3 ms·

It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. This i

by usea 3y ago

It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. This is the same dynamic as browser feature development. Adding things is easy. Preventing additions is hard. We end up saying yes to things that disadvantage most people.

scott_w 3y ago
If that were true, how come NIMBYism is so successful?
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  NIMBYs don't win all the time.... And in a lot of places they do have near total control. NIMBYs are usually suburbanites, and if they're in a smaller municipality they can exert a large amount of control over the city government and planning process. The auto dependent single family suburb has been heavily propagandized and ingrained in American culture that many times no one questions it, and those advocating for some walkable, or mixed use areas are in the minority. Just look at California, the state requires every city adopt and update a multipart plan for various purposes. One of those parts is called the "Housing element", it requires cities to plan and zone for a minimum amount of growth and affordable housing. over the last year or two many of these plans have come up for renewal and lots of the smaller (and especially more conservative) cities have been reluctant, or out right refused to meet the states requirements. They want to keep their car oriented suburban small community, affordability be Damned. The state did pass this fun law that created this thing called "the builder's remedy". Where if a city does not have a compliant housing element the city loses its discretion and must approve any permit that meets its building code, sans any density requirements. And these rights vest, so even if the city latter approves a compliment those builders can still utilize those permits. (Carrot and stick approach to getting cities to comply) But this is only after decades of the California housing affordablility crisis growing and yimby advocates fighting for less restrictive zoning. https://openscopestudio.com/californias-zoning-holiday-what-to-know-about-the-builders-remedy https://openscopestudio.com/californias-zoning-holiday-what-... TL;DR NIMBYs are ussally the majority (or at least the louds and most engaged).
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. True. And because of this, you need to increase the incentives for your side: create a website that lists all politicians that are in favour of the dubious law by their individual names. Use a wording for these politicians that is not punishable by libel, but near to it. Even after such a law becomes passed, make sure that the politicians who voted in favour of it will spend the rest of their lives deeply regretting their decision in sorrow so that hardly any future politician will dare to vote for similar laws. Summarizingly: do everything in your power that the reputation of *every* politician who voted in favour of the law becomes *destroyed* in important segments of the society.
- antonvs 3y ago
  That’s more of a revenge fantasy than a viable political strategy. Of course, you’re not the first person to think of it - in fact, many people have tried this strategy, it’s one of the most common ones in politics. “Attack ads” are an example of it. And they’re effective, to an extent. But they also have a major negative aspect, which is that they reduce the importance of reputation - it becomes an unreliable indicator, because almost every politician’s reputation ends up “destroyed” as you put it. The problem is that people who disagree with you are just as capable of slandering the politicians you agree with as you are for the ones you disagree with. So you end up with a race to the bottom, with accusations becoming more and more hysterical, completely drowning any real signal, and teaching people to ignore it all as noise.

by usea 3y ago

scott_w 3y ago

If that were true, how come NIMBYism is so successful?

patmorgan23 3y ago
NIMBYs don't win all the time.... And in a lot of places they do have near total control. NIMBYs are usually suburbanites, and if they're in a smaller municipality they can exert a large amount of control over the city government and planning process. The auto dependent single family suburb has been heavily propagandized and ingrained in American culture that many times no one questions it, and those advocating for some walkable, or mixed use areas are in the minority. Just look at California, the state requires every city adopt and update a multipart plan for various purposes. One of those parts is called the "Housing element", it requires cities to plan and zone for a minimum amount of growth and affordable housing. over the last year or two many of these plans have come up for renewal and lots of the smaller (and especially more conservative) cities have been reluctant, or out right refused to meet the states requirements. They want to keep their car oriented suburban small community, affordability be Damned. The state did pass this fun law that created this thing called "the builder's remedy". Where if a city does not have a compliant housing element the city loses its discretion and must approve any permit that meets its building code, sans any density requirements. And these rights vest, so even if the city latter approves a compliment those builders can still utilize those permits. (Carrot and stick approach to getting cities to comply) But this is only after decades of the California housing affordablility crisis growing and yimby advocates fighting for less restrictive zoning. https://openscopestudio.com/californias-zoning-holiday-what-to-know-about-the-builders-remedy https://openscopestudio.com/californias-zoning-holiday-what-... TL;DR NIMBYs are ussally the majority (or at least the louds and most engaged).

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> It's a lot easier to do something than it is to stop people from doing something. Usually to prevent actions you need total control or strong incentives. True. And because of this, you need to increase the incentives for your side: create a website that lists all politicians that are in favour of the dubious law by their individual names. Use a wording for these politicians that is not punishable by libel, but near to it. Even after such a law becomes passed, make sure that the politicians who voted in favour of it will spend the rest of their lives deeply regretting their decision in sorrow so that hardly any future politician will dare to vote for similar laws. Summarizingly: do everything in your power that the reputation of *every* politician who voted in favour of the law becomes *destroyed* in important segments of the society.

antonvs 3y ago
That’s more of a revenge fantasy than a viable political strategy. Of course, you’re not the first person to think of it - in fact, many people have tried this strategy, it’s one of the most common ones in politics. “Attack ads” are an example of it. And they’re effective, to an extent. But they also have a major negative aspect, which is that they reduce the importance of reputation - it becomes an unreliable indicator, because almost every politician’s reputation ends up “destroyed” as you put it. The problem is that people who disagree with you are just as capable of slandering the politicians you agree with as you are for the ones you disagree with. So you end up with a race to the bottom, with accusations becoming more and more hysterical, completely drowning any real signal, and teaching people to ignore it all as noise.