3 ms·

> YIYBY is the concept of wanting it nearby to your residence but not having to suffer any of the direct consequences How does that work exactly?

WarmWash 9mo ago
There is a large forest near your local community. You and others often walk in the forest and kids play there. Its calming and has been there forever. The state wants your community to turn it into apartments, but obviously the community is icey about it. Then activists from another city dozens of miles away, who have never cared for your town or really been to it, show up at Town Hall meetings and are scheduling meetings with town councilors to push for building the apartments. Those out of town people jumping into your community to dictate change are the YIYBY people. If the apartments are built, they'll put another feather in their cap while walking around the forest near their home.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  > large forest near your local community. Who owns the forest and why do you think you get to say if people build on it or not?
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    It's a pretty core element of democracy, that if the majority says they get to do a violence against you for a certain behavior, then they get to do that. It might be immoral but it's the current religion of this area of the world *. * But muh republic -- spare me, the zoning fiasco shows the current constitutional limits on democracy doesn't stop it.
  - WarmWash 9mo ago
    The town, a democratic institution for which you are a tax paying constituent, owns the forest.
    - iamnothere 9mo ago
      Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. Local zoning shouldn’t have an impact on whether or not a city-owned forest (or a park, or vacant land) is forcibly sold and developed. That’s a different problem. If someone already owns the forest, then they should get to build on their land.
      - WarmWash 9mo ago
        >Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. They are "forcing" in the same way billionaires "force" politicians to lower taxes on them. I think the term you meant to use is "lobbying", which is in fact what these YIYBY groups would be doing. They are lobbying a random town that they are no part of to cut down their forest and build apartments.
        iamnothere 9mo ago
        Lobbying (through letters and meetings) is legal free speech. If they are engaging in kickbacks or other quid pro then that’s illegal. Lobbying can’t force the town to sell the forest.
        WarmWash 9mo ago
        Correct, not sure what point you are trying to make. People who live in the community don't want unaffiliated outsiders lobbying their town leaders. Those people doing the lobbying would be "Yes In Your Backyard" people. They would be this because it is not their backyard they are lobbying for, but yours. I cannot be more straightforward in explaining the term YIYBY than that, heh
        iamnothere 9mo ago
        Yet that lobbying is legal under the first amendment, so the people have no ground to stand on. They can do their own lobbying in response. If the voters did their job and elected good representatives, who respect the interest of the voters, then they have nothing to worry about: the forest will not be sold. Voters could also try to establish a referendum system where public lands cannot be sold without a local vote, assuming this is not in conflict with state law. Edit: The point I am trying to make: - You said that the town owns the forest in your example. I presented points to explain why this is not an issue, as lobbyists cannot force the sale of public land. - I wanted to clarify that YIMBYs cannot force property owners to build against their will, except in limited circumstances (eminent domain) that usually requires assent from local government. - To be clear, I think that individual property rights should be respected. I can build on my land, I can’t force you to build (or not build) on your land unless you are voluntarily bound by some covenant.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  Why would they cut down the forest to turn it into apartments? It's more economical to bulldoze existing single-family homes and do it there. The roads are already built, you'd just need to upgrade utilities and so on. There are people living in those single-family homes who would gladly take the opportunity to sell their land for higher than market value but are prevented from doing so. It's more common for forests to be cut down because dense housing is illegal, so cities have to keep expanding outwards.
munk-a 9mo ago
It's like a thirty minute city. You want those services nearish to you but never so close that they'd effect property value. "Nobody" wants to live next to a high school - your house might be TP'd, but you want a good school within bus range, "Nobody" wants to live next to a super market, they have large parking lots and are "undesirable" but you want to be able to drive half a dozen blocks to it. I've never thought of the B in NIMBY as literally meaning backyard - it figuratively means "near enough to effect me" but people still want it within reach - so the ultimate NIMBY dream would likely be to live in an island of placid suburbia surround by a ring of vital services that are just far away enough that you don't need to see them every day. (There's also, I think, a separate environmental NIMBYism but that's a really strange concept and usually more of a deliberate misinterpretation by people with an agenda to push - I'm more concerned with city service NIMBYism around public transit, food availability, hospitals, etc...)
- triceratops 9mo ago
  Is that what YIMBY activists do? Live exclusively in SFHs and make everyone else build apartments?

