and the homeowner-aligned conservatives who do not.
  - sparrc 6y ago
    fair point, by "progressive left" I meant in comparison to the US in general. Most of the "homeowner-aligned conservatives" in Seattle would be considered left-wing progressives by national standards. In context these are the people the original article is talking about.
    - notJim 6y ago
      Hmm, I'm not sure that's accurate. No disagreement that the "homeowner-aligned conservatives" are progressive by national standards, but NIMBY's in general are progressive by national standards, because most NIMBYism occurs within progressive cities like SF. Cities are progressive enclaves even in conservative areas, so almost by definition, NIMBYs will be more progressive than average. So when I say conservative vs progressive, I mean relative to each other, or the center within a given city, rather than to the national average. I admit this is probably a confusing way to put it. I think in this article, Noah is referring specifically to this far left. For much of the article, he references Current Affairs, for example, which is a far left magazine. In the replies to his tweets about this, folks also mentioned Sunrise, which is a far left environmental org. Regarding your original point, re: the progressive left in Seattle, I think the far left is more in coalition with YIMBYs, while the business-oriented politicians are in coalition with the NIMBYs. This isn't to say there aren't NIMBY leftists, just that they don't really have a lot of power at the moment, because they have to work with the YIMBYs. As far as actual conservatives in Seattle politics, there are very few (maybe none?) remaining.
_jal 6y ago
In a number of places I've lived, the "progressive left" is always blamed for NIMBY behaviors, whatever the nature of the the actual people involved. I recall a specific article complaining about "leftist opposition" from residents of a gated community in a Republican-run city. People look at the world and see their preconceptions.
cgrealy 6y ago
> They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. Yeah, it was definitely the "progressive left" that spent years and cost the Christchurch council millions to fix the broken cathedral. Not right-leaning old people at all. > They demand more deference be given to traditional tribespeople over and above the progression of cities. I think you mean "they think that Maori shouldn't be fucked over by the government more than they already have been". > No one stands in the way of housing more than the left in this country. Frankly, housing in NZ is not a political issue, it's an economic one. Regardless of your politics, no one in the middle class is willing to fix the housing crisis, because it will mean a lot of economic pain. Also, as much as I would like to see housing sorted in NZ, I also don't want it to ruin what's good about this country. If you want an example of how to ruin an area with building, look at Queenstown.
rcpt 6y ago
Given NZ's abolished land value tax and CA's Prop 13 this is an eerily similar coincidence.

by mdoms 6y ago

aidenn0 6y ago

In the US, at least, I've experienced that the well-meaning progressive left pursues these laws in the legislature, but then they are (ab)used by those who don't actually care about the left causes, they are just looking for any means to obstruct construction that they don't want. I sometimes joke that the right is "NIMBY" but the left is "NIYBY" (not in your backyard).

erik_seaberg 6y ago
It’s also been caricatured as “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.”

gamegoblin 6y ago

Didn't Judith Collins (centre-right National party) and Jacinda Ardern (centre-left Labour party) both say they would not seek to reduce housing prices during one of the recent leaders debates?

potatochup 6y ago
Yup! I mean you can see why, it would be political suicide. But it also means that if you want real solutions, none of the centralist parties have the guts to do anything about it.
mdoms 6y ago
Yes, but only one of them campaigned on the opposite position 3 years ago.

