5 ms·

In other words, "not in my backyard". But other people's backyard is fine!

nine_k 5y ago
The important part here is that the OP moved their backyard in order to avoid high density next to it. Commendable, I'd say.
- et-al 5y ago
  So continuing that, let's say OP moved to a small rural town. 10 years later, the media proclaims the town for best schools, living, etc. and a lot of folks want to move there and want to build up in OP's backyard. What's OP's course of action now? To move again? I'm not excusing the effects of NIMBYism, but it's natural phenomena for many people and often not about raising property values, but resistance to change--especially as folks age and become less willing to adapt or move elsewhere.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    > What's OP's course of action now? To move again? Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it. So I have a choice, move somewhere more rural, or enjoy the financial benefit of being an early resident of a growing community. But the onus is always on me, I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly. There are always decisions to be made, there is always a trade off. You're right about resistance to change. Personally if where I live began to urbanize, I'd leave.
    - uberman 5y ago
      I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly Isn't that exactly what those arguing for higher densities are doing?
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        No? Telling someone else they can't build an apartment building because they live next to you and you like zoning is externalizing on others unwillingly, telling people they have to commute hours in traffic because you like to see the smoggy sunset from your backyard is externalizing. Letting people build more dense housing in a densely populated area to profit and simultaneously reduce the cost on their own property is not externalizing anything, unless you consider your view of the sky to be your property and you somehow having a say in your neighbor building on his property as he sees fit.
        uberman 5y ago
        Just flip the coin. telling people they: - have to live next to a skyrise is externalizing. - have to use public transit is externalizing. - can't let their kids get a good education is externalizing. - can't let their kids play safely without adult supervision is externalizing. I'll freely admit zoning laws kind of suck in some instances, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a place that does not have them. In fact, the more dense the housing, the more rigorous the zone laws are likely to be. The reality almost everywhere is that one simply cannot do whatever one pleases with their property including keeping it from the government. So, yes my proverbial view of your smog may well be legally protected and that might suck, but you and I are both also protected from a neighbor converting their property into a toxic waste dump.
    - WkndTriathlete 5y ago
      > Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it. A century of established case law say otherwise. If a private landowner wants to change the zoning on a parcel of land near established residences and the residences can show decrease in property values as a result of rezoning the courts have consistently awarded financial damages to the owners of the residences from the city that decides to change the zoning.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    Generally it's the suburbs immediately outside a prosperous city that start to urbanize. Genuinely rural areas in America often have the opposite problem - they shrink.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  That's exactly what the people opposing zoning changes did too. They move somewhere to avoid high density. Then demand follows them. The entire discussion right now is about increasing density where it is currently low, not about static high or low density.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    The people opposing zoning changes did not do that. They moved to a suburb right next to a city so they can commute in. Getting outraged that the city grows is ridiculous.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      It's even more ridiculous when you realize they were a part of it's growth. Like they only wanted it to grow up until the point they moved in.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
        What about those of us who grew up where we live?
        cheriot 5y ago
        The whole conversation around displacement is people being pushed away from where they grew up. It’s just not reasonable to say, “the houses I saw growing up cannot change”
giantg2 5y ago
That's basically the point of democracy and local levels of government - sufficient support at the local level means they make a change that fits the desires of the constituents. Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws. Why should I care if there's high density housing in cities if I don't live there? Let those people decide what they want for that area.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws. The problem in this case is that it's not different desires. The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value. The people this comes at the expense of are the future residents of that area, who for that very reason don't have a vote there. If you live in town A and get a job in town B, you might like for town A to have restrictive zoning (where you're selling your old house) and town B to have relaxed zoning (where you're buying a new one), but you only get a vote in town A, until you've actually moved to town B at which point your incentives invert. So if zoning is local, every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning. This is one of the few places where local control doesn't work, specifically because the interests of current residents and future residents are in conflict.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "So every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning." Only above a certain population number. Many smaller cities and towns don't have this issue. "at which point your incentives invert." Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change. "The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value." If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes. Otherwise, there are multiple incentives and desires, so your statement would be an over simplification. Then we are also ignoring effects of housing crunches. In theory, jobs people are moving to should have leadership that realizes the issue and moves to alleviate it (and have competitive cost advantages), or doesn't move there in the first place. Same for people, if it doesn't make financial sense to move somewhere, then they will select other options. We are already seeing some of these affects in movement from places like CA to TX.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
For those who want it, let them have it - all of it. Not the halfway version we have now. Doing so, generally, will make things worse for someone like GP, because when they do go into the city, it will be less car-friendly. So I think your reply is somewhat less than charitable.

