17 ms·

Does the general public actually think NIMBY is Right/Conservative? It's considered a Left/Liberal idea, isn't this conventional opinion? It would never occur

Does the general public actually think NIMBY is Right/Conservative? It's considered a Left/Liberal idea, isn't this conventional opinion? It would never occur to me people consider it predominantly the other way.

majormajor 6y ago
I appreciated that the article brought this up become in HN discussion it is usually presented as a liberal idea, but that was never my experience before moving to California. It's incredibly easy to find anti-development movements and policies across the country. Look at public transit in red states, for instance. In somewhere like Georgia, denser housing, public transit, and walkable neighborhoods are the domain of the interior parts of Atlanta, inside the freeway loop. That area is FAR more liberal than the rest of the state. Texas (Austin, Dallas, etc), too.
blululu 6y ago
This issue spans across the standard Anglo-American political spectrum. There are people who are pro/anti urban-development on both sides of the aisle and framing the issue as Right/Left or Liberal/Conservative is probably not helpful in understanding the various factions and their interests. Zoning Laws typically match the textbook definition of conservative (literally trying to conserve and maintain an old system and prevent anyone from changing it with new developments). This aspect of conservatism is shared by both right wing and left wing interests.
- zip1234 6y ago
  I mean, a political conservative is generally thought to be fiscally conservative and for free markets and private ownership while also being socially conservative. Zoning would definitely be against free markets and private ownership. That said, zoning seems to be embraced by conservatives!
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I think zoning is against anarchy, but it seems to be supportive of a functioning market. No one wants to build a house next to what could become an aluminum smelting operation or a pig farm. Zoning supports functioning real estate markets.
    - zip1234 6y ago
      Zoning does not prevent either of those things. In my town, massive subdivisions went in next to a garbage dump. Now people are complaining about the garbage dump. It was all 'zoned.' Look at industrial areas on a google map. They will often have housing near/around them. Without zoning, the people that don't want to be near those things will not be near them, just as now. Anarchy means an absence of order. Did humans live in anarchy before the early to mid 20th century when zoning was adopted en masse?
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Well sure, if you build or buy in a spot where the neighboring plot is zoned to allow aluminum smelting, pig farming, or a landfill, or where those features already exist, you shouldn’t be surprised that you one day wake up next to that.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      When people in the US say they think zoning is bad, they're generally focused on R1/single family zoning, which is overwhelmingly common here but rare to nonexistent in other countries. If the minimum zoning restrictions included small apartment buildings and perhaps small shops, as they typically do in other places (and are starting to in some US cities), that'd satisfy most people who raise the issue.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Understood. The person to whom I was responding seemed to seek an explanation for the contradiction in their mind between people who support markets and private ownership and why those same people would support zoning restrictions.
polka_haunts_us 6y ago
I think a far simpler explanation is the general public thinks of NIMBY as "Bad", and then assigns which part of political ideology that is as opposite of themselves. It doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality and doesn't necessitate caring about what reasons individual people have for being NIMBYs.
newacct583 6y ago
Opposition to new development in service to the interests of established residents is "conservative" more or less by definition. Whether it aligns with the political left or right depends on what neighborhood you're talking about and where it is. Local governments of all persuasions are going to be primarily beholden to existing land-owners. This isn't a partisan thing at all.
flukus 6y ago
Where I am it spans the full political spectrum, I'd say the main determining factor isn't politics but wealth. People that own nice houses in suburbs close to the city are against development whether they're socialists or conservatives. The problem fundamentally seems to be that both support high immigration for different reasons, but don't want the new migrants to be able to live in their suburb. Both can get elected because they're responsibilities for different levels of government.
sampo 6y ago
San Francisco is the world capital of NIMBYs. In terms of the record large discrepancy of supply and demand, in terms of how much economic damage it does to the whole country, even to the whole planet, and in terms of how much worldwide visibility SF NIMBYism gets, as SF NIMBYs also are those who cause the most hurt to foreigners who aspire to move to the area in search of better economic opportunities. As a worldwide flagship of the damage NIMBYs can do, San Francisco definitely associates NIMBYism to the political left/progressives.
ahepp 6y ago
The question you're asking lends itself to anecdotes, so to chime in: I usually think of two kinds of "NIMBY". One is extremely concerned with their property value, and making sure nothing can ever damage it. Stereotypically this is a conservative, but most liberals act the exact same way when you want to build in their neighborhood. Then there's a more left leaning contingent that has nothing but disdain for markets, thinks the government should build and administer housing in highly desirable areas, and somehow decide who should live there (it always seems to be them, interestingly).

