4 ms·

It is hard to argue with that. Anecdote time. My neighbors were petitioning against a library being built next to them, because: 1. It would add noise to other

It is hard to argue with that. Anecdote time. My neighbors were petitioning against a library being built next to them, because: 1. It would add noise to otherwise comatose street 2. It would serve as a gathering ground for kids Both are true complaints ( and to an extent I would even say valid ). What happened was what seems to happen in similar cases. They were assured, the library would only remain so big, but those promises were quickly abandoned in ways not dissimilar to the way US handled Indian treaties.

iancmceachern 6y ago
But isn't #2 a good thing? Like what's wrong with kids gathering at the library, isn't that the whole point of a library?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Yes and no. They don't like kids gather, because kids gathering in their mind equals trouble ( and, well, some summers I did see a swarm of kids jumping over fences and stuff; we actually had to call the cops -- but you know, kids will be kids ). But I take your point, kids attracted to a library tend to be less likely to cause trouble. Frankly, any non-idle hands activity is better than nothing.
- analog31 6y ago
  It could certainly be a good thing, but what strikes me from the description is promising one thing and building another. And I would add my own anecdote. The state decided to build a new office building by "selling" the land to a developer, who built the new building, that the state now leases. Also, the state passed a special law exempting this site from city zoning restrictions. The developer took out the parking lot and put up a multi level garage, for which they charge the office workers an annual fee. So the workers fanned out and park their cars along the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods, leading to congested streets and more traffic. The residents petitioned for "no parking" and "2 hour parking" signs along the streets in front of their houses. So now there's a 2-hour parking sign in front of my house, which I didn't ask for. My point is that an innocent measure to enrich a developer had a spillover effect into the entire neighborhood. And there's still a bunch of undeveloped land on the lot, which the developer will be free to do with whatever they want. This kind of stuff fuels NIMBYism and the need for precise specifications hashed out in painful detail.
- scottious 6y ago
  That's exactly why NIMBYism is so destructive -- overall it probably would be a net positive for the community. However one very loud resident (I'm exaggerating a bit) says "nah, I don't want the noise" and then the whole thing gets stalled. But that library has to go somewhere. It has to be in somebody's backyard. Just not MY backyard.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Is the NIMBYism that is so destructive or the fact that the terms of the agreement between were not upheld. As much as I don't see an issue with a library, I assure you after I learned of that story, I watch moves by my local city hall a lot more carefully since I know I cannot take them at their word. Trust is everything.
datavirtue 6y ago
None of these are valid complaints akin to their rights.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is altered in a way that does not benefit you, it could affect their property rights. For the record, I think library is a good thing, net-wise. I understand their line of reasoning though.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    By this reasoning nothing should ever change ever lest someone’s property rights be infringed?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Well, that is basically why, as a society, we have devised ways to deal with disagreements over the nature of what should be. In US that does mean civil suits if all else fails. Not to search very far, in Colorado neighbors sued for lowered property values due to marijuana smell from dispensary. For better or worse, US property values do make a powerful argument for people to take their rights rather seriously.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    > it could affect their property rights. I don't think "rights" extend that far. That's like saying if you buy stock in a company and then a competitor does something to drive the price down, that's violating your property rights. It's a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up at a meeting, but it's not an issue of property rights.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Yes, and note how many laws are on the books ( and how many scams exist ) that deal with falsely inflating and deflating the value. It is absolutely a property rights issue. Just because it seems minute to you does not make it less of a right.

iancmceachern 6y ago

But isn't #2 a good thing? Like what's wrong with kids gathering at the library, isn't that the whole point of a library?

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Yes and no. They don't like kids gather, because kids gathering in their mind equals trouble ( and, well, some summers I did see a swarm of kids jumping over fences and stuff; we actually had to call the cops -- but you know, kids will be kids ). But I take your point, kids attracted to a library tend to be less likely to cause trouble. Frankly, any non-idle hands activity is better than nothing.
analog31 6y ago
It could certainly be a good thing, but what strikes me from the description is promising one thing and building another. And I would add my own anecdote. The state decided to build a new office building by "selling" the land to a developer, who built the new building, that the state now leases. Also, the state passed a special law exempting this site from city zoning restrictions. The developer took out the parking lot and put up a multi level garage, for which they charge the office workers an annual fee. So the workers fanned out and park their cars along the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods, leading to congested streets and more traffic. The residents petitioned for "no parking" and "2 hour parking" signs along the streets in front of their houses. So now there's a 2-hour parking sign in front of my house, which I didn't ask for. My point is that an innocent measure to enrich a developer had a spillover effect into the entire neighborhood. And there's still a bunch of undeveloped land on the lot, which the developer will be free to do with whatever they want. This kind of stuff fuels NIMBYism and the need for precise specifications hashed out in painful detail.
scottious 6y ago
That's exactly why NIMBYism is so destructive -- overall it probably would be a net positive for the community. However one very loud resident (I'm exaggerating a bit) says "nah, I don't want the noise" and then the whole thing gets stalled. But that library has to go somewhere. It has to be in somebody's backyard. Just not MY backyard.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Is the NIMBYism that is so destructive or the fact that the terms of the agreement between were not upheld. As much as I don't see an issue with a library, I assure you after I learned of that story, I watch moves by my local city hall a lot more carefully since I know I cannot take them at their word. Trust is everything.

datavirtue 6y ago

None of these are valid complaints akin to their rights.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is altered in a way that does not benefit you, it could affect their property rights. For the record, I think library is a good thing, net-wise. I understand their line of reasoning though.
- katbyte 6y ago
  By this reasoning nothing should ever change ever lest someone’s property rights be infringed?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Well, that is basically why, as a society, we have devised ways to deal with disagreements over the nature of what should be. In US that does mean civil suits if all else fails. Not to search very far, in Colorado neighbors sued for lowered property values due to marijuana smell from dispensary. For better or worse, US property values do make a powerful argument for people to take their rights rather seriously.
- burkaman 6y ago
  > it could affect their property rights. I don't think "rights" extend that far. That's like saying if you buy stock in a company and then a competitor does something to drive the price down, that's violating your property rights. It's a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up at a meeting, but it's not an issue of property rights.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Yes, and note how many laws are on the books ( and how many scams exist ) that deal with falsely inflating and deflating the value. It is absolutely a property rights issue. Just because it seems minute to you does not make it less of a right.