9 ms·

In my experience - certainly in the bike lane example I gave above - the NIMBYs are a minority. A vocal one, yes - but still a minority. If a politician is only

by acabal 4y ago

In my experience - certainly in the bike lane example I gave above - the NIMBYs are a minority. A vocal one, yes - but still a minority. If a politician is only concerned about their career, surely a popular project like bike lanes would garner them more votes the next time around? Thinking about this more, at least in my city it seems like one of the problems is that for a generation now, politicians have consistently outsourced decisionmaking to a poll of the community. In theory, one elects a politician to be independent decisionmaker for the constituent's interests, for the length of their term; and if at the end of the term the people didn't like their decisions, they're voted out. This gave politicians latitude to do what they thought was best, with the greater good of the community in mind. In the past half century, (and again, only in my city) this model seems to have changed to politicians being elected, and then running every decision past the community as a kind of popularity poll. Developer wants to replace an auto lot that's been abandoned for a decade with dense apartments? Better poll the community to see what they think. Adding a protected bike lane to connect two existing bike networks? Let's ask the community first. And of course when they do that, the only people who show up are the NIMBYs, and the politicians get the impression that nobody wants development. The NIMBYs have spoken, we better leave that disused auto lot abandoned and blighted! (And this is a real example from today's news!)

refurb 4y ago
Politicians listen to the people who talk to them. NIMBY’s are highly organized and politically active, so politicians listen. Generally there isn’t a counter group or they are poorly organized and don’t hold much political weight. You’d be surprised what you can accomplish if you’re organized. A prof I worked with was able to introduce a bill to congress (that he wrote with the congressmen’s staff) simply because he built a relationship and then proposed something the congressmen liked. The issue is the vast majority of voters do nothing more than vote.
jeromegv 4y ago
From what I've seen in Toronto and after having spoken with a local councillor, the thing is that those NIMBY show up to all consultation meetings. Any new bike lane require a community consultation (which is a problem in itself!, but let's forget that for a minute)... but who comes to those? The working class families that have to take care of their kids in the evening? Or older folks that have no other plans on a random week night? Before COVID all those meetings were in person at some community center. Of course for any cyclist to get there, they'd need to bike on a street with no bike lanes. So who shows up? People in cars! Things are slightly easier now because lots of those meetings moved online with Zoom, making it more accessible to a bunch of new people. But I'd recommend (if you're not doing it already!) to keep showing up to all consultation meetings, because that's the only way things get done. Concillor was telling me it was hard to make a case to the civic servant that they should keep pushing for bike lanes when ALL consultations kept only getting opposition. Even thought they all knew it was likely more popular, but it's hard to argue with the "democratic" process.
- pas 4y ago
  How is that democratic? At best it's a farce. If there was no vote then it's just some arbitrary evaluation of that consultation. I mean what's the procedure to calculate the for-against of a public comment? Isn't the elected officials (supervisors, councilors) elected to do the campaign based on what they think their voters would want? Isn't there a bike club or some other token NGO they ought to invite? :o
- acabal 4y ago
  IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X years so I can get on with my life. I didn't elect a politician so they can constantly ask me if it's OK for them to build Thing X, then Thing Y, then Thing Z... I wonder how much more a politician could accomplish if they simply stopped asking? Like, do the job they were elected to do, and not constantly be going to the popularity poll, where it's going to be nobody but NIMBYs filling out 'nay' forms? Just do it! If it truly upsets the community, they can always knock it down at the next election, right?
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    No politician ever was embroiled in a scandal because they asked for too much feedback from their constituency. Expecting them to act counter to their interests is not very realistic, especially when you consider that the same NIMBYs who attend these meetings are the ones that vote in hugely disproportionate numbers. They might be a minority, but they have the time and the resources to use their political power and as such are very influential in modern policy.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    I agree and disagree. I think it is valuable to get input from constituents, especially on infrastructure, but it also doesn't need to be the sole dictating thing. I think getting input to be able to nail down the pros vs cons is reasonable. Especially since, in a city, the project may be in a part of town they are rarely in or do not live in. But for sure, it should not be the full deciding factor but a way to get a scope of the full pros vs cons. Then evaluate if the points brought up were valid, then finally if the pros outweigh the cons.
colinmhayes 4y ago
NIMBYs are a minority, but they consistently vote and are involved in political action. My city has elections in February when no one goes outside, because corruption. City council members win with 5,000 votes, routinely less, even though they have 100,000 constituents. Not pissing off the loudest people is like the whole job of local politicians.
inglor_cz 4y ago
How many political positions in contemporary democratic world are actually majoritarian or were majoritarian when they achieved their critical momentum? Green Deals? Rainbow flags? Swings in abortion policies? Current levels and composition of immigration flows, be it in the US, Sweden or Greece? A few of them perhaps, but the typical prime mover of politics is an active and loud minority which cares a lot - and whose cohesion and initiative puts pressure on politicians. The NIMBYs are no exception.
efitz 4y ago
NIMBY is just one kind of activist. We live in the age of the "tyranny of the tiny minority" where a small number of passionate people have their already-loud voices so amplified by the media that they drown out everything else. Social media tends to make extremes go viral, and traditional media looks for controversy and amplifies it. Nuanced messaging and debate is a thing of the past. It doesn't fit in tweets and sound bites. Now, if you disagree with me, easier for me just to say you're evil than try to rebut your points. And this in turn feeds the media amplification effect. Who has the most emotionally compelling narrative? Who can parade out the most horrifying pictures? It doesn't matter if they're from a completely unrelated incident two years ago (and were staged), or that the "victims" are paid activists. "Politician" is now a career. This means perverse incentives for such people; instead of ONLY considering what is best for constituents. They must also think about getting reelected. Bureaucracies and government careers make decision-makers risk-averse, and most people react to having to make risky decisions by wanting more study before deciding. So the politicians and the bureaucrats only have up-side to accepting delays (they would call it "listening to constituents"), and suffer a huge risk of down-side if they green-light something that ticks off some noisy NIMBY or activist. And they rarely have the skill set or incentives to write contracts that result in the best outcomes. The article talks about the perverse incentives associated with unions; these are only made worse with public sector unions. Finally, our courts don't have loser pays and no longer are "speedy" by any reasonable definition. So you can tie things up for years with an activist lawyer on your staff, and make your opponent spend millions in legal fees to respond to all your noise. Plus, if you get lucky with a jury of people who don't understand the science of your issues and just buy the narrative, then you can win really big. We need a lot of reforms in our republic. Most of them center around removing perverse incentives and externalities.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  IMO the problem is that "politician" is a career. Now the municipal government is just one rung on the ladder, and the worst thing is not getting elected (getting fired). There is no incentive for career politicians to do anything other than what will help in the next election cycle. Politics used to be a hobby for the already successful who wanted to give back. These people were bound by a sense of what was right. Elitist as hell, yes, but at least they weren't trying to climb the corporate ladder.

