4 ms·
NIMBY is just a symptom of the problem... The problem is development, wealth and consumption at all cost. If people lived in normal houses, had normal job and
by supernovae 6y ago
NIMBY is just a symptom of the problem... The problem is development, wealth and consumption at all cost.
If people lived in normal houses, had normal job and lived normal lives where they didn't have to escape to feel normal, then we wouldn't seek out mountain towns as places to live, but rather places to explore.
Instead, we amass sheer amounts of wealth, property, exclusivity, we build so much of our society around celebrity and uniqueness and feeling special. We value huge houses with lots of rooms we'll probably never use and as long as "we win" - we don't care the cost.
Here in Austin - we're seeing the result of people leaving other cities. They look here and go "wow its cheap" but the people who have lived here - and lived here for EONS are going "wow, its getting expensive".
If you bought a house on fixed income and paid it off and worked a full life - we're getting to the point where your dream is no longer a dream. Sure, the house may have equity but its a tax liability - so you have to move..
Where do you move too that isn't being impacted? Where do you go to survive on fixed income and just live?
Is it NIMBY when you just want what you worked an entire life for or is it really something else?
- khuey 6y agoThere have always been people who wanted to live in remote mountain/beach towns. Ski/surf bums are not new. What is new is being able to work remotely through the Internet for a company located in some place where there is more economic activity or being able to pile up enough wealth in places like coastal California to move to a remote area and semi-retire at a youngish age. If you're retired on a fixed income in Austin and own a house you can defer paying property taxes until you die so there's no reason this person should have to move.