3 ms·

The bigger issue might be confusing “progressives” with “NIMBYs”. There are plenty of people across the political spectrum that want to build more as well as pe

The bigger issue might be confusing “progressives” with “NIMBYs”. There are plenty of people across the political spectrum that want to build more as well as people blocking the building. Progressives particularly are aggressive on the desire for more housing. Literally to the point that Nyc and other large cities see huge handouts to developers (even when those developers continuously under deliver on affordable housing).

davidw 1y ago
The NIMBY/YIMBY divide really doesn't fall along traditional political lines. There are very progressive people who are raging NIMBYs, as well as very conservative NIMBYs. There are both progressive and conservative YIMBYs too.
- majormajor 1y ago
  Yeah, NIMBYism - especially in single-family-home neighborhoods - is huge in wealthy parts of Texas, Florida, etc. (Not coincidentally, those are all less dense places, with less public transit and infrastructure, than the well-known progressive states and cities.)
- righthand 1y ago
  Exactly what I was saying, thanks for the clarification. It’s a blanket view point to blame progressives for the state of the Usa when we’ve been mostly moderate. Regardless of fault the views are shared across the spectrum on all sides.
linguae 1y ago
It depends on the progressive, however. Yes, I’m hearing more calls to build from progressives. However, for a long time between the 1960s until the past few years, there were two drivers of NIMBYism that progressives championed: (1) local control of neighborhoods and (2) environmentalism. The first was a reaction to urban development plans of the 1950s and 1960s that fundamentally reshaped neighborhoods, but often in ways that did not consider the residents of those neighborhoods. For example, San Francisco once had a historical Japanese American and African American district named The Fillmore with plenty of Victorian homes, but this was largely demolished in the 1960s and replaced with housing projects and a widened Geary Blvd. While I’m still on San Francisco, there were plans in the 1950s to build a network of freeways criss-crossing the city. This was deeply unpopular. Unpopular plans to dramatically reshape urban cities led to “freeway revolts” (organized, grassroots opposition to freeway projects, which sometimes succeeded) and increased local input over planning. The second was brought on by environmental crises in the 1960s, such as badly polluted rivers and the famous oil spill near Santa Barbara. California, especially its coastal areas, was quite affected by both drivers of NIMBYism, and this became the dominant way of thinking from the 1970s onward. Local control over neighborhoods sounds reasonable, but unfortunately it’s led to neighborhoods being museum pieces that do not scale upwards to meet demand, thus incentivizing urban sprawl. Restricting development had also significantly boosted the property values in those areas. However, urban sprawl directly conflicts with environmental goals, since it requires more transportation infrastructure and more energy to move people across longer distances than across shorter distances. Thus, we end up with situations where homes get built in far-flung exurbs whose politicians support growth (until the towns get large enough to where some residents want to halt growth to “preserve our quality of life,” thus pushing development to the next closest area friendly to development), environmentalists blocking road-widening and other infrastructure-improving efforts in an attempt to stop/discourage the sprawl, and NIMBYs blocking the construction of denser housing near job centers that could have provided affordable alternatives to exurban housing. This has been the story of California since the 1970s, and the obscene housing prices and unsustainable mega-commutes are a result of this. Thankfully more people are seeing the consequences of 50 years of broken housing policy, and we’re finally seeing some efforts, even if they’re baby steps, to address this.

davidw 1y ago

The NIMBY/YIMBY divide really doesn't fall along traditional political lines. There are very progressive people who are raging NIMBYs, as well as very conservative NIMBYs. There are both progressive and conservative YIMBYs too.

majormajor 1y ago
Yeah, NIMBYism - especially in single-family-home neighborhoods - is huge in wealthy parts of Texas, Florida, etc. (Not coincidentally, those are all less dense places, with less public transit and infrastructure, than the well-known progressive states and cities.)
righthand 1y ago
Exactly what I was saying, thanks for the clarification. It’s a blanket view point to blame progressives for the state of the Usa when we’ve been mostly moderate. Regardless of fault the views are shared across the spectrum on all sides.

linguae 1y ago

It depends on the progressive, however. Yes, I’m hearing more calls to build from progressives. However, for a long time between the 1960s until the past few years, there were two drivers of NIMBYism that progressives championed: (1) local control of neighborhoods and (2) environmentalism. The first was a reaction to urban development plans of the 1950s and 1960s that fundamentally reshaped neighborhoods, but often in ways that did not consider the residents of those neighborhoods. For example, San Francisco once had a historical Japanese American and African American district named The Fillmore with plenty of Victorian homes, but this was largely demolished in the 1960s and replaced with housing projects and a widened Geary Blvd. While I’m still on San Francisco, there were plans in the 1950s to build a network of freeways criss-crossing the city. This was deeply unpopular. Unpopular plans to dramatically reshape urban cities led to “freeway revolts” (organized, grassroots opposition to freeway projects, which sometimes succeeded) and increased local input over planning. The second was brought on by environmental crises in the 1960s, such as badly polluted rivers and the famous oil spill near Santa Barbara. California, especially its coastal areas, was quite affected by both drivers of NIMBYism, and this became the dominant way of thinking from the 1970s onward. Local control over neighborhoods sounds reasonable, but unfortunately it’s led to neighborhoods being museum pieces that do not scale upwards to meet demand, thus incentivizing urban sprawl. Restricting development had also significantly boosted the property values in those areas. However, urban sprawl directly conflicts with environmental goals, since it requires more transportation infrastructure and more energy to move people across longer distances than across shorter distances. Thus, we end up with situations where homes get built in far-flung exurbs whose politicians support growth (until the towns get large enough to where some residents want to halt growth to “preserve our quality of life,” thus pushing development to the next closest area friendly to development), environmentalists blocking road-widening and other infrastructure-improving efforts in an attempt to stop/discourage the sprawl, and NIMBYs blocking the construction of denser housing near job centers that could have provided affordable alternatives to exurban housing. This has been the story of California since the 1970s, and the obscene housing prices and unsustainable mega-commutes are a result of this. Thankfully more people are seeing the consequences of 50 years of broken housing policy, and we’re finally seeing some efforts, even if they’re baby steps, to address this.