polemic 6y ago

As usual, context is everything. > They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. I assume this is a reference to the Wellington Spatial Plan and efforts by Wellington land owners to prevent old homes being converted into apartments or larger dwellings. I agree this is a very harmful position for them to take. It's people acting in concert to drive up their land value. Whether this somehow ties into the Left-NIMBY Canon argued above though, I'm not sure. Are the land owners progressive lefties? Do they even live there? > They demand the preservation of a single decades-old tree over housing. This is a reference to the Macrocarpa tree in Avondale. What you fail to add is that this listed tree (i.e. with legal protections) on public land is blocking the development of 1 out of 6 large adjacent apartment buildings. Are people blocking the development of the other 5? No. Could the developer have planned their development to accommodate the listed tree, but choose not to? Yes. And this is an urban area with some of the lowest greenspace covereage in the city, with a long history of under-investment. Meanwhile, the right leaning inner suburbs effectively implemented a town belt through leveraging power during the development of the Auckland unitary plan. If densification is being objected to in left-leaning areas, it's partly because right-leaning areas already ensured that they wouldn't have to at all! Case in point: Kelmarna Ave in Herne bay is getting a small supermarket because the community, via applying soft influence, made the planned development of apartments at the location politically infeasible. Oh, and did I mention successive right-wing city councillors of the 80s and 90s running infrastructure into the ground so that good urban development was just that much harder for everyone? > They demand more deference be given to traditional tribespeople over and above the progression of cities and housing the homeless. Well, the extremely very obvious context here is contention over stolen land in sensitive areas. If you're talking about Ihuamatoa - "deference" was only granted after a long occupation of the land by extremely dedicated group of individuals. Of course, we wouldn't need to develop culturally significant land in remote parts of our city if we could intensify the places where prodominantly white, wealthy residents lived, without outcries from the politically powerful!

Falling3 6y ago
Thanks for providing all of that background information! I was skeptical of the parent comment's claims - particularly how overly simplistic they were. But as someone on the other side of the world, I can't easily know how unrealistic their portrayal of the situation is.

sparrc 6y ago

This exactly describes the progressive left of my city in the US (Seattle) too.

kyleblarson 6y ago
Case in point trying to argue that a Denny's restaurant is a historical landmark. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ballard-dennys-is-demolished/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/ballard-dennys-is-...
notJim 6y ago
This is totally backwards. The poles of Seattle politics are around the activist-aligned progressives who support upzoning (including socialist Kshama Sawant), and the homeowner-aligned conservatives who do not.
- sparrc 6y ago
  fair point, by "progressive left" I meant in comparison to the US in general. Most of the "homeowner-aligned conservatives" in Seattle would be considered left-wing progressives by national standards. In context these are the people the original article is talking about.
  - notJim 6y ago
    Hmm, I'm not sure that's accurate. No disagreement that the "homeowner-aligned conservatives" are progressive by national standards, but NIMBY's in general are progressive by national standards, because most NIMBYism occurs within progressive cities like SF. Cities are progressive enclaves even in conservative areas, so almost by definition, NIMBYs will be more progressive than average. So when I say conservative vs progressive, I mean relative to each other, or the center within a given city, rather than to the national average. I admit this is probably a confusing way to put it. I think in this article, Noah is referring specifically to this far left. For much of the article, he references Current Affairs, for example, which is a far left magazine. In the replies to his tweets about this, folks also mentioned Sunrise, which is a far left environmental org. Regarding your original point, re: the progressive left in Seattle, I think the far left is more in coalition with YIMBYs, while the business-oriented politicians are in coalition with the NIMBYs. This isn't to say there aren't NIMBY leftists, just that they don't really have a lot of power at the moment, because they have to work with the YIMBYs. As far as actual conservatives in Seattle politics, there are very few (maybe none?) remaining.

_jal 6y ago

In a number of places I've lived, the "progressive left" is always blamed for NIMBY behaviors, whatever the nature of the the actual people involved. I recall a specific article complaining about "leftist opposition" from residents of a gated community in a Republican-run city. People look at the world and see their preconceptions.

cgrealy 6y ago

> They demand the preservation of architecture at all costs. Yeah, it was definitely the "progressive left" that spent years and cost the Christchurch council millions to fix the broken cathedral. Not right-leaning old people at all. > They demand more deference be given to traditional tribespeople over and above the progression of cities. I think you mean "they think that Maori shouldn't be fucked over by the government more than they already have been". > No one stands in the way of housing more than the left in this country. Frankly, housing in NZ is not a political issue, it's an economic one. Regardless of your politics, no one in the middle class is willing to fix the housing crisis, because it will mean a lot of economic pain. Also, as much as I would like to see housing sorted in NZ, I also don't want it to ruin what's good about this country. If you want an example of how to ruin an area with building, look at Queenstown.

rcpt 6y ago

Given NZ's abolished land value tax and CA's Prop 13 this is an eerily similar coincidence.