8 ms·
This is probably the one issue that has the biggest online/offline divide. Online, I hear nothing but YIMBY-ism. Is there any centralized online NIMBY advocacy?
by jollyllama 9mo ago
This is probably the one issue that has the biggest online/offline divide. Online, I hear nothing but YIMBY-ism. Is there any centralized online NIMBY advocacy?
- AlexandrB 9mo agoYes, there are plenty. They don't call themselves NIMBY though. Usually it's stuff like opposing gentrification, protecting the environment/green spaces, or protecting historical areas. The net effect is NIMBY. I totally get it. People don't like change - I certainly don't. Especially when it changes the neighborhood you're living in.
- notatoad 9mo agonobody thinks they're a nimby. every nimby ever will tell you they aren't against development, they just don't think this project is right for this neighbourhood. if there was any centralized advocacy, they'd have to confront the fact that they all want development to happen in each other's backyards and it would expose the lie.
- cogman10 9mo agoHere's where I come out and maybe others end up in the same scenario. I think it's definitely a good thing to build up more high density housing. I've got no complaints there. However, a major problem we are having locally is that while that local housing is being built like gangbusters, the infrastructure to support that housing, such as the roads and public transport, hasn't been upgraded in tandem. 10 years ago, I could drive to work in 20 minutes. Today during rush hour it's a 40 to 60 minute affair. It's start/stop traffic through the neighborhood because there's no buses, interstate, etc to service the area where all the growth is happening. It also doesn't help that promised projects, like new parks, have been stuck in limbo for the last 15 years with more than a few proposals to try and turn that land into new housing developments. What I'm saying is housing is important and nice, but we actually need public utilities to be upgraded and to grow with the housing increase. It's untenable to add 10,000 housing units into an area originally designed to service 1000.
- jeffbee 9mo agoI don't know were you're from but in California that is not the focus of YIMBY advocacy. The entire focus of the California RHNA process is to allocate development capacity in proportion to the existing infrastructure of a place.
- cogman10 9mo agoIdaho, where a lot of the Californians are fleeing to.
- jeffbee 9mo agoHow does Idaho's libertarian self-image coexist with whining about the traffic?
- cogman10 9mo agoI'm not a libertarian. I'm an Idaho native. But really this is just an underscore of why libertarian ideals are dumb. Some government is necessary and those are basic things like public roads and schools. It may be surprising, but Idaho actually had pretty decent infrastructure throughout my youth. This "defund everything" attitude is relatively new to idaho politics. Idaho's drift into libertarianism started around the tea party era and just slowly has gotten worse since then.
- lucaspm98 9mo agoAre you suggesting libertarians believe the government should not build infrastructure? I realize libertarians by nature have unique viewpoints but that feels like a bit of a mischaracterization. In general libertarians support a smaller government that increases focu on areas where societal collaboration is strictly necessary like roads, police, and firefighters while by default opposing government involvement in other areas beyond baseline rule of law (like NIMBY zoning).
- 9mo ago
- stackedinserter 9mo agoEveryone is nimby when it touches the most valuable thing in their life. You'll turn nimby once you buy a house. There's no lie, anyone will be against a landfill or skyscrapers near their house. If you think otherwise, you're lying. There's nothing wrong with nimby.
- bigstrat2003 9mo agoI own a house and I don't give a shit what happens on the lot next to mine. Not my property, not my right to complain. So you're wrong. Also kind of rude for calling people liars when they disagree with you.
- armenarmen 9mo agoWhat if next door they put in a combination slaughter house and sewage treatment plant? What if they built a gigantic speaker pointed in your direction? Or made a home for wayward youths who live yelling slurs?
- stackedinserter 9mo agoThey're either a troll, or a liar.
- stackedinserter 9mo ago> Not my property, not my right to complain. Unless you own a shitty property in a very bad area, you're clearly lying.
- zug_zug 9mo agoNo, I’m a nimby. Basically the law should be the newly added properties be more valuable than the existing ones.
- colechristensen 9mo agoHousing density sucks. It makes people unable to do anything themselves because they don't have space. It gives investor groups exclusive power over housing and locks even people who own into rent-like housing association fees. It removes people even further from nature. It drives up costs.
- triceratops 9mo agoWhy don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.
- apparent 9mo agoSure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.
- triceratops 9mo ago> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build? > It's the same line of thinking. It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.
- apparent 9mo agoWhen someone buys land, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do to it, subject to the zoning laws that were in effect at the time of purchase, or passed by a majority of voters in that area after purchase.
- Analemma_ 9mo agoIt’s not “centralized” (because as the sibling comment noted, nobody thinks they’re a NIMBY, they just want to stop development in their town), but some of it happens on Facebook and NextDoor. I think a lot more happens face-to-face at the sort of activities that older and retired people hang out at though.
- apparent 9mo agoNot sure why people think that no one thinks they're a NIMBY. I am. I bought a house in a neighborhood with a particular character and if it turns into a bunch of urban high-rises, I won't like that. I would make money, since more high rises means higher price per square foot of land, but I wouldn't like having to move. If someone moves into an area that is zoned for particular types of properties, then new zoning is imposed by outside fiat (not a vote of the people who live there) is not appropriate.
