4 ms·

You seem to be coming from the perspective that people who don't live in a place should have more say over the nature of that place than those who do live there

You seem to be coming from the perspective that people who don't live in a place should have more say over the nature of that place than those who do live there. To put it in your terms, why does it make more sense to tell existing residents "your place has to change and you can move if you don't like it" vs channel the new residents to other places where more housing is available and is available cheaper.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
They absolutely did not say that non-residents should have "more say over the nature of that place." Simply and narrowly that residents should not be able to block housing development, a much different and more straightforward position.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  If the residents don't have the most say, who is the authority that is enforcing housing development? How would that not be non-residents?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    Residents do have the most influence and the most concentrated control. That's not quite the same as being the only authority, or having absolute influence however, and this is a correct allocation of power. Residents don't and shouldn't expect to have the final say on who can live in their area. This is explicitly acknowledged by, for example, racial housing covenants being illegal these days.
aclatuts 3y ago
The NIMBYs don't only block new residents moving in. They also block existing residents from building new housing that reflects changing tastes and trends.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hombre_fatal 3y ago
"But a government should represent the interests of the locals" when it comes to housing seems like a motte-and-bailey argument where you use an agreeable platitude to launder in the less agreeable scenario of local home owners just voting for "fuck you, I got mine" and suggesting that's best for a city and the rest of its residents.
creer 3y ago
Which government? Your block? street? school district? Transit district? region? state? country? Even then, a country that needs immigrants to operate? Even then in a town here, most of the electrorate is renters, but most people who actually vote are homeowners. And a public library district found it better to "protect themselves" with a card fee for non-residents rather than open access to all state residents (like nearly all other public libraries around them, and like the state financially encourages.) So yes, it makes sense for the voters to have only so much power and influence. Sometimes it would be nice if someone in that pile concerned themselves with a longer term vision than "my lawn, right now". And that doesn't mean their political hobby either.
- bombcar 3y ago
  > Even then in a town here, most of the electorate is renters, but most people who actually vote are homeowners. At some point you have to give up; if the electorate doesn't even bother caring enough to vote, what can you do?
  - creer 3y ago
    It's part of the real world, and the problem still exists. A solution is still needed. But sure, in day to day life most people better focus on something else! Currently in California, there is some push at the state level to try and move things along - and override some city rules. Also one surprising city noticed that their past gridlock is not helpful (Berkeley, CA! Surprising because they are said to have invented restrictive zoning). Then some cities in the Los Angeles area somehow managed to never get in that rut at all, and allow construction. And they are not exactly hellholes because of that.
  - tacocataco 3y ago
    You could make third parties viable with an alternative electoral system such as Ranked Choice voting. Replacing First Past The Post voting with an alternative voting system will eliminate any chance of a spoiler effect. People could feel safe in the fact that if the party that best represents them doesn't make it, their vote will continue to be counted throughout the election. More political parties means more representation, and a bigger portion of the population being involved in the electoral process. More competition means higher quality representation, even from established parties.
VHRanger 3y ago
New residents don't just include immigrants: it's also all future inhabitants of the place. Your perspective amounts to existing residents extracting all the economic value in a location simply because they bought land there first. That's ridiculously inefficient and toxic at a national scale. Or even at a local scale, over 40-50years. One important paper on the topic calculated 50% GDP losses in the US because of large metro areas being too expensive to move into [1] 1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21154/w21154.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21154/w211...
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // Your perspective amounts to existing residents extracting all the economic value in a location simply because they bought land there first. I think people mainly think of it as "their home and their community" rather than "economic extraction" // calculated 50% GDP losses in the US because of large metro areas being too expensive to move into Doesn't that strike you as obvious bullshit?
  - VHRanger 3y ago
    > I think people mainly think of it as "their home and their community" rather than "economic extraction" It doesn't matter what they think. Some people also talk of "protecting property values". At the end of the day it's all ways to restrict the allowable number of units per square foot of land. Those people are enriching themselves sitting on a piece of land. It's not the value of the building on the land that is going up. This modern landed gentry are not improving the economic value of their land. They are extracting the economic value through higher resale prices. Because *other people* are doing productive economic activity nearby. It's the same idea as "everybody works but this vacant lot" [1] on a large scale. > Doesn't that strike you as obvious bullshit? No. You can go read the paper, come back and argue methodology. The economic GDP gain for a person from West Virginia to NYC is large. 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_%28cropped%29.jpg/1280px-Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_%28cropped%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ev...
samstave 3y ago
While I agree with you, places that used to be 'burbs - are now under an obsolete civil engineering design... you think SF is going to be able remain SF over the next 50 years? So all the outlying neighrborhoods/cities/areas -- MANY of which were built out in 40s to support the war effort as we were building liberty ships in the bay at an alarming rate - and all those women workers needed housing (rosie the riveter)... So all these tiny packed neighborhoods needed for the 1940s workforce resulted. Now we have a 2040 workforce need in the exact same way for building Liberty LLMS! (Expect of poisoning the dirt with war chemicals - we will find another similar metaphor digitally) (most of saily city, alameda, treasure island, hunters point, candle stick, dog patch, etc - were all heavy industry for these ships and the naval base - and they were massive amounts of toxics buried in the dirt. This is why hunters point was always ghetto - because they knew it was a Super Site - and so many people have gotten sick from it. Which is also why it was a very slow process to build stuff out new because new laws require environmental impacts which include soil sampling which reveals Super Site chemicals... The very tip of Alameda Naval base was also a dumping pit now Super Site -- they decided that its cheaper to pound giant metal posts as a barrier to prevent the chemicals leeching into the bay - rather than spend 10 times as much to clean up the site properly. and this just happened in the last 20ish years.. its been leaking into the bay since WWII
bigmanjon 3y ago
Thats the core of cities, they change! Imagine if 150 years ago, all the farmers and ranchers could block their neighbors from selling/buildings because it "ruins the rural character and will bring bad humors". Most of these communities would have never been built.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