by acabal 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

Politicians listen to the people who talk to them. NIMBY’s are highly organized and politically active, so politicians listen. Generally there isn’t a counter group or they are poorly organized and don’t hold much political weight. You’d be surprised what you can accomplish if you’re organized. A prof I worked with was able to introduce a bill to congress (that he wrote with the congressmen’s staff) simply because he built a relationship and then proposed something the congressmen liked. The issue is the vast majority of voters do nothing more than vote.

jeromegv 4y ago

From what I've seen in Toronto and after having spoken with a local councillor, the thing is that those NIMBY show up to all consultation meetings. Any new bike lane require a community consultation (which is a problem in itself!, but let's forget that for a minute)... but who comes to those? The working class families that have to take care of their kids in the evening? Or older folks that have no other plans on a random week night? Before COVID all those meetings were in person at some community center. Of course for any cyclist to get there, they'd need to bike on a street with no bike lanes. So who shows up? People in cars! Things are slightly easier now because lots of those meetings moved online with Zoom, making it more accessible to a bunch of new people. But I'd recommend (if you're not doing it already!) to keep showing up to all consultation meetings, because that's the only way things get done. Concillor was telling me it was hard to make a case to the civic servant that they should keep pushing for bike lanes when ALL consultations kept only getting opposition. Even thought they all knew it was likely more popular, but it's hard to argue with the "democratic" process.

