4 ms·

> But I can also see how this will be used as one more arrow in the quiver of NIMBYs. How much are NIMBYs actually a problem these days? It seems to me that YI

> But I can also see how this will be used as one more arrow in the quiver of NIMBYs. How much are NIMBYs actually a problem these days? It seems to me that YIMBYs insisting on building anything, anything, anything at all, damn the cost, be it a privately developed five over one or a publicly funded ferris wheel downtown, are a much bigger issue now. We should be intentional about the communities we are developing (say, FUCKING PUBLIC HOUSING), and ideally not spoonfeeding capital more of our lifeblood as most YIMYs insist on

testdelacc1 8mo ago
I live in a city that consistently builds about 3-4% of the number of homes we need to build each year. We don’t build rail, we don’t electricity transmission infrastructure, all of which increases our cost of living. NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say.
- DocTomoe 8mo ago
  That would imply that 96-97% of population growth in your city immediately becomes homeless. Obviously, that is not the case.
  - gzread 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - ziml77 8mo ago
    No it doesn't. The number would be the percentage of additional housing needed. Existing housing doesn't suddenly disappear each year.
  - econ 8mo ago
    I've seen people live with their parents till 40 while waiting for a tiny room that will cost 2 or 3 times what their parents pay for their large villa with large garden. Its quite simple to me. We the grown ups (together) are to facilitate housing for the kids. If we can't do that anymore we should ask ourselves why we don't want to do that anymore? Quite interesting is how the (now proverbial) 40 year old isn't really attacking the problem. I won't be around but I'm curious how their kids in turn will share the tiny room till 40.
- FranklinJabar 8mo ago
  > NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say. NIMBYs, or just typical anglo incompetence? How can you tell the difference? It's easy to blame other people for systemic dysfunction.
  - JuniperMesos 8mo ago
    What do you consider to be anglo incompetence in dwelling construction that isn't NIMBYism?
    - FranklinJabar 8mo ago
      Owning land. Whoever came up with this idea needs to be hung and revived a million times, and then tortured to death a million more. Our society has been mutilated as a result. I think you could ascribe this to either NIMBY or YIMBY harebrained thinking. We need a third option that's pro-human. We need public fucking housing.
      - roenxi 8mo ago
        You seem fairly keen on building public housing. Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? The YIMBYs are the lobby that tends to be pro-new-buildings. If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea.
        FranklinJabar 8mo ago
        > Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? YIMBY is the pro-private-development lobby, as best I can tell. PHIMBY is the term I've seen. > If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea. I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this.
        roenxi 8mo ago
        > I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this. Well I'm not sure what you're proposing but if it can be characterised as "mass public housing" it sounds like a terrible idea on the face of it, and most people would probably oppose it on that ground. But the YIMBYs would have to agree that you're allowed to try it if you want, otherwise they'd be NIMBYs, on the basis that they are telling other people they can't build on their land.
kjshsh123 8mo ago
Market housing will be expensive until you allow developers to build as much housing as the market demands. Non-market housing will have extremely long wait times if there is not as much of it as the market demands. And the NIMBYs and left-NIMBYs are still winning. Relevant substack article (Towers Don't Cause the Housing Crisis): https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/towers-dont-cause-the-housing-crisis https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/towers-dont-caus...

testdelacc1 8mo ago

I live in a city that consistently builds about 3-4% of the number of homes we need to build each year. We don’t build rail, we don’t electricity transmission infrastructure, all of which increases our cost of living. NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say.

DocTomoe 8mo ago
That would imply that 96-97% of population growth in your city immediately becomes homeless. Obviously, that is not the case.
- gzread 8mo ago
  [dead]
- ziml77 8mo ago
  No it doesn't. The number would be the percentage of additional housing needed. Existing housing doesn't suddenly disappear each year.
- econ 8mo ago
  I've seen people live with their parents till 40 while waiting for a tiny room that will cost 2 or 3 times what their parents pay for their large villa with large garden. Its quite simple to me. We the grown ups (together) are to facilitate housing for the kids. If we can't do that anymore we should ask ourselves why we don't want to do that anymore? Quite interesting is how the (now proverbial) 40 year old isn't really attacking the problem. I won't be around but I'm curious how their kids in turn will share the tiny room till 40.
FranklinJabar 8mo ago
> NIMBYs are doing great, I’d say. NIMBYs, or just typical anglo incompetence? How can you tell the difference? It's easy to blame other people for systemic dysfunction.
- JuniperMesos 8mo ago
  What do you consider to be anglo incompetence in dwelling construction that isn't NIMBYism?
  - FranklinJabar 8mo ago
    Owning land. Whoever came up with this idea needs to be hung and revived a million times, and then tortured to death a million more. Our