3 ms·

NIMBY is the wrong term for this. What we're really talking about is eminent domain. To get the rate of progress you're talking about requires bulldozing throu

NIMBY is the wrong term for this. What we're really talking about is eminent domain. To get the rate of progress you're talking about requires bulldozing through neighborhoods and often buying up private property. So you have to be comfortable with personally taking away someone's property for public use. If you aren't ready to do that, then you're distracting from the fundamental issue by substituting terms. You're also using proxy to put these moral dilemmas onto someone else, maybe an elected official. It's analogous to convincing someone of murder and then having another person pull the switch for the electric chair. Without getting too far out into the weeds, we're seeing this problem in recent Supreme Court rulings. I've chosen for myself to use proper terminology now. I expect that from others and will be pointing out this issue in future discussions. If the people I'm debating continue to use hand waving to avoid the crux of issues, then I will make light of it and point out their inadequate communication skills. Basically questioning their leadership authority if they don't have an understanding of debate and continue to insult the intelligence of their constituents.

SteveGerencser 4y ago
I have to agree with your take on this. We were recently sent an 'offer' by the local water district to buy 15' of frontage along our property for a new water line that will be a major service upgrade for about 8 homes. My issue came when I discovered that the current water line and easement is on the other side of the road, but they would have to cut down quite a few tree while it was a lot easier to dig in front of my farm. So far, I get it. Then I could out that they offered us 3 cents per square foot of frontage but the home next to us was offered 4x as much at 4 cents per square foot. And someone else offer 4 cents, and they didn't even know about the 3 new houses on our road before they even started planning. I'm all for improving infrastructure, but it needs to be in a fair, and well planned, way. Neither of which is common with this sort of thing.
karaterobot 4y ago
I would go even farther, and say you'd have to be comfortable with someone taking away your property to build something you don't think should be built at all. It's easy to say "they should take somebody else's property and build something I want." Anybody can do that! But if you think of it that way it makes more sense why you get people blocking these projects.
enragedcacti 4y ago
A huge amount of NIMBYism (although certainly not all) is about what other people can do with property they already own, or what the gov't can do with property it owns. The GP groups eminent domain in with NIMBYism, you are grouping NIMBYism in with eminent domain. Oversimplification dilutes the conversation in the same way that substituting terms does. His example of building a protected bike lane on a city road does not require eminent domain and in my opinion requires far less scrutiny than project where a person's property is considerably affected (as far as I'm aware most people interpret the backyard in NIMBY in the metaphorical sense rather than the literal one). I would assume that the GP feels similarly given the type of projects they want to see completed. They seem primarily concerned with local projects which usually don't need eminent domain because they have a decent level of flexibility in their location, unlike highways or train tracks.
- zackmorris 4y ago
  I think you might be right. Admittedly, I was projecting my own disgust about neighborhoods around me being razed to build row houses and 3 story wood apartments to house the endless influx of out-of-staters into the city where I live in the northwest. And also my dismay at government corruption seeping into every facet of our personal lives. To rephrase: I'm concerned that terminology distracts from core issues. Spin sways the masses one way or another so that they can be manipulated into voting against their own self-interest. Without context, there's no way to know to what extent NIMBYism or eminent domain plays into these debates. So we should generally consider 2 or more perspectives, but infotainment often only hits us over the head with 1 to achieve a political goal through propaganda.
quickthrower2 4y ago
You don't need eminent domain for dense apartments to be built. You just need to rezone. Unless you the government are building the apartments (and want to build them), e.g. for public housing.

SteveGerencser 4y ago

I have to agree with your take on this. We were recently sent an 'offer' by the local water district to buy 15' of frontage along our property for a new water line that will be a major service upgrade for about 8 homes. My issue came when I discovered that the current water line and easement is on the other side of the road, but they would have to cut down quite a few tree while it was a lot easier to dig in front of my farm. So far, I get it. Then I could out that they offered us 3 cents per square foot of frontage but the home next to us was offered 4x as much at 4 cents per square foot. And someone else offer 4 cents, and they didn't even know about the 3 new houses on our road before they even started planning. I'm all for improving infrastructure, but it needs to be in a fair, and well planned, way. Neither of which is common with this sort of thing.

karaterobot 4y ago

I would go even farther, and say you'd have to be comfortable with someone taking away your property to build something you don't think should be built at all. It's easy to say "they should take somebody else's property and build something I want." Anybody can do that! But if you think of it that way it makes more sense why you get people blocking these projects.

enragedcacti 4y ago

A huge amount of NIMBYism (although certainly not all) is about what other people can do with property they already own, or what the gov't can do with property it owns. The GP groups eminent domain in with NIMBYism, you are grouping NIMBYism in with eminent domain. Oversimplification dilutes the conversation in the same way that substituting terms does. His example of building a protected bike lane on a city road does not require eminent domain and in my opinion requires far less scrutiny than project where a person's property is considerably affected (as far as I'm aware most people interpret the backyard in NIMBY in the metaphorical sense rather than the literal one). I would assume that the GP feels similarly given the type of projects they want to see completed. They seem primarily concerned with local projects which usually don't need eminent domain because they have a decent level of flexibility in their location, unlike highways or train tracks.

zackmorris 4y ago
I think you might be right. Admittedly, I was projecting my own disgust about neighborhoods around me being razed to build row houses and 3 story wood apartments to house the endless influx of out-of-staters into the city where I live in the northwest. And also my dismay at government corruption seeping into every facet of our personal lives. To rephrase: I'm concerned that terminology distracts from core issues. Spin sways the masses one way or another so that they can be manipulated into voting against their own self-interest. Without context, there's no way to know to what extent NIMBYism or eminent domain plays into these debates. So we should generally consider 2 or more perspectives, but infotainment often only hits us over the head with 1 to achieve a political goal through propaganda.

quickthrower2 4y ago

You don't need eminent domain for dense apartments to be built. You just need to rezone. Unless you the government are building the apartments (and want to build them), e.g. for public housing.