pas 4y ago
How is that democratic? At best it's a farce. If there was no vote then it's just some arbitrary evaluation of that consultation. I mean what's the procedure to calculate the for-against of a public comment? Isn't the elected officials (supervisors, councilors) elected to do the campaign based on what they think their voters would want? Isn't there a bike club or some other token NGO they ought to invite? :o
acabal 4y ago
IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X years so I can get on with my life. I didn't elect a politician so they can constantly ask me if it's OK for them to build Thing X, then Thing Y, then Thing Z... I wonder how much more a politician could accomplish if they simply stopped asking? Like, do the job they were elected to do, and not constantly be going to the popularity poll, where it's going to be nobody but NIMBYs filling out 'nay' forms? Just do it! If it truly upsets the community, they can always knock it down at the next election, right?
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  No politician ever was embroiled in a scandal because they asked for too much feedback from their constituency. Expecting them to act counter to their interests is not very realistic, especially when you consider that the same NIMBYs who attend these meetings are the ones that vote in hugely disproportionate numbers. They might be a minority, but they have the time and the resources to use their political power and as such are very influential in modern policy.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I agree and disagree. I think it is valuable to get input from constituents, especially on infrastructure, but it also doesn't need to be the sole dictating thing. I think getting input to be able to nail down the pros vs cons is reasonable. Especially since, in a city, the project may be in a part of town they are rarely in or do not live in. But for sure, it should not be the full deciding factor but a way to get a scope of the full pros vs cons. Then evaluate if the points brought up were valid, then finally if the pros outweigh the cons.

colinmhayes 4y ago

NIMBYs are a minority, but they consistently vote and are involved in political action. My city has elections in February when no one goes outside, because corruption. City council members win with 5,000 votes, routinely less, even though they have 100,000 constituents. Not pissing off the loudest people is like the whole job of local politicians.

inglor_cz 4y ago

How many political positions in contemporary democratic world are actually majoritarian or were majoritarian when they achieved their critical momentum? Green Deals? Rainbow flags? Swings in abortion policies? Current levels and composition of immigration flows, be it in the US, Sweden or Greece? A few of them perhaps, but the typical prime mover of politics is an active and loud minority which cares a lot - and whose cohesion and initiative puts pressure on politicians. The NIMBYs are no exception.

efitz 4y ago

NIMBY is just one kind of activist. We live in the age of the "tyranny of the tiny minority" where a small number of passionate people have their already-loud voices so amplified by the media that they drown out everything else. Social media tends to make extremes go viral, and traditional media looks for controversy and amplifies it. Nuanced messaging and debate is a thing of the past. It doesn't fit in tweets and sound bites. Now, if you disagree with me, easier for me just to say you're evil than try to rebut your points. And this in turn feeds the media amplification effect. Who has the most emotionally compelling narrative? Who can parade out the most horrifying pictures? It doesn't matter if they're from a completely unrelated incident two years ago (and were staged), or that the "victims" are paid activists. "Politician" is now a career. This means perverse incentives for such people; instead of ONLY considering what is best for constituents. They must also think about getting reelected. Bureaucracies and government careers make decision-makers risk-averse, and most people react to having to make risky decisions by wanting more study before deciding. So the politicians and the bureaucrats only have up-side to accepting delays (they would call it "listening to constituents"), and suffer a huge risk of down-side if they green-light something that ticks off some noisy NIMBY or activist. And they rarely have the skill set or incentives to write contracts that result in the best outcomes. The article talks about the perverse incentives associated with unions; these are only made worse with public sector unions. Finally, our courts don't have loser pays and no longer are "speedy" by any reasonable definition. So you can tie things up for years with an activist lawyer on your staff, and make your opponent spend millions in legal fees to respond to all your noise. Plus, if you get lucky with a jury of people who don't understand the science of your issues and just buy the narrative, then you can win really big. We need a lot of reforms in our republic. Most of them center around removing perverse incentives and externalities.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
IMO the problem is that "politician" is a career. Now the municipal government is just one rung on the ladder, and the worst thing is not getting elected (getting fired). There is no incentive for career politicians to do anything other than what will help in the next election cycle. Politics used to be a hobby for the already successful who wanted to give back. These people were bound by a sense of what was right. Elitist as hell, yes, but at least they weren't trying to climb the corporate ladder.