4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.