4 ms·
> Most NIMBY difficulties stem from the asymmetric nature of the costs and benefits of a new project: a new apartment building, for instance, will benefit a ci
by jgeada 3y ago
> Most NIMBY difficulties stem from the asymmetric nature of the costs and benefits of a new project: a new apartment building, for instance, will benefit a city overall (slightly lowering housing costs and slightly increasing the size of the city’s labor market), but those benefits are diffuse. The costs, on the other hand – traffic, parking, construction disruption – will be borne almost entirely by the surrounding residents, who will thus rationally oppose it.
I have always wondered why we don't structure payments of some form to balance out the local costs of infrastructure etc. NIMBY is rational with the economics as they are; but would you really be as opposed to a local power plant if energy costs for the area near the plant were subsidized by some percentage? Balance out the local costs with a local benefit.
- spacecadet 3y agoNIMBY is not rational! Its a biased selfish decision that protects ones own, shrouded in "community" -- Except I'm directly involved with my community and none of the loud talking NIMBY's ever show up... GET LOST.
- stdbrouw 3y agoOr the other way around: as a tax with a Georgist flavor. If your land has a value of $x/m^2 when free of zoning restrictions, but your neighborhood really wants to keep it free of noise / traffic / high buildings or high density, and as a consequence land value drops to $y/m^2, that is perfectly fine but it will cost you $x - $y each year.
- daveoc64 3y ago>I have always wondered why we don't structure payments of some form to balance out the local costs of infrastructure etc. NIMBY is rational with the economics as they are; but would you really be as opposed to a local power plant if energy costs for the area near the plant were subsidized by some percentage? Balance out the local costs with a local benefit. I've seen this proposed for various things like onshore wind farms (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60864097 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60864097), but there usually has to be a limit to the subsidy/discount/bribe - otherwise it wouldn't be viable for the company that wants the infrastructure. I saw something suggested in the region of 25% discount on electricity bill for people near such a site, for up to 10 years. I don't think that such a temporary benefit would be enough to convince me of having something nearby if I thought it was permanently detrimental to the neighbourhood or my property. (Not that I'm claiming to be a NIMBY).
- eastbound 3y ago> otherwise it wouldn't be viable for the company that wants the infrastructure. Well, isn’t that a proof that the benefit doesn’t balance the downsides? What if the answer were really “We shouldn’t build more infrastructure, we shouldn’t overpopulate this city anymore” ?
- tomatocracy 3y agoThis actually isn't that uncommon for airports. The first example which comes to mind is London City Airport which pays for local homes to have noise insulation fitted[0]. I believe doing this has been a condition of them being granted planning approval to increase the number of flights they operate a number of times over the years. 0. https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/noise-management-and-monitoring/sound-insulation-scheme https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/nois...
- bombcar 3y agoThis has been done in various ways, I seem to remember a nuclear power plant that just took over property tax for everyone around it. The problem with these kinds of "structured bribes" is that they're made with the people living there at the time, but those people move or die, and the newcomers grumble.