3 ms·

> 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.
            • WarmWash 9mo ago
              I would implore you to go back and read the top comment, the person was asking what YIYBY is. I explained. For some reason you are trying to argue with me about the merits of YIYBY, when I never took a stance on it, just explained what it is and why people don't like it.