6 ms·

It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that

by yks 6y ago

It is understandable that people are selfish but why society as a whole should pay for that? It is a relatively recent development, no more than a century, that people actually have such a power to derail urbanization while at the same time profiteer off of it. Society just pays [1] those people basically because they were born at the right time. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-is-a-huge-drag-on-america-s-economic-growth https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...

xyzzy123 6y ago
I'm pro density but the densification process really trips core parts of people's psyche. We're human beings. It affects your _home_. You've lived in a place for 10 years and suddenly you have no privacy because a big block of units gets stood up looking right over you. Or they block your sunlight, build right up to the boundary, or your quiet leafy neighbourhood just isn't quiet anymore and that's after you lived next to a construction site for 6 months. These things can have impacts on people's relationships as well. Of course the world changes, such is the price of progress, and _usually_ those affected can afford to wipe their tears with big stacks of cash. But I don't think it's fair to characterise all NIMBYs as just greedy, a lot of people just want to live in the neighbourhood they thought they were buying into.
- yks 6y ago
  I agree, it's not a pure calculated greed but some sort of a "mental denial of change" coupled with the historically unusual legal powers. Immediate property appreciation is more like blinders, it is very hard to swim against "number go up". End result for society is still the same though.
- overlords 6y ago
  Weighing the Justice : 'I like they way my lawn is and i don't like construction noises' vs 'I can't get a job because it's too expensive to rent or buy where the jobs are, so i live in poverty' (or i can't start family because i can only afford a room-share, or any number of other effects from NIMBYism)
  - pgsimp 6y ago
    So if people make babies, they are entitled to take your stuff away? I think that is too simplistic.
malandrew 6y ago
> It is understandable that people are selfish Existing residents resisting change really aren't any more selfish than new residents demanding change. Both are championing changes that are in their self interest at the expense of the self interest to others.
- yks 6y ago
  Sure, and every oppressed person demands changes in their self interest at the expense of the oppressor. Now, I'm not trying to call people who want to live in HCOL city but don't have money oppressed but want to point out that this line of thinking is unhelpful. What matters is the outcome for the majority of people now and in the future, and based on that I don't see how rights of the existing residents to tell their neighbors what to do with their property in the world class cities make the world a better place. And research supports that conclusion.
  - pgsimp 6y ago
    "research supports that conclusion" - from some marxist think tank perhaps. Definitely bullshit. People are not better off without property rights. And with your attitude, I guess you celebrate colonialism. After all, those were people looking for new places to live.
    - yks 6y ago
      > People are not better off without property rights. Sure, but the problem at hand is they have more than property rights, they have rights to a neighbor's property, conversely my neighbors have rights to my property, and how's that fair under capitalism. Besides, there are other capitalist countries where zoning is not a local level affair and they don't seem to be marxist hell-holes as you imply. > I guess you celebrate colonialism I don't celebrate anything but people are born in increasing numbers, the whole economy and governments rely on this trend so I think it is only fair to the new generations if we at least return to the respect of the private property which is long gone.
      - 6y ago

by yks 6y ago

xyzzy123 6y ago

I'm pro density but the densification process really trips core parts of people's psyche. We're human beings. It affects your _home_. You've lived in a place for 10 years and suddenly you have no privacy because a big block of units gets stood up looking right over you. Or they block your sunlight, build right up to the boundary, or your quiet leafy neighbourhood just isn't quiet anymore and that's after you lived next to a construction site for 6 months. These things can have impacts on people's relationships as well. Of course the world changes, such is the price of progress, and _usually_ those affected can afford to wipe their tears with big stacks of cash. But I don't think it's fair to characterise all NIMBYs as just greedy, a lot of people just want to live in the neighbourhood they thought they were buying into.

yks 6y ago
I agree, it's not a pure calculated greed but some sort of a "mental denial of change" coupled with the historically unusual legal powers. Immediate property appreciation is more like blinders, it is very hard to swim against "number go up". End result for society is still the same though.
overlords 6y ago
Weighing the Justice : 'I like they way my lawn is and i don't like construction noises' vs 'I can't get a job because it's too expensive to rent or buy where the jobs are, so i live in poverty' (or i can't start family because i can only afford a room-share, or any number of other effects from NIMBYism)
- pgsimp 6y ago
  So if people make babies, they are entitled to take your stuff away? I think that is too simplistic.

malandrew 6y ago

> It is understandable that people are selfish Existing residents resisting change really aren't any more selfish than new residents demanding change. Both are championing changes that are in their self interest at the expense of the self interest to others.

yks 6y ago
Sure, and every oppressed person demands changes in their self interest at the expense of the oppressor. Now, I'm not trying to call people who want to live in HCOL city but don't have money oppressed but want to point out that this line of thinking is unhelpful. What matters is the outcome for the majority of people now and in the future, and based on that I don't see how rights of the existing residents to tell their neighbors what to do with their property in the world class cities make the world a better place. And research supports that conclusion.
- pgsimp 6y ago
  "research supports that conclusion" - from some marxist think tank perhaps. Definitely bullshit. People are not better off without property rights. And with your attitude, I guess you celebrate colonialism. After all, those were people looking for new places to live.
  - yks 6y ago
    > People are not better off without property rights. Sure, but the problem at hand is they have more than property rights, they have rights to a neighbor's property, conversely my neighbors have rights to my property, and how's that fair under capitalism. Besides, there are other capitalist countries where zoning is not a local level affair and they don't seem to be marxist hell-holes as you imply. > I guess you celebrate colonialism I don't celebrate anything but people are born in increasing numbers, the whole economy and governments rely on this trend so I think it is only fair to the new generations if we at least return to the respect of the private property which is long gone.
    - 6y ago