They absolutely did not say that non-residents should have "more say over the nature of that place." Simply and narrowly that residents should not be able to block housing development, a much different and more straightforward position.

rootusrootus 3y ago
If the residents don't have the most say, who is the authority that is enforcing housing development? How would that not be non-residents?
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Residents do have the most influence and the most concentrated control. That's not quite the same as being the only authority, or having absolute influence however, and this is a correct allocation of power. Residents don't and shouldn't expect to have the final say on who can live in their area. This is explicitly acknowledged by, for example, racial housing covenants being illegal these days.

aclatuts 3y ago

The NIMBYs don't only block new residents moving in. They also block existing residents from building new housing that reflects changing tastes and trends.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hombre_fatal 3y ago

"But a government should represent the interests of the locals" when it comes to housing seems like a motte-and-bailey argument where you use an agreeable platitude to launder in the less agreeable scenario of local home owners just voting for "fuck you, I got mine" and suggesting that's best for a city and the rest of its residents.

creer 3y ago

Which government? Your block? street? school district? Transit district? region? state? country? Even then, a country that needs immigrants to operate? Even then in a town here, most of the electrorate is renters, but most people who actually vote are homeowners. And a public library district found it better to "protect themselves" with a card fee for non-residents rather than open access to all state residents (like nearly all other public libraries around them, and like the state financially encourages.) So yes, it makes sense for the voters to have only so much power and influence. Sometimes it would be nice if someone in that pile concerned themselves with a longer term vision than "my lawn, right now". And that doesn't mean their political hobby either.

