3 ms·

>enact state level YIMBY policies to override local planning (who will always kowtow to local folks who show up to say no, and local folks who say no because it

>enact state level YIMBY policies to override local planning (who will always kowtow to local folks who show up to say no, and local folks who say no because it costs them nothing to do so as they already own) It's more than that; it's a standard free-rider problem. If all the other districts in your city support development in their area, then your own property value will go up, but you won't be burdened by any local development costs. And if you develop in your district but nobody else develops in their district, then your property value won't go up (or will go up only slightly) but you're burdened by the local development costs. It's classic prisoner's dilemma stuff. The simple solution is to remove the local district's ability to veto local development. At least, as long as city-level/state-level planners don't have an agenda that favors certain districts over others.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
> The simple solution is to remove the local district's ability to veto local development. At least, as long as city-level/state-level planners don't have an agenda that favors certain districts over others. That is what state level YIMBY policy is intended to do, to override the free rider problem of existing property owners in the local domain. If the human can say no to any new housing, and it costs be nothing to do so, what is a human going to do when all of their incentives are to say no? As a YIMBY activist who also owns property, I have seen this first hand at local planning meetings. Rebutting complaints point by point (crime, decreased property value, traffic, etc) with data, we finally arrive at "because I don't like it" typically when having this discussions (happens all the time with utility scale solar permitting as well). I am only one person saying "yes, build, build, build." We need more of this, everywhere, and I argue the solution is not simple; if it was, this would be solved instead of being a herculean effort. Please consider attending local planning meetings to voice your support for building more housing in your communities. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=YIMBY&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  NIMBY seems to be one of the intrinsic faults of democracy. Some people really don't like any change happening around them, and, once empowered, will go to great lengths to stop anything from happening. This is probably something that democratic states need to address by reducing such empowerment. Much like your neighbor cannot tell you what to cook for dinner - even if he is a vegetarian and hates the smell of meat - he shouldn't be able to tell you not to build a house in his proximity.
  - binary132 2y ago
    can you tell your neighbor not to have a loud party, burn garbage, or release toxic chemicals into the air?
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      That should be open to a tort, but the mere fact that someone wants to live next to you should be considered "fundamentally fine".
      - binary132 2y ago
        You didn’t say “someone wants to live next to you”. You said “build a house”. Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. If it doesn’t (since that would undeniably destroy your property value), then you’re willing to impose regulations on the pretty deregulated picture you’ve painted. If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you.
        ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        >Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. Presumptuous indeed. There wouldn't be a housing shortage if vast parts of the U.S. weren't restricted to single family homes. The choice isn't a single family home or a housing complex that can hold a 1,000 people, but more efficient usage of space and infrastructure, one that isn't totally centered around everyone having a vehicle. That can also mean low rise multi-family homes seen in cities worldwide, and yes, also big complexes where viable. >If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you. Well if things don't change, lots of people won't be able to own property, and the rules will change anyway. We're seeing this in California.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

> The simple solution is to remove the local district's ability to veto local development. At least, as long as city-level/state-level planners don't have an agenda that favors certain districts over others. That is what state level YIMBY policy is intended to do, to override the free rider problem of existing property owners in the local domain. If the human can say no to any new housing, and it costs be nothing to do so, what is a human going to do when all of their incentives are to say no? As a YIMBY activist who also owns property, I have seen this first hand at local planning meetings. Rebutting complaints point by point (crime, decreased property value, traffic, etc) with data, we finally arrive at "because I don't like it" typically when having this discussions (happens all the time with utility scale solar permitting as well). I am only one person saying "yes, build, build, build." We need more of this, everywhere, and I argue the solution is not simple; if it was, this would be solved instead of being a herculean effort. Please consider attending local planning meetings to voice your support for building more housing in your communities. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=YIMBY&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

inglor_cz 2y ago
NIMBY seems to be one of the intrinsic faults of democracy. Some people really don't like any change happening around them, and, once empowered, will go to great lengths to stop anything from happening. This is probably something that democratic states need to address by reducing such empowerment. Much like your neighbor cannot tell you what to cook for dinner - even if he is a vegetarian and hates the smell of meat - he shouldn't be able to tell you not to build a house in his proximity.
- binary132 2y ago
  can you tell your neighbor not to have a loud party, burn garbage, or release toxic chemicals into the air?
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    That should be open to a tort, but the mere fact that someone wants to live next to you should be considered "fundamentally fine".
    - binary132 2y ago
      You didn’t say “someone wants to live next to you”. You said “build a house”. Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. If it doesn’t (since that would undeniably destroy your property value), then you’re willing to impose regulations on the pretty deregulated picture you’ve painted. If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you.
      - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        >Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. Presumptuous indeed. There wouldn't be a housing shortage if vast parts of the U.S. weren't restricted to single family homes. The choice isn't a single family home or a housing complex that can hold a 1,000 people, but more efficient usage of space and infrastructure, one that isn't totally centered around everyone having a vehicle. That can also mean low rise multi-family homes seen in cities worldwide, and yes, also big complexes where viable. >If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you. Well if things don't change, lots of people won't be able to own property, and the rules will change anyway. We're seeing this in California.