7 ms·

Wanting to have a nice place to live isn't "NIMBY", it is wanting a nice place to live. If you want to live in a dense urban jungle, we already have lots of th

Wanting to have a nice place to live isn't "NIMBY", it is wanting a nice place to live. If you want to live in a dense urban jungle, we already have lots of those in this country

shaburn 4y ago
Not enough by the likes of some
mechagodzilla 4y ago
That's pretty much the definition of "NIMBY" - "Not in my backyard!" You want the people that might move to your neighborhood and live in denser housing to go live somewhere/anywhere else (and if that place isn't particularly nice for them, well, that's not your problem), and you want to use the law to enforce it.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  "I would like to continue to have access to single family housing with a nice yard that I maintain and neighbors I don't share walls or utilities with. If there are people who want dense housing they should also have that option" Is not remotely the same as "I don't want to live in denser housing and I don't want it built anywhere"
  - mechagodzilla 4y ago
    Nobody has ever said "I don't want denser housing to be built anywhere" - they say "I don't want denser housing built near me, and I want the law to enforce my preference" (i.e. NIMBY). This isn't about outlawing single family housing, it's about letting economics dictate what can be built and where. If your neighbor wants to convert their house into a duplex, and two families want to live there, why should you be able to stop them?
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      And what are the YIMBYs doing? They're trying to use the force of "law" to go to an area owned by people who are happy and demolish their towns and give it all to the new replacement population
    - tpmoney 4y ago
      And if a wealthy developer wants to buy up an apartment block in Harlem and tear it all down and replace it with a gated McMansion, why should anyone be able to stop them? Or if your neighbor wants to rent out their house as a 24/7 rave and auto shop, why should anyone be able to stop them? At the fundamental level, this fight is about self determination how small does a cluster of people have to be before they’re not allowed to set the rules for the area they live in. Can a state ban a developer from turning a major thoroughfare into a replica of the Vegas strip if the citizens of that state don’t want it? Can a county? Can a city? Can a town? Can a neighborhood? Do people from outside an area have a fundamental right to impose laws on an area to make that area more palatable to their sensibilities? The obvious answer is in all of these cases, sometimes yes and sometimes no. But the fight is about where the lines are drawn. Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively single family homes on half acre lots? Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively high rises? Or exclusively low income housing? Or exclusively walkable? Or exclusively mixed use but only for local businesses and not multi state chains? What makes one persons later birth or lack of income more deserving of a home in a given area than the people who already live there? Or to put it another way, would it be unreasonable for the people in a rural French village to decry (and want to stop) the construction of a raft of new McMansions and some massive Wal-marts. And if it’s not unreasonable, what makes their desire to have their homes and neighborhoods a certain way more legitimate than anyone else’s? Just time?
      - awillen 4y ago
        I think the answer is that they can decide all of the things that you're saying here, and they can lobby to have the government enforce those decisions, because people are allowed to do lobby the government to do whatever they want. The argument against NIMBYs isn't that they're doing something illegal, it's that they're doing something that's selfish and bad for society as a whole. The difference between wanting denser residential zoning and wanting to build McMansions on French villages is that one has clear benefits for large numbers of people and the other very much does not. And while we shouldn't always do the thing that benefits more people - that's how you end up with oppression of minorities - the fact that people are upset with those who are doing a thing that is inherently self-serving at the expense of others doesn't seems reasonable.
throwayyy479087 4y ago
We have 3, and basically everywhere else is just strip malls, Targets, and "lifestyle centers." America is a beautiful country and we're just paving it.
DerekL 4y ago
How terrible, a dense urban jungle, with miles and miles of quadplexes. You can barely see the sun anymore, blotted out by gigantic two-story buildings.
- shaburn 4y ago
  Yes. This is the counter argument. No strawman here.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  So are two-story single family homes usually banned in these neighbourhoods? Maybe they should mandate that buildings are half inside ground so they would be even lower allowing even more light.
kory 4y ago
The YIMBYs want to move to your neighborhood, so you and your neighbors are obligated to make as much space for them as needed. Oh, you like your neighborhood how it is? Don't worry, you'll learn to love <relying on public transport instead of cars, no parking, increased traffic, blocked out sunlight, tiny and eventually no yards, large buildings next door>. Your way of living is bad because cars and sprawl are bad and YIMBYs don't like them, they think the walkable urban mixed use neighborhoods are superior, so we're going to remove the zoning to force change. Aren't those things what you want? No? Well you'll learn to like them, because you shouldn't have power over what your neighbor can build on their property. You say your neighborhood overwhelmingly votes to keep it that way, not just you? Actually, your neighborhood shouldn't have power to vote for this zoning either, because we know what's best for your neighborhood, not you. This is how every argument with a YIMBY goes.
- shaburn 4y ago
  You left out morality attacks and disregarding decades of legal contracts and legislation that created the value they often want to pillage.
  - kory 4y ago
    I intentionally left out YIMBY moral grandstanding, because it's usually a shield to hide the real reason they feel zoning should be changed: "I can't afford your neighborhood and I want to live there"
    - shaburn 4y ago
      aka I want to use guilt, envy, and the legal system to extract value from your legal property.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        That's just good business! If you don't like it, move.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Having a duplex next door doesn't put you in a "dense urban jungle".
janef0421 4y ago
Is Paris a "dense urban jungle"? There are plenty of sustainable and practical urban forms outside of Manhattan-style high-rises.

