3 ms·

> It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. NIMBYs are property owners

by kelnos 2y ago

> It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. NIMBYs are property owners who vote for restrictive housing development policy in order to prop up their own home values. Eliminate the NIMBYs and you end up with a lot more people who can have their own backyard.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Don't have to be property owners. Anyone who can show up at a meeting, vote, submit comments ...
- bluGill 2y ago
  Anyone can, but existing property owners do.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  Sure, and anyone can make their own crypto implementation that's not based on reference, but what matters isn't the theory but the actual facts: the overwhelming majority of community meeting retirees are retired homeowners. Look at your local suburban school district's bond: you'll probably see some age-based exemption on paying to get support because old people are by far the most engaged. Is that democratic? In the sense that its based on votes of a voluntary electorate, yes. Is it the representative will? Clearly not! You want to cluster elections around high turnout to maximize representation.
rightbyte 2y ago
AirBnB did 'eliminate' the NIMBYs by sidestepping local zoning laws. And the outcome was bad for people living in these targets for mass tourism. Unless they were a YIMBY of course and wanted a hostel in their backyard. 'NIMBY' is like 'Karen' or 'boomer'. Some sort of convenient scapegoat, deserving or not.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  I could turn around and say "the outcome was bad for people willing to receive all of the benefits of a free-to-travel society in a bustling town but none of the costs." Of course if you say "mass tourism" it's bad, but idk, do you like to travel? If hundreds of thousands want to visit a beautiful town, should we limit supply in a way that makes it impossible for them to visit? There are millions of alternatives (you could ban lyft or cars for non-natives, you could restrict development to a resort and gated community on one part of town, etc) but the whole reason it's called NIMBY is because the only alternative NIMBYs have is freezing a town in amber while claiming a triple lock raise in pensions. Zoning laws are, for the most part, a mistake. Any solution to housing prices that isn't a boost in supply either leads to scarcity or hideous Danwei-style planning that reaches into peoples life plans and the ability to afford a future.
bumby 2y ago
>Eliminate the NIMBYs This is said rather matter-of-factly, but how do you propose doing that in a society with democratic values (ie people get a voice in their governance) and also where 70% of most household wealth is in their property?
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  Japan does this just fine: they have standardized zoning across all municipalities, decided at the national level.
  - bumby 2y ago
    What percent of Japanese household net worth is in their primary residence and how much has this been impacted by their largely stagnant stock market for the last 40 years? I'm skeptical that national zoning is feasible if for no other reason than the diversity of land and land uses.
    - JackYoustra 2y ago
      Are you arguing for affordability? You can't have both affordability and high price (= huge % of net worth). It's a very bad thing for people to invest in a fundamentally depreciating asset and expect a return, there's literally no other way to get a return then besides inflation. And sure, returns have been low, but that's because the real interest rate in Japan for the last 30 years has been negative! You can't get a return if the fundamental balance of loanable funds leads to a negative real interest rate, you need stimulus instead, which they've been trying for over thirty years! And shocker, now that we're seeing Japanese interest rates rise, Japanese stocks are shooting up!
      - bumby 2y ago
        I'm trying to get clarity on this statement: >Japan does this just fine You seem to be implying Japan's scenario adequately mirrors the U.S. In other words, they have a high proportion of their net worth tied up in real estate, which is what I am pointing to as a driver of NIMBY-ism. If that analogy doesn't hold, then I would argue it's not an apt analogy and probably doesn't offer much in terms of policy insight. Also, in the US, I don't think you can argue that real estate in general is a "fundamentally depreciating" asset. I don't think the recent history is illustrative, but over the long term real estate tends to be positive.

by kelnos 2y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

Don't have to be property owners. Anyone who can show up at a meeting, vote, submit comments ...

bluGill 2y ago
Anyone can, but existing property owners do.
JackYoustra 2y ago
Sure, and anyone can make their own crypto implementation that's not based on reference, but what matters isn't the theory but the actual facts: the overwhelming majority of community meeting retirees are retired homeowners. Look at your local suburban school district's bond: you'll probably see some age-based exemption on paying to get support because old people are by far the most engaged. Is that democratic? In the sense that its based on votes of a voluntary electorate, yes. Is it the representative will? Clearly not! You want to cluster elections around high turnout to maximize representation.

rightbyte 2y ago

AirBnB did 'eliminate' the NIMBYs by sidestepping local zoning laws. And the outcome was bad for people living in these targets for mass tourism. Unless they were a YIMBY of course and wanted a hostel in their backyard. 'NIMBY' is like 'Karen' or 'boomer'. Some sort of convenient scapegoat, deserving or not.

JackYoustra 2y ago
I could turn around and say "the outcome was bad for people willing to receive all of the benefits of a free-to-travel society in a bustling town but none of the costs." Of course if you say "mass tourism" it's bad, but idk, do you like to travel? If hundreds of thousands want to visit a beautiful town, should we limit supply in a way that makes it impossible for them to visit? There are millions of alternatives (you could ban lyft or cars for non-natives, you could restrict development to a resort and gated community on one part of town, etc) but the whole reason it's called NIMBY is because the only alternative NIMBYs have is freezing a town in amber while claiming a triple lock raise in pensions. Zoning laws are, for the most part, a mistake. Any solution to housing prices that isn't a boost in supply either leads to scarcity or hideous Danwei-style planning that reaches into peoples life plans and the ability to afford a future.

bumby 2y ago

>Eliminate the NIMBYs This is said rather matter-of-factly, but how do you propose doing that in a society with democratic values (ie people get a voice in their governance) and also where 70% of most household wealth is in their property?

JackYoustra 2y ago
Japan does this just fine: they have standardized zoning across all municipalities, decided at the national level.
- bumby 2y ago
  What percent of Japanese household net worth is in their primary residence and how much has this been impacted by their largely stagnant stock market for the last 40 years? I'm skeptical that national zoning is feasible if for no other reason than the diversity of land and land uses.
  - JackYoustra 2y ago
    Are you arguing for affordability? You can't have both affordability and high price (= huge % of net worth). It's a very bad thing for people to invest in a fundamentally depreciating asset and expect a return, there's literally no other way to get a return then besides inflation. And sure, returns have been low, but that's because the real interest rate in Japan for the last 30 years has been negative! You can't get a return if the fundamental balance of loanable funds leads to a negative real interest rate, you need stimulus instead, which they've been trying for over thirty years! And shocker, now that we're seeing Japanese interest rates rise, Japanese stocks are shooting up!
    - bumby 2y ago
      I'm trying to get clarity on this statement: >Japan does this just fine You seem to be implying Japan's scenario adequately mirrors the U.S. In other words, they have a high proportion of their net worth tied up in real estate, which is what I am pointing to as a driver of NIMBY-ism. If that analogy doesn't hold, then I would argue it's not an apt analogy and probably doesn't offer much in terms of policy insight. Also, in the US, I don't think you can argue that real estate in general is a "fundamentally depreciating" asset. I don't think the recent history is illustrative, but over the long term real estate tends to be positive.