3 ms·
This isn't how things have been working in areas that are sufficating under NIMBYism. "Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is", no, its mos
by 0xB31B1B 6y ago
This isn't how things have been working in areas that are sufficating under NIMBYism.
"Outside forces want to change the way the neighbourhood is", no, its most frequently the children who grew up in the neighborhood want to stay, but they can't because there isn't enough housing being built so they are displaced.
"People in the neighbourhood resist the change" The people who resist the change tend to be retired property owners who's children have long left the house and they experience no negative effects from NIMBYism. There are a ton of disempowered neighbors who don't have the time or the wherewithall to politically organize the way NIMBYs do.
"Why does this situation invite pejorative terms and scorn from people who have no skin in the game?" Because the large balance of data we have shows that pretty much everywhere NIMBYs are a minority of the population, and this is once again an example of the minority rule issues that the US is struggling with. Also, pretty strange to throw in the "skin in the game" comment there. Who has more skin in the game, a renter who is paying 1800/month for their housing or someone who inherited a house and does not pay a monthly fee to have a place to live?
- fossuser 6y agoIn California with prop13 it’s even worse. Not only do they not have “skin in the game” they barely contribute any property tax. I think this article is a good example of what makes fixing housing so hard. If you have dumb NIMBY arguments on the left and the right, it's impossible to build a coalition of people large enough to argue for increasing supply. You end up trapped in the worst outcome. For people that may not believe there are those on the left making the NIMBY arguments described here, see: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=21 https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1351373540298170368?s=... (specifically all the comments from @buildbackbettercities)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- manfredo 6y agoOh, proposition 13 is even worse than that. People get to pass on their privileged tax status onto their heirs. A hereditary class of people that get to own property at preferential rates.
- ketzo 6y agoIf I could wave a magic wand and repeal a single law, it would be Prop 13. That shit is un-fucking-believable. Such blatant, corrupt, crony-capitalist legislature.
- fossuser 6y agoI wish we could pass something that basically said “allow upzoning and build X amount of new housing - if you refuse fine, but then you must pay market rate property tax on your property”.
- DrScump 6y agoThere's nothing stopping you - just pursue your own Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
- rcpt 6y agoIt was not legislature it was angry voters who wanted a "revolt". Lawmakers and business opposed it at the time and even put forth 1978 Prop 8 which would have given homeowners a break. But Jarvis won because of direct democracy and angry emotional selfish voters. https://teachingmalinche.com/2018/08/26/the-summer-that-elvis-died-and-proposition-13-was-born/ https://teachingmalinche.com/2018/08/26/the-summer-that-elvi...
- DrScump 6y agoPeople get to pass on their privileged tax status onto their heirs That wasn't in Prop 13, that was a product of later initiatives. It is also newly limited by Prop 19 last November.
- manfredo 6y agoProp 19 only made is so that heirs inherit the tax status if they use the home as a primary residence. So you can still own 3 houses, and give each one to a child and they will inherit the property tax if they live in it.
- 6y ago
- sokoloff 6y ago> its most frequently the children who grew up in the neighborhood want to stay If it’s “most frequently” that, how have/are their parents acting? Do they oppose or support the desires of their children?
- kridsdale1 6y agoMost likely oppose, as Americans of retirement age have the vast majority of their net worth allocation in their home ownership. So supporting development of places for their adult kids to live would cause them to lose significant wealth due to supply and demand.