Wanting to have a nice place to live isn't "NIMBY", it is wanting a nice place to live. If you want to live in a dense urban jungle, we already have lots of those in this country

shaburn 4y ago

Not enough by the likes of some

mechagodzilla 4y ago

That's pretty much the definition of "NIMBY" - "Not in my backyard!" You want the people that might move to your neighborhood and live in denser housing to go live somewhere/anywhere else (and if that place isn't particularly nice for them, well, that's not your problem), and you want to use the law to enforce it.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
"I would like to continue to have access to single family housing with a nice yard that I maintain and neighbors I don't share walls or utilities with. If there are people who want dense housing they should also have that option" Is not remotely the same as "I don't want to live in denser housing and I don't want it built anywhere"
- mechagodzilla 4y ago
  Nobody has ever said "I don't want denser housing to be built anywhere" - they say "I don't want denser housing built near me, and I want the law to enforce my preference" (i.e. NIMBY). This isn't about outlawing single family housing, it's about letting economics dictate what can be built and where. If your neighbor wants to convert their house into a duplex, and two families want to live there, why should you be able to stop them?
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    And what are the YIMBYs doing? They're trying to use the force of "law" to go to an area owned by people who are happy and demolish their towns and give it all to the new replacement population
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    And if a wealthy developer wants to buy up an apartment block in Harlem and tear it all down and replace it with a gated McMansion, why should anyone be able to stop them? Or if your neighbor wants to rent out their house as a 24/7 rave and auto shop, why should anyone be able to stop them? At the fundamental level, this fight is about self determination how small does a cluster of people have to be before they’re not allowed to set the rules for the area they live in. Can a state ban a developer from turning a major thoroughfare into a replica of the Vegas strip if the citizens of that state don’t want it? Can a county? Can a city? Can a town? Can a neighborhood? Do people from outside an area have a fundamental right to impose laws on an area to make that area more palatable to their sensibilities? The obvious answer is in all of these cases, sometimes yes and sometimes no. But the fight is about where the lines are drawn. Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively single family homes on half acre lots? Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively high rises? Or exclusively low income housing? Or exclusively walkable? Or exclusively mixed use but only for local businesses and not multi state chains? What makes one persons later birth or lack of income more deserving of a home in a given area than the people who already live there? Or to put it another way, would it be unreasonable for the people in a rural French village to decry (and want to stop) the construction of a raft of new McMansions and some massive Wal-marts. And if it’s not unreasonable, what makes their desire to have their homes and neighborhoods a certain way more legitimate than anyone else’s? Just time?
    - awillen 4y ago
      I think the answer is that they can decide all of the things that you're saying here, and they can lobby to have the government enforce those decisions, because people are allowed to do lobby the government to do whatever they want. The argument against NIMBYs isn't that they're doing something illegal, it's that they're doing something that's selfish and bad for society as a whole. The difference between wanting denser residential zoning and wanting to build McMansions on French villages is that one has clear benefits for large numbers of people and the other very much does not. And while we shouldn't always do the thing that benefits more people - that's how you end up with oppression of minorities - the fact that people are upset with those who are doing a thing that is inherently self-serving at the expense of others doesn't seems reasonable.

throwayyy479087 4y ago

We have 3, and basically everywhere else is just strip malls, Targets, and "lifestyle centers." America is a beautiful country and we're just paving it.

DerekL 4y ago

How terrible, a dense urban jungle, with miles and miles of quadplexes. You can barely see the sun anymore, blotted out by gigantic two-story buildings.

shaburn 4y ago
Yes. This is the counter argument. No strawman here.
Ekaros 4y ago
So are two-story single family homes usually banned in these neighbourhoods? Maybe they should mandate that buildings are half inside ground so they would be even lower allowing even more light.

kory 4y ago

The YIMBYs want to move to your neighborhood, so you and your neighbors are obligated to make as much space for them as needed. Oh, you like your neighborhood how it is? Don't worry, you'll learn to love <relying on public transport instead of cars, no parking, increased traffic, blocked out sunlight, tiny and eventually no yards, large buildings next door>. Your way of living is bad because cars and sprawl are bad and YIMBYs don't like them, they think the walkable urban mixed use neighborhoods are superior, so we're going to remove the zoning to force change. Aren't those things what you want? No? Well you'll learn to like them, because you shouldn't have power over what your neighbor can build on their property. You say your neighborhood overwhelmingly votes to keep it that way, not just you? Actually, your neighborhood shouldn't have power to vote for this zoning either, because we know what's best for your neighborhood, not you. This is how every argument with a YIMBY goes.

shaburn 4y ago
You left out morality attacks and disregarding decades of legal contracts and legislation that created the value they often want to pillage.
- kory 4y ago
  I intentionally left out YIMBY moral grandstanding, because it's usually a shield to hide the real reason they feel zoning should be changed: "I can't afford your neighborhood and I want to live there"
  - shaburn 4y ago
    aka I want to use guilt, envy, and the legal system to extract value from your legal property.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      That's just good business! If you don't like it, move.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

Having a duplex next door doesn't put you in a "dense urban jungle".

janef0421 4y ago

Is Paris a "dense urban jungle"? There are plenty of sustainable and practical urban forms outside of Manhattan-style high-rises.