majormajor 6y ago

I appreciated that the article brought this up become in HN discussion it is usually presented as a liberal idea, but that was never my experience before moving to California. It's incredibly easy to find anti-development movements and policies across the country. Look at public transit in red states, for instance. In somewhere like Georgia, denser housing, public transit, and walkable neighborhoods are the domain of the interior parts of Atlanta, inside the freeway loop. That area is FAR more liberal than the rest of the state. Texas (Austin, Dallas, etc), too.

blululu 6y ago

This issue spans across the standard Anglo-American political spectrum. There are people who are pro/anti urban-development on both sides of the aisle and framing the issue as Right/Left or Liberal/Conservative is probably not helpful in understanding the various factions and their interests. Zoning Laws typically match the textbook definition of conservative (literally trying to conserve and maintain an old system and prevent anyone from changing it with new developments). This aspect of conservatism is shared by both right wing and left wing interests.

zip1234 6y ago
I mean, a political conservative is generally thought to be fiscally conservative and for free markets and private ownership while also being socially conservative. Zoning would definitely be against free markets and private ownership. That said, zoning seems to be embraced by conservatives!
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think zoning is against anarchy, but it seems to be supportive of a functioning market. No one wants to build a house next to what could become an aluminum smelting operation or a pig farm. Zoning supports functioning real estate markets.
  - zip1234 6y ago
    Zoning does not prevent either of those things. In my town, massive subdivisions went in next to a garbage dump. Now people are complaining about the garbage dump. It was all 'zoned.' Look at industrial areas on a google map. They will often have housing near/around them. Without zoning, the people that don't want to be near those things will not be near them, just as now. Anarchy means an absence of order. Did humans live in anarchy before the early to mid 20th century when zoning was adopted en masse?
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Well sure, if you build or buy in a spot where the neighboring plot is zoned to allow aluminum smelting, pig farming, or a landfill, or where those features already exist, you shouldn’t be surprised that you one day wake up next to that.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    When people in the US say they think zoning is bad, they're generally focused on R1/single family zoning, which is overwhelmingly common here but rare to nonexistent in other countries. If the minimum zoning restrictions included small apartment buildings and perhaps small shops, as they typically do in other places (and are starting to in some US cities), that'd satisfy most people who raise the issue.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Understood. The person to whom I was responding seemed to seek an explanation for the contradiction in their mind between people who support markets and private ownership and why those same people would support zoning restrictions.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago

I think a far simpler explanation is the general public thinks of NIMBY as "Bad", and then assigns which part of political ideology that is as opposite of themselves. It doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality and doesn't necessitate caring about what reasons individual people have for being NIMBYs.

newacct583 6y ago

Opposition to new development in service to the interests of established residents is "conservative" more or less by definition. Whether it aligns with the political left or right depends on what neighborhood you're talking about and where it is. Local governments of all persuasions are going to be primarily beholden to existing land-owners. This isn't a partisan thing at all.

flukus 6y ago

Where I am it spans the full political spectrum, I'd say the main determining factor isn't politics but wealth. People that own nice houses in suburbs close to the city are against development whether they're socialists or conservatives. The problem fundamentally seems to be that both support high immigration for different reasons, but don't want the new migrants to be able to live in their suburb. Both can get elected because they're responsibilities for different levels of government.

sampo 6y ago

San Francisco is the world capital of NIMBYs. In terms of the record large discrepancy of supply and demand, in terms of how much economic damage it does to the whole country, even to the whole planet, and in terms of how much worldwide visibility SF NIMBYism gets, as SF NIMBYs also are those who cause the most hurt to foreigners who aspire to move to the area in search of better economic opportunities. As a worldwide flagship of the damage NIMBYs can do, San Francisco definitely associates NIMBYism to the political left/progressives.

ahepp 6y ago

The question you're asking lends itself to anecdotes, so to chime in: I usually think of two kinds of "NIMBY". One is extremely concerned with their property value, and making sure nothing can ever damage it. Stereotypically this is a conservative, but most liberals act the exact same way when you want to build in their neighborhood. Then there's a more left leaning contingent that has nothing but disdain for markets, thinks the government should build and administer housing in highly desirable areas, and somehow decide who should live there (it always seems to be them, interestingly).