3 ms·

The author needs to rename their organization to YIYBY (yes in your backyard). The nationalization of every policy on earth needs to stop.

by bpt3 8mo ago

postflopclarity 8mo ago
not your back yard if you don't own the land.
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  I mean, also not in my back yard if the people who don't own the land vote for a bunch of micro managerial laws that make it illegal to do things without jumping through hoops that are so expensive as to be a non-starter. Nobody is gonna go through the "everything else" approval process that strip clubs and heavy industry have to go through just to expand their business parking or do $10k of environmental impact assessment to drop off a $1k garden shed. (literal examples from my town). These evil people can't make things illegal outright so they make the process so expensive almost nobody can do it and it takes decades for someone to come along with a lucrative enough development that's worth expensively challenging it inn court over.
- bpt3 8mo ago
  People who do own the land aren't able to collectively agree on how to manage it because of state law. That's the issue. The source of the "NIMBY pressure" mentioned in the article is local residents, who should have much more say over local zoning code than someone who lives hundreds of miles away.
triceratops 8mo ago
Are they appropriating other people's land and building in their backyard? That would be called eminent domain. They just want everyone to build what they want in their own backyard. NIMBYs might more accurately be called NIYBYs.
- bpt3 8mo ago
  They are telling communities that they have no part of how to manage themselves. Rancho Palos Verdes should not be required to comply with the request of some random activist who probably has never even stepped foot in the town.
  - energy123 8mo ago
    That's a euphemism for NIYBY.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    US cities are under the jurisdiction of their states. States hold the power to abolish or establish cities. Cities are required to follow state law. Whether residents or non-residents remind cities of their legal obligations is utterly irrelevant. If a city was allowing racial discrimination and no one within the city sued, would that make it ok?
  - epistasis 8mo ago
    Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state. Rancho Palos Verdes should comply with the law, or face the consequences of not being able continue that control of their land management. A great value of democracy is that a "random activist" can petition the government to enforce the law, that's how we keep the whole thing in check. The idea that random activists could not be a check on illegal behavior of the government is a very, well, authoritarian idea that is not compatible with any of the values embodied in the US or California constitutions, our legal system, or the very character and culture of the US.
    - bpt3 8mo ago
      > Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state. Yes, and my point is that continued trend of state and national laws overriding local jurisdiction over things like land use is not a positive one for residents of desirable areas (and arguably any land owner) and not something I agree with philosophically, not the litany of things you decided to rail about that have nothing to do with my comment.
bryanlarsen 8mo ago
More housing in region X will result in lower housing prices in region Y. The interests of people from region Y are valid. You can accuse them of being hypocrites if they don't also support more housing in region Y but that's a pretty big if you have to prove there. But you can't say their interests are invalid.
- bpt3 8mo ago
  That's a very theoretical argument, and there's nothing stopping people in region Y from building all the housing they could possibly need in region Y. If it's such a great idea, region Y will thrive and reap the rewards of this policy. And my point is that there are limits on the impact region X has on region Y based on their proximity. Should someone in downtown LA be able to compel someone in Palo Alto to upzone based on this "impact"? What about someone in Kansas or Florida?
  - bryanlarsen 8mo ago
    So region Y should shoulder all the costs while X benefits?
    - bpt3 8mo ago
      Wait, I thought upzoning and increased density increased quality of living? Are you saying that's not the case? Putting that aside, no one is forcing region Y to upzone or not upzone in this scenario. They can make the choice they prefer, just like region X.
      - bryanlarsen 8mo ago
        The state of California is forcing Rancho Palos Verde to upzone. Because it's good for California even though whether it's good for Rancho Palos Verde is debatable.
        bpt3 8mo ago
        1. Yes, and the people who are in favor of this specific law will be completely and utterly shocked when the state government uses their power to enact and enforce a different law that takes away local decision making which they don't agree with. 2. I take it you're done discussing the theoretical merits of this law?
Erem 8mo ago
State law recently increased my neighborhood’s density. It’s obliging these towns to do the same. I’m happy about both, which makes me YIMBY like the people in this organization Let’s remember, CA is in a housing CRISIS. I feel an immediate urgency to build as many houses as possible in this state so that my young children can feasibly afford to live here without being an AI engineer when they are adults
- bpt3 8mo ago
  There is an abundance of houses in the US, just in less desirable areas than Rancho Palos Verdes. Your young children have no right to live in any specific location, and your usage of CRISIS to describe a lack of access to highly desirable housing is not compelling.
  - hnav 8mo ago
    but time and again the opportunity is created in places where there's not enough housing which enriches the "landed gentry".
  - Erem 8mo ago
    > Your young children have no right to live in any specific location Strawman. I have a right to influence housing policy with my vote, which I’ve done and I’m pleased with the outcome. Now, you nor any commenter nor any city official have the right to resist implementing this law, and the arguments against are not compelling.

