6 ms·

nobody 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 neighbourho

nobody 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 8mo ago
Here'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 8mo ago
  I 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 8mo ago
    Idaho, where a lot of the Californians are fleeing to.
    - jeffbee 8mo ago
      How does Idaho's libertarian self-image coexist with whining about the traffic?
      - cogman10 8mo ago
        I'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 8mo ago
        Are 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).
        jeffbee 8mo ago
        I wasn't suggesting such things. But the juxtaposition amuses me. On the one hand, Ammon Bundy says he can do anything he likes, on public land, because freedom. But on the other: zoning. Which are ideologically opposites.
        cogman10 8mo ago
        > like roads, police, and firefighters There are a lot of libertarians that would argue against all 3 of these things. They'd solve roads with tolls, police with private militia, and firefighters with private companies. I agree that libertarian ideology is all over the board and that a broad generalization is impossible. That said the majority, and especially the load majority, are against basically all public spending and taxation. To the point where you'll find prominent libertarians arguing for things like private judicial systems. The problem is that by being reasonable, you eventually arrive at a government that isn't considered libertarian by most libertarians. That's why I call libertarianism dumb. There are basic requirements and regulations needed. We've had governments without them, particularly in the US. For example, libertarians have no solution to what the USDA solves. Go read up about the quality of milk in early america before the foundation of the USDA. That was a libertarian government. The best solution I've heard from libertarians is reviews and 3rd party verification that you pay for but, as we can see on amazon, those are very easy to manipulate. The force of law is the only thing that really solves problems like people selling unpasteurized and diseased milk. With raw milk we are already seeing the rollback of the enforcement of those laws and the impact of that rollback [1] [1] https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/health/2026-02-05/r-bar-h-dairy-caldwell-e-coli-outbreak-raw-milk https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/health/2026-02-05/r-ba...
- notatoad 8mo ago
  >because there's no buses, interstate, etc to service the area where all the growth is happening. right, it'd be great if that stuff could be built to support the housing before the housing gets built. but you can't do that either without people having a fit about wasting money building a road to nowhere, or buses just being for homeless people. the NIMBYism doesn't just apply to housing, it applies to building literally anything. often because people think they can block new housing development by opposing the infrastructure that might support it. nothing about YIMBY is about opposing infrastructure development. we need to build all the things that humans need to exist - housing, infrastructure, recreation, businesses. build it all. "we shouldn't build any housing until there's a highway" is just another variant of "i support housing, just not here". opposing housing because there's no bus route is still opposing housing. those are fixable problems.
  - cogman10 8mo ago
    > those are fixable problems. They are fixable problems that very clearly are not being fixed here. I might have a different attitude if new bus routes or highways were being built in response to the new housing that's gone in, but like I've said, we've failed to build infrastructure for the massive expansion we've seen in the last 10 years. Why should I think it's a good thing to build another 1000 units of housing when none of the infrastructure is able to handle the current population? It's not a case of "busses to nowhere" it's a case of "we are filled to the gill and they want to add even more people". My kid's school, for example, has started paving over the playground and installing trailers in order to accommodate the kids coming in. Instead of building a new school for all the new housing, we have exactly the same schools and school buildings that we had when I first moved here. And I should say, we have even more housing planned and in construction right now all around me. That's all been approved yet I've not heard or seen a peep about adding another school, bus, etc. That's why I have a hard time seeing it as NIMBY.
    - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
      When the new people are actually living in the area and paying property taxes, then there will be enough money to build new schools, pave roads, etc. There's a delay in other words.
- stonogo 8mo ago
  The best method of insuring that is charging developers impact fees, which are then used to perform the upgrades you describe. Impact fees are also the primary target of the very weathy and powerful realty lobby groups -- they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on political campaigns to elect people who will then save them tens of thousands of dollars by removing impact fees. If you ever wonder why most city councils are composed of developers, this is why.
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    This works when the developers are doing large redevelopments - it works great in suburbs where the developers are converting farmland, for example, because the total number of projects is low. But when the "developers" are people replacing single-family homes with duplexes, etc, it gets harder to manage.
- alsetmusic 8mo ago
  > 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. The correct response is not to shutdown building more housing. It's for you to get involved and petition your local government to build the infrastructure that you desire. IMO, people need affordable housing more than you need a short commute. If you don't like that, do something to improve conditions.
stackedinserter 8mo ago
Everyone 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 8mo ago
  I 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 8mo ago
    What 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 8mo ago
      They're either a troll, or a liar.
  - stackedinserter 8mo 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 8mo ago
No, I’m a nimby. Basically the law should be the newly added properties be more valuable than the existing ones.