The important part here is that the OP moved their backyard in order to avoid high density next to it. Commendable, I'd say.

et-al 5y ago
So continuing that, let's say OP moved to a small rural town. 10 years later, the media proclaims the town for best schools, living, etc. and a lot of folks want to move there and want to build up in OP's backyard. What's OP's course of action now? To move again? I'm not excusing the effects of NIMBYism, but it's natural phenomena for many people and often not about raising property values, but resistance to change--especially as folks age and become less willing to adapt or move elsewhere.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  > What's OP's course of action now? To move again? Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it. So I have a choice, move somewhere more rural, or enjoy the financial benefit of being an early resident of a growing community. But the onus is always on me, I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly. There are always decisions to be made, there is always a trade off. You're right about resistance to change. Personally if where I live began to urbanize, I'd leave.
  - uberman 5y ago
    I cannot externalize my preferences onto others unwillingly Isn't that exactly what those arguing for higher densities are doing?
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      No? Telling someone else they can't build an apartment building because they live next to you and you like zoning is externalizing on others unwillingly, telling people they have to commute hours in traffic because you like to see the smoggy sunset from your backyard is externalizing. Letting people build more dense housing in a densely populated area to profit and simultaneously reduce the cost on their own property is not externalizing anything, unless you consider your view of the sky to be your property and you somehow having a say in your neighbor building on his property as he sees fit.
      - uberman 5y ago
        Just flip the coin. telling people they: - have to live next to a skyrise is externalizing. - have to use public transit is externalizing. - can't let their kids get a good education is externalizing. - can't let their kids play safely without adult supervision is externalizing. I'll freely admit zoning laws kind of suck in some instances, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a place that does not have them. In fact, the more dense the housing, the more rigorous the zone laws are likely to be. The reality almost everywhere is that one simply cannot do whatever one pleases with their property including keeping it from the government. So, yes my proverbial view of your smog may well be legally protected and that might suck, but you and I are both also protected from a neighbor converting their property into a toxic waste dump.
  - WkndTriathlete 5y ago
    > Yes, if that's what I want. It's not really my backyard. it's proverbial, but we can't make the mistake of taking it literally. it's someone else's front yard. I have no say in it. A century of established case law say otherwise. If a private landowner wants to change the zoning on a parcel of land near established residences and the residences can show decrease in property values as a result of rezoning the courts have consistently awarded financial damages to the owners of the residences from the city that decides to change the zoning.
- cheriot 5y ago
  Generally it's the suburbs immediately outside a prosperous city that start to urbanize. Genuinely rural areas in America often have the opposite problem - they shrink.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
That's exactly what the people opposing zoning changes did too. They move somewhere to avoid high density. Then demand follows them. The entire discussion right now is about increasing density where it is currently low, not about static high or low density.
- cheriot 5y ago
  The people opposing zoning changes did not do that. They moved to a suburb right next to a city so they can commute in. Getting outraged that the city grows is ridiculous.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    It's even more ridiculous when you realize they were a part of it's growth. Like they only wanted it to grow up until the point they moved in.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      What about those of us who grew up where we live?
      - cheriot 5y ago
        The whole conversation around displacement is people being pushed away from where they grew up. It’s just not reasonable to say, “the houses I saw growing up cannot change”

giantg2 5y ago

That's basically the point of democracy and local levels of government - sufficient support at the local level means they make a change that fits the desires of the constituents. Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws. Why should I care if there's high density housing in cities if I don't live there? Let those people decide what they want for that area.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Different areas have different desires, and thus different laws. The problem in this case is that it's not different desires. The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value. The people this comes at the expense of are the future residents of that area, who for that very reason don't have a vote there. If you live in town A and get a job in town B, you might like for town A to have restrictive zoning (where you're selling your old house) and town B to have relaxed zoning (where you're buying a new one), but you only get a vote in town A, until you've actually moved to town B at which point your incentives invert. So if zoning is local, every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning. This is one of the few places where local control doesn't work, specifically because the interests of current residents and future residents are in conflict.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "So every place structurally has unduly restrictive zoning." Only above a certain population number. Many smaller cities and towns don't have this issue. "at which point your incentives invert." Only if you own land. And only if your ideals support it. With a sufficient renting population there can be change. "The existing landowners in every area have the same incentive -- to increase artificial scarcity so that the land they already own increases in value." If this is true, then why even have a discussion? I mean, it's settled then - this is a democracy and the voting base will not support changes. Otherwise, there are multiple incentives and desires, so your statement would be an over simplification. Then we are also ignoring effects of housing crunches. In theory, jobs people are moving to should have leadership that realizes the issue and moves to alleviate it (and have competitive cost advantages), or doesn't move there in the first place. Same for people, if it doesn't make financial sense to move somewhere, then they will select other options. We are already seeing some of these affects in movement from places like CA to TX.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

For those who want it, let them have it - all of it. Not the halfway version we have now. Doing so, generally, will make things worse for someone like GP, because when they do go into the city, it will be less car-friendly. So I think your reply is somewhat less than charitable.