The author needs to rename their organization to YIYBY (yes in your backyard). The nationalization of every policy on earth needs to stop.

by bpt3 8mo ago

The author needs to rename their organization to YIYBY (yes in your backyard). The nationalization of every policy on earth needs to stop.

postflopclarity 8mo ago

not your back yard if you don't own the land.

cucumber3732842 8mo ago
I mean, also not in my back yard if the people who don't own the land vote for a bunch of micro managerial laws that make it illegal to do things without jumping through hoops that are so expensive as to be a non-starter. Nobody is gonna go through the "everything else" approval process that strip clubs and heavy industry have to go through just to expand their business parking or do $10k of environmental impact assessment to drop off a $1k garden shed. (literal examples from my town). These evil people can't make things illegal outright so they make the process so expensive almost nobody can do it and it takes decades for someone to come along with a lucrative enough development that's worth expensively challenging it inn court over.
bpt3 8mo ago
People who do own the land aren't able to collectively agree on how to manage it because of state law. That's the issue. The source of the "NIMBY pressure" mentioned in the article is local residents, who should have much more say over local zoning code than someone who lives hundreds of miles away.

triceratops 8mo ago

Are they appropriating other people's land and building in their backyard? That would be called eminent domain. They just want everyone to build what they want in their own backyard. NIMBYs might more accurately be called NIYBYs.

bpt3 8mo ago
They are telling communities that they have no part of how to manage themselves. Rancho Palos Verdes should not be required to comply with the request of some random activist who probably has never even stepped foot in the town.
- energy123 8mo ago
  That's a euphemism for NIYBY.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  US cities are under the jurisdiction of their states. States hold the power to abolish or establish cities. Cities are required to follow state law. Whether residents or non-residents remind cities of their legal obligations is utterly irrelevant. If a city was allowing racial discrimination and no one within the city sued, would that make it ok?
- epistasis 8mo ago
  Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state. Rancho Palos Verdes should comply with the law, or face the consequences of not being able continue that control of their land management. A great value of democracy is that a "random activist" can petition the government to enforce the law, that's how we keep the whole thing in check. The idea that random activists could not be a check on illegal behavior of the government is a very, well, authoritarian idea that is not compatible with any of the values embodied in the US or California constitutions, our legal system, or the very character and culture of the US.
  - bpt3 8mo ago
    > Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state. Yes, and my point is that continued trend of state and national laws overriding local jurisdiction over things like land use is not a positive one for residents of desirable areas (and arguably any land owner) and not something I agree with philosophically, not the litany of things you decided to rail about that have nothing to do with my comment.

bryanlarsen 8mo ago

More housing in region X will result in lower housing prices in region Y. The interests of people from region Y are valid. You can accuse them of being hypocrites if they don't also support more housing in region Y but that's a pretty big if you have to prove there. But you can't say their interests are invalid.

bpt3 8mo ago
That's a very theoretical argument, and there's nothing stopping people in region Y from building all the housing they could possibly need in region Y. If it's such a great idea, region Y will thrive and reap the rewards of this policy. And my point is that there are limits on the impact region X has on region Y based on their proximity. Should someone in downtown LA be able to compel someone in Palo Alto to upzone based on this "impact"? What about someone in Kansas or Florida?
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  So region Y should shoulder all the costs while X benefits?
  - bpt3 8mo ago
    Wait, I thought upzoning and increased density increased quality of living? Are you saying that's not the case? Putting that aside, no one is forcing region Y to upzone or not upzone in this scenario. They can make the choice they prefer, just like region X.
    - bryanlarsen 8mo ago
      The state of California is forcing Rancho Palos Verde to upzone. Because it's good for California even though whether it's good for Rancho Palos Verde is debatable.
      - bpt3 8mo ago
        1. Yes, and the people who are in favor of this specific law will be completely and utterly shocked when the state government uses their power to enact and enforce a different law that takes away local decision making which they don't agree with. 2. I take it you're done discussing the theoretical merits of this law?

Erem 8mo ago

State law recently increased my neighborhood’s density. It’s obliging these towns to do the same. I’m happy about both, which makes me YIMBY like the people in this organization Let’s remember, CA is in a housing CRISIS. I feel an immediate urgency to build as many houses as possible in this state so that my young children can feasibly afford to live here without being an AI engineer when they are adults

bpt3 8mo ago
There is an abundance of houses in the US, just in less desirable areas than Rancho Palos Verdes. Your young children have no right to live in any specific location, and your usage of CRISIS to describe a lack of access to highly desirable housing is not compelling.
- hnav 8mo ago
  but time and again the opportunity is created in places where there's not enough housing which enriches the "landed gentry".
- Erem 8mo ago
  > Your young children have no right to live in any specific location Strawman. I have a right to influence housing policy with my vote, which I’ve done and I’m pleased with the outcome. Now, you nor any commenter nor any city official have the right to resist implementing this law, and the arguments against are not compelling.