- dghlsakjg 9mo agoI always find this 'character' argument disingenuous. The character of the neighbourhood is only invoked for perceived negative externalities. No one complains when the cracked sidewalks get repaved, or fiber internet lines replace slow copper, when increasing affluence mean that houses are better maintained, when a new sewer line allows people to remove septic tanks. That all changes the character of a neighbourhood, but never gets fought. Go ahead and commit to the bit, lock in on the character in ALL ways: make sure you fight any alteration to any building, any change in the shade of paint should be fought! Your neighbour replacing their front door? Denied! Replacing a concrete driveway with pavers? unacceptable? Replacing incandescent bulbs with LED? Uncharacteristic! Increasing home values changing who can afford to live there? Not acceptable, gotta sell your home for what you paid to maintain the character! > If someone moves into an area that is zoned for particular types of properties, then new zoning is imposed by outside fiat (not a vote of the people who live there) is not appropriate. How small are we going to allow the "area" to be defined? Is it one vote per property owner, or one vote per resident? Can we call a block an area? Who decides the arbitrary boundaries? Do people living on the boundary line get to vote for projects in adjacent properties in adjacent jurisdictions? Just call NIMBYism what it is, selfish justification for control of other people's property. Your position is - explicitly - that other people and property owners should be made less well off for your comfort. "The Character of the Neighbourhood" is a red herring.
- jerlam 9mo ago> make sure you fight any alteration to any building, any change in the shade of paint should be fought! You are now describing an HOA, which overlaps with NIMBYs.
- thatguy0900 9mo agoNot many people consider themselves a nimby even if they are. I was talking with my mom about how I'll never be able to afford a house and she agrees with me it's insane then says that she voted against allowing apartments near her house because it will bring in more crime, she wasn't connecting the dots.
- epistasis 9mo agoPublic polling is very YIMBY too, they are the majority. It's just the public input process is a filter that selects for extremely high activation, interest, and agency. So if a democratic vote ruled these decisions, YIMBYism would rule the day, but if you go to the meetings it's NIMBYs who are prevalent. There are definitely centralized NIMBY groups, like Livable California: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/how-to-bridge-the-nimby-vs-yimby-housing-battle https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/how-to-br... And there are tons of smaller groups that organize locally, far more than YIMBY groups. In my city there are 2-3 people that typically organize a group, give it a new name, make a web page, and act like they have the backing of everybody in the city when they talk even though most people disagree with them. They've been doing it for decades, and have found many tactics to amplify their voice to be much larger than the sum of the individual group members. YIMBYs are far behind on doing this, though they are getting better at it. When I first joined NextDoor about a decade ago I dared speak up in favor of a plan to allow apartments to be built on a commercial thoroughfare, and the onslaught of a single person in their replies and direct messages was completely overwhelming (If people here think I'm loquacious, well, I have been far bested in that....). That was my first entrance into city politics, and I quickly learned that this person was in charge of a large "group" that mostly consisted of that single person. They had also been doing it for years, with creative group names, the best of which was probably "Don't Morph the Wharf" which even launched lawsuits to prevent changes to the wharf, delaying necessary maintenance and repairs which a few years ago resulted in the front falling off of the wharf. Individuals can have very undemocratic impacts on local politics.
- taeric 9mo agoIsh. Polling is very YIMBY. So long as it is exactly what I want in my back yard. With a lot more leeway granted to what should be allowed in someone else's back yard.
- bombcar 9mo agoYou see this time and time again, what people say they want and how they act are often completely disjointed - and they see no problem with it.
- bpt3 9mo agoYIMBYs in my area are almost exclusively terminally online young adults who are bitter that they can't afford to live precisely where they like with their single 20-something income, and basically want to make desirable areas more affordable (aka less desirable) so they can move in. The worst of them are openly hostile to anyone who made the apparent mistake of choosing to live in an upper income area. I am pretty much in favor of people being able to do what they want with their properties, as long as they are responsible for any externalities the changes create, and I still largely find these groups insufferable (in case you couldn't tell from the paragraph above). NIMBYs are mostly people who have other things to do with their day than agitate to make their neighborhood worse (where worse is a change from the status quo, which they presumably are at least okay with given they live in the neighborhood), so you don't hear much from them most of the time. In short, there is no need for advocacy for the status quo unless someone is attempting to modify it, as it just continues on by default.
- orangecat 9mo agoThis is amusing, because the usual NIMBY argument I hear is about "gentrification", i.e. it makes the neighborhood better and that's bad. terminally online young adults who are bitter that they can't afford to live precisely where they like More accurately: they would like to live in a particular location, the owner of that location would like to sell or rent it to them, but a third party wants to forcibly prevent that transaction.
- bpt3 9mo ago> This is amusing, because the usual NIMBY argument I hear is about "gentrification", i.e. it makes the neighborhood better and that's bad. Change is bad as far as existing residents are concerned, which is why external YIMBYs are particularly annoying. I live in a pretty nice area so gentrification isn't really possible, and the people who want to live there but can't afford to are the ones agitating for change. > More accurately: they would like to live in a particular location, the owner of that location would like to sell or rent it to them, but a third party wants to forcibly prevent that transaction. No, the accurate description in CA (and YIMBYs are trying to replicate this elsewhere) is that a group of people collectively decided how land can be used in their area, and people who disagree are going over their head to change the rules.
- 01100011 9mo agoThe urbanists are very, very vocal. There's also a lot of them because many people live in cities. Also many online communities driven by user moderation are controlled by folks with a lot of time to participate and skewed against certain segments of society. Online views often skew wildly from real life. I've basically given up trying to find community online. Talking with real people is so much more rewarding and less frustrating.
- bombcar 9mo agoThe urbanists are vocal online because of something they're unsatisfied with in their life - if you talk to them and dig into it, they're complaining about a lack, a lack that they think would be filled if they could just afford to live in NY or Europe (because they assume everyone in NY lives like Friends or something). If instead of trying to solve loneliness through urban development they dedicated their efforts to "touching grass/concrete" and got to know their community - suddenly they'd discover they have the power to urbanize - but do they still have the desire?
- wffurr 9mo agoOh they're all over Nextdoor and local mailing lists and Facebook groups. They organize in small local communities though, different model from yimby types who band together in cross-regional interest groups instead.