WarmWash 9mo ago

There is a large forest near your local community. You and others often walk in the forest and kids play there. Its calming and has been there forever. The state wants your community to turn it into apartments, but obviously the community is icey about it. Then activists from another city dozens of miles away, who have never cared for your town or really been to it, show up at Town Hall meetings and are scheduling meetings with town councilors to push for building the apartments. Those out of town people jumping into your community to dictate change are the YIYBY people. If the apartments are built, they'll put another feather in their cap while walking around the forest near their home.

pixl97 9mo ago
> large forest near your local community. Who owns the forest and why do you think you get to say if people build on it or not?
- mothballed 9mo ago
  It's a pretty core element of democracy, that if the majority says they get to do a violence against you for a certain behavior, then they get to do that. It might be immoral but it's the current religion of this area of the world *. * But muh republic -- spare me, the zoning fiasco shows the current constitutional limits on democracy doesn't stop it.
- WarmWash 9mo ago
  The town, a democratic institution for which you are a tax paying constituent, owns the forest.
  - iamnothere 9mo ago
    Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. Local zoning shouldn’t have an impact on whether or not a city-owned forest (or a park, or vacant land) is forcibly sold and developed. That’s a different problem. If someone already owns the forest, then they should get to build on their land.
    - WarmWash 9mo ago
      >Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. They are "forcing" in the same way billionaires "force" politicians to lower taxes on them. I think the term you meant to use is "lobbying", which is in fact what these YIYBY groups would be doing. They are lobbying a random town that they are no part of to cut down their forest and build apartments.
      - iamnothere 9mo ago
        Lobbying (through letters and meetings) is legal free speech. If they are engaging in kickbacks or other quid pro then that’s illegal. Lobbying can’t force the town to sell the forest.
        WarmWash 9mo ago
        Correct, not sure what point you are trying to make. People who live in the community don't want unaffiliated outsiders lobbying their town leaders. Those people doing the lobbying would be "Yes In Your Backyard" people. They would be this because it is not their backyard they are lobbying for, but yours. I cannot be more straightforward in explaining the term YIYBY than that, heh
        iamnothere 9mo ago
        Yet that lobbying is legal under the first amendment, so the people have no ground to stand on. They can do their own lobbying in response. If the voters did their job and elected good representatives, who respect the interest of the voters, then they have nothing to worry about: the forest will not be sold. Voters could also try to establish a referendum system where public lands cannot be sold without a local vote, assuming this is not in conflict with state law. Edit: The point I am trying to make: - You said that the town owns the forest in your example. I presented points to explain why this is not an issue, as lobbyists cannot force the sale of public land. - I wanted to clarify that YIMBYs cannot force property owners to build against their will, except in limited circumstances (eminent domain) that usually requires assent from local government. - To be clear, I think that individual property rights should be respected. I can build on my land, I can’t force you to build (or not build) on your land unless you are voluntarily bound by some covenant.
triceratops 9mo ago
Why would they cut down the forest to turn it into apartments? It's more economical to bulldoze existing single-family homes and do it there. The roads are already built, you'd just need to upgrade utilities and so on. There are people living in those single-family homes who would gladly take the opportunity to sell their land for higher than market value but are prevented from doing so. It's more common for forests to be cut down because dense housing is illegal, so cities have to keep expanding outwards.

munk-a 9mo ago

It's like a thirty minute city. You want those services nearish to you but never so close that they'd effect property value. "Nobody" wants to live next to a high school - your house might be TP'd, but you want a good school within bus range, "Nobody" wants to live next to a super market, they have large parking lots and are "undesirable" but you want to be able to drive half a dozen blocks to it. I've never thought of the B in NIMBY as literally meaning backyard - it figuratively means "near enough to effect me" but people still want it within reach - so the ultimate NIMBY dream would likely be to live in an island of placid suburbia surround by a ring of vital services that are just far away enough that you don't need to see them every day. (There's also, I think, a separate environmental NIMBYism but that's a really strange concept and usually more of a deliberate misinterpretation by people with an agenda to push - I'm more concerned with city service NIMBYism around public transit, food availability, hospitals, etc...)

triceratops 9mo ago
Is that what YIMBY activists do? Live exclusively in SFHs and make everyone else build apartments?