4 ms·

The lawsuits exist because democracy spoke and the NIMBYs didn't like what it had to say. The builders are operating under the laws of the community. The NIMBY

by cmh89 4y ago

The lawsuits exist because democracy spoke and the NIMBYs didn't like what it had to say. The builders are operating under the laws of the community. The NIMBYs are abusing the legal system in an attempt to subvert the will of the people.

steponlego 4y ago
Sorry, the nature of local, county, state, and federal jurisdictions won't tolerate some inevitable voter takeover even if most people in a state seem to vote for some socialist WEF policy or another. It's one of the differences between federalization and what other countries have. You can fool the voters but they're getting sharper and they're becoming conspiracy theorists too now, for good reason.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  It seems you've been posting every two minutes for too long to have noticed how wrong you are. Calm down with the nonsense labels and conspiracy foolishness, maybe take a break from posting to touch nature. The State of California recently revoked the rights of quite a few smaller jurisdictions to set their own zoning laws because they abdicated that right by refusing to set zoning laws that allowed for new development. So... Voters at every level pretty consistently vote for more development, seeing clearly that development beats homeless encampments, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. The obstructionist lawsuits come from sub-jurisdictional groups like the residents of one particular building in this case. Federalism doesn't apply here any more than "socialism" does. Appeals to imaginary international conspiracies aside, this is pretty simple: in many areas we have, and will continue to have, more people who need places to live than we have places for them to live. Either we build more places, or we deal with the consequences of failure. People abusing the legal system to stick their fingers in their ears until the problem moves a few blocks or a city or a state away are running out of time, because the tricks are seen clearly. Every selfish NIMBY is saying much the same thing: any and all development that led to the point where I could move here and buy my place is well and good and the natural order of things, and every bit of construction that happens after I close on my property is horrible and evil and will irreparably damage the character of the neighborhood. Of course, anyone who has lived in the area just a few years more could say the same thing about the freshly-minted NIMBY, all the way back to those who lived here 500 years ago. It's obvious nonsense.
  - steponlego 4y ago
    California is a model for what other states want to avoid doing. And if you’re admitting that you wish to use bribed politicians to enact WEF policies where’s the conspiracy theory? People don’t want to become California and will work to prevent their states from resembling it.
    - cmh89 4y ago
      >California is a model for what other states want to avoid doing. Ah yes, having the largest GDP in the country and one of the highest in the world is certainly something to avoid.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      I wish for elected politicians to do what we elected them to do, which does not at all involve bribery or globalist conspiracies. I'll grant that California is in some ways a negative model. For example, I hate that the NIMBY capture that has been a factor in driving prices up in California has started to show up in Texas. Oh yeah, that's another bad assumption you made. I live in Texas, a place people often move to from California in part because it's growing rapidly, since NIMBYs haven't yet captured the legal system here. Of course, it's fun to see people who moved here within the last couple of years speak up at city council meetings against new development, because they're trying to "California my Texas" by bringing their NIMBY nonsense with them. They struggle to explain why the house that was built for them within the last three years is good, while the new houses are bad, of course.

by cmh89 4y ago

steponlego 4y ago

Sorry, the nature of local, county, state, and federal jurisdictions won't tolerate some inevitable voter takeover even if most people in a state seem to vote for some socialist WEF policy or another. It's one of the differences between federalization and what other countries have. You can fool the voters but they're getting sharper and they're becoming conspiracy theorists too now, for good reason.

pwinnski 4y ago
It seems you've been posting every two minutes for too long to have noticed how wrong you are. Calm down with the nonsense labels and conspiracy foolishness, maybe take a break from posting to touch nature. The State of California recently revoked the rights of quite a few smaller jurisdictions to set their own zoning laws because they abdicated that right by refusing to set zoning laws that allowed for new development. So... Voters at every level pretty consistently vote for more development, seeing clearly that development beats homeless encampments, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. The obstructionist lawsuits come from sub-jurisdictional groups like the residents of one particular building in this case. Federalism doesn't apply here any more than "socialism" does. Appeals to imaginary international conspiracies aside, this is pretty simple: in many areas we have, and will continue to have, more people who need places to live than we have places for them to live. Either we build more places, or we deal with the consequences of failure. People abusing the legal system to stick their fingers in their ears until the problem moves a few blocks or a city or a state away are running out of time, because the tricks are seen clearly. Every selfish NIMBY is saying much the same thing: any and all development that led to the point where I could move here and buy my place is well and good and the natural order of things, and every bit of construction that happens after I close on my property is horrible and evil and will irreparably damage the character of the neighborhood. Of course, anyone who has lived in the area just a few years more could say the same thing about the freshly-minted NIMBY, all the way back to those who lived here 500 years ago. It's obvious nonsense.
- steponlego 4y ago
  California is a model for what other states want to avoid doing. And if you’re admitting that you wish to use bribed politicians to enact WEF policies where’s the conspiracy theory? People don’t want to become California and will work to prevent their states from resembling it.
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >California is a model for what other states want to avoid doing. Ah yes, having the largest GDP in the country and one of the highest in the world is certainly something to avoid.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    I wish for elected politicians to do what we elected them to do, which does not at all involve bribery or globalist conspiracies. I'll grant that California is in some ways a negative model. For example, I hate that the NIMBY capture that has been a factor in driving prices up in California has started to show up in Texas. Oh yeah, that's another bad assumption you made. I live in Texas, a place people often move to from California in part because it's growing rapidly, since NIMBYs haven't yet captured the legal system here. Of course, it's fun to see people who moved here within the last couple of years speak up at city council meetings against new development, because they're trying to "California my Texas" by bringing their NIMBY nonsense with them. They struggle to explain why the house that was built for them within the last three years is good, while the new houses are bad, of course.