bombcar 3y ago
> Even then in a town here, most of the electorate is renters, but most people who actually vote are homeowners. At some point you have to give up; if the electorate doesn't even bother caring enough to vote, what can you do?
- creer 3y ago
  It's part of the real world, and the problem still exists. A solution is still needed. But sure, in day to day life most people better focus on something else! Currently in California, there is some push at the state level to try and move things along - and override some city rules. Also one surprising city noticed that their past gridlock is not helpful (Berkeley, CA! Surprising because they are said to have invented restrictive zoning). Then some cities in the Los Angeles area somehow managed to never get in that rut at all, and allow construction. And they are not exactly hellholes because of that.
- tacocataco 3y ago
  You could make third parties viable with an alternative electoral system such as Ranked Choice voting. Replacing First Past The Post voting with an alternative voting system will eliminate any chance of a spoiler effect. People could feel safe in the fact that if the party that best represents them doesn't make it, their vote will continue to be counted throughout the election. More political parties means more representation, and a bigger portion of the population being involved in the electoral process. More competition means higher quality representation, even from established parties.

VHRanger 3y ago

New residents don't just include immigrants: it's also all future inhabitants of the place. Your perspective amounts to existing residents extracting all the economic value in a location simply because they bought land there first. That's ridiculously inefficient and toxic at a national scale. Or even at a local scale, over 40-50years. One important paper on the topic calculated 50% GDP losses in the US because of large metro areas being too expensive to move into [1] 1. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21154/w21154.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21154/w211...

xyzelement 3y ago
// Your perspective amounts to existing residents extracting all the economic value in a location simply because they bought land there first. I think people mainly think of it as "their home and their community" rather than "economic extraction" // calculated 50% GDP losses in the US because of large metro areas being too expensive to move into Doesn't that strike you as obvious bullshit?
- VHRanger 3y ago
  > I think people mainly think of it as "their home and their community" rather than "economic extraction" It doesn't matter what they think. Some people also talk of "protecting property values". At the end of the day it's all ways to restrict the allowable number of units per square foot of land. Those people are enriching themselves sitting on a piece of land. It's not the value of the building on the land that is going up. This modern landed gentry are not improving the economic value of their land. They are extracting the economic value through higher resale prices. Because *other people* are doing productive economic activity nearby. It's the same idea as "everybody works but this vacant lot" [1] on a large scale. > Doesn't that strike you as obvious bullshit? No. You can go read the paper, come back and argue methodology. The economic GDP gain for a person from West Virginia to NYC is large. 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_%28cropped%29.jpg/1280px-Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_%28cropped%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ev...

samstave 3y ago

While I agree with you, places that used to be 'burbs - are now under an obsolete civil engineering design... you think SF is going to be able remain SF over the next 50 years? So all the outlying neighrborhoods/cities/areas -- MANY of which were built out in 40s to support the war effort as we were building liberty ships in the bay at an alarming rate - and all those women workers needed housing (rosie the riveter)... So all these tiny packed neighborhoods needed for the 1940s workforce resulted. Now we have a 2040 workforce need in the exact same way for building Liberty LLMS! (Expect of poisoning the dirt with war chemicals - we will find another similar metaphor digitally) (most of saily city, alameda, treasure island, hunters point, candle stick, dog patch, etc - were all heavy industry for these ships and the naval base - and they were massive amounts of toxics buried in the dirt. This is why hunters point was always ghetto - because they knew it was a Super Site - and so many people have gotten sick from it. Which is also why it was a very slow process to build stuff out new because new laws require environmental impacts which include soil sampling which reveals Super Site chemicals... The very tip of Alameda Naval base was also a dumping pit now Super Site -- they decided that its cheaper to pound giant metal posts as a barrier to prevent the chemicals leeching into the bay - rather than spend 10 times as much to clean up the site properly. and this just happened in the last 20ish years.. its been leaking into the bay since WWII

bigmanjon 3y ago

Thats the core of cities, they change! Imagine if 150 years ago, all the farmers and ranchers could block their neighbors from selling/buildings because it "ruins the rural character and will bring bad humors". Most of these communities would have never been built.