cogman10 8mo ago

Here'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 8mo ago
I 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 8mo ago
  Idaho, where a lot of the Californians are fleeing to.
  - jeffbee 8mo ago
    How does Idaho's libertarian self-image coexist with whining about the traffic?
    - cogman10 8mo ago
      I'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 8mo ago
        Are 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).
        jeffbee 8mo ago
        I wasn't suggesting such things. But the juxtaposition amuses me. On the one hand, Ammon Bundy says he can do anything he likes, on public land, because freedom. But on the other: zoning. Which are ideologically opposites.
        cogman10 8mo ago
        > like roads, police, and firefighters There are a lot of libertarians that would argue against all 3 of these things. They'd solve roads with tolls, police with private militia, and firefighters with private companies. I agree that libertarian ideology is all over the board and that a broad generalization is impossible. That said the majority, and especially the load majority, are against basically all public spending and taxation. To the point where you'll find prominent libertarians arguing for things like private judicial systems. The problem is that by being reasonable, you eventually arrive at a government that isn't considered libertarian by most libertarians. That's why I call libertarianism dumb. There are basic requirements and regulations needed. We've had governments without them, particularly in the US. For example, libertarians have no solution to what the USDA solves. Go read up about the quality of milk in early america before the foundation of the USDA. That was a libertarian government. The best solution I've heard from libertarians is reviews and 3rd party verification that you pay for but, as we can see on amazon, those are very easy to manipulate. The force of law is the only thing that really solves problems like people selling unpasteurized and diseased milk. With raw milk we are already seeing the rollback of the enforcement of those laws and the impact of that rollback [1] [1] https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/health/2026-02-05/r-bar-h-dairy-caldwell-e-coli-outbreak-raw-milk https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/health/2026-02-05/r-ba...
notatoad 8mo ago
>because there's no buses, interstate, etc to service the area where all the growth is happening. right, it'd be great if that stuff could be built to support the housing before the housing gets built. but you can't do that either without people having a fit about wasting money building a road to nowhere, or buses just being for homeless people. the NIMBYism doesn't just apply to housing, it applies to building literally anything. often because people think they can block new housing development by opposing the infrastructure that might support it. nothing about YIMBY is about opposing infrastructure development. we need to build all the things that humans need to exist - housing, infrastructure, recreation, businesses. build it all. "we shouldn't build any housing until there's a highway" is just another variant of "i support housing, just not here". opposing housing because there's no bus route is still opposing housing. those are fixable problems.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  > those are fixable problems. They are fixable problems that very clearly are not being fixed here. I might have a different attitude if new bus routes or highways were being built in response to the new housing that's gone in, but like I've said, we've failed to build infrastructure for the massive expansion we've seen in the last 10 years. Why should I think it's a good thing to build another 1000 units of housing when none of the infrastructure is able to handle the current population? It's not a case of "busses to nowhere" it's a case of "we are filled to the gill and they want to add even more people". My kid's school, for example, has started paving over the playground and installing trailers in order to accommodate the kids coming in. Instead of building a new school for all the new housing, we have exactly the same schools and school buildings that we had when I first moved here. And I should say, we have even more housing planned and in construction right now all around me. That's all been approved yet I've not heard or seen a peep about adding another school, bus, etc. That's why I have a hard time seeing it as NIMBY.
  - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
    When the new people are actually living in the area and paying property taxes, then there will be enough money to build new schools, pave roads, etc. There's a delay in other words.
stonogo 8mo ago
The best method of insuring that is charging developers impact fees, which are then used to perform the upgrades you describe. Impact fees are also the primary target of the very weathy and powerful realty lobby groups -- they will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on political campaigns to elect people who will then save them tens of thousands of dollars by removing impact fees. If you ever wonder why most city councils are composed of developers, this is why.
- bombcar 8mo ago
  This works when the developers are doing large redevelopments - it works great in suburbs where the developers are converting farmland, for example, because the total number of projects is low. But when the "developers" are people replacing single-family homes with duplexes, etc, it gets harder to manage.
alsetmusic 8mo ago
> 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. The correct response is not to shutdown building more housing. It's for you to get involved and petition your local government to build the infrastructure that you desire. IMO, people need affordable housing more than you need a short commute. If you don't like that, do something to improve conditions.

stackedinserter 8mo ago

Everyone 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 8mo ago
I 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 8mo ago
  What 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 8mo ago
    They're either a troll, or a liar.
- stackedinserter 8mo 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 8mo ago

No, I’m a nimby. Basically the law should be the newly added properties be more valuable than the existing ones.