4 ms·

an important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment (i.e. neighbourhood)? I think it can be easy to try and draw a c

an important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment (i.e. neighbourhood)? I think it can be easy to try and draw a circle around NIMBYism and call it a class issue. I think it could be that in part. But I also think that if people like the environment they live in, they will naturally try and protect it, and that doesn't necessarily constitute discrimination. in some ways, I'd say middle/low income people in san francisco have done more to destroy affordability in their neighbourhoods than they've done to help it by torpedoing every new development. It is no mistake that the community holds so much power in a city like San Francisco. Look up Jane Jacobs and her book. it's a blueprint for anti-densificiation

whats_a_quasar 3y ago
An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property? Why should the group of neighbors who speak loudly and have the time to attend planning meetings on a Tuesday afternoon get to decide what I can build on my own property? Why does the municipal bureaucratic tangle have the right to prevent a landowner from getting the full market value of their property if they decide to sell? Why is it ok to use a terrible permitting process to stop people from modifying their own houses? There certainly are things that a person can build or do on their property that harm the neighbors. But at the moment, most American municipalities are privileging the loud group of neighbors who oppose any change over the rights of the landowner and over the social benefits of actually building stuff.
- MAGZine 3y ago
  > An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property? Society is. This is literally the basis of society--we reach consensus (in some fashion, even consensus is dictated), and abide by the laws. There's this weird attitude in the united states, something along the lines of, "well this property is mine, ergo, i can do whatever the hell i want with it." It's weird because it's actually unfounded. Maybe more true in rural areas. The use of land has always been governed. And the more humans that are nearby, the more governance and consideration of your neighbours there must be. I actually hold no opinion on the 'correct' way to govern land use, other than to point out that maybe the reason it's hard to change the character of the city is because it was done so intentionally. Thankfully we have a way to get progressive permitting done with you having to perform your civic duties on a tuesday afternoon! it's called voting. And perhaps if there's not enough votes to install leaders with progressive permitting views, then perhaps it is not a prevalent view. edit: Fascinating I'm getting downvoted, I wish people would explain other than 'I don't like the words you're saying'.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property? Why should the group of neighbors who speak loudly and have the time to attend planning meetings on a Tuesday afternoon get to decide what I can build on my own property? Why does the municipal bureaucratic tangle have the right to prevent a landowner from getting the full market value of their property if they decide to sell? Why is it ok to use a terrible permitting process to stop people from modifying their own houses? There certainly are things that a person can build or do on their property that harm the neighbors. But at the moment, most American municipalities are privileging the loud group of neighbors who oppose any change over the rights of the landowner and over the social benefits of actually building stuff.

MAGZine 3y ago
> An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property? Society is. This is literally the basis of society--we reach consensus (in some fashion, even consensus is dictated), and abide by the laws. There's this weird attitude in the united states, something along the lines of, "well this property is mine, ergo, i can do whatever the hell i want with it." It's weird because it's actually unfounded. Maybe more true in rural areas. The use of land has always been governed. And the more humans that are nearby, the more governance and consideration of your neighbours there must be. I actually hold no opinion on the 'correct' way to govern land use, other than to point out that maybe the reason it's hard to change the character of the city is because it was done so intentionally. Thankfully we have a way to get progressive permitting done with you having to perform your civic duties on a tuesday afternoon! it's called voting. And perhaps if there's not enough votes to install leaders with progressive permitting views, then perhaps it is not a prevalent view. edit: Fascinating I'm getting downvoted, I wish people would explain other than 'I don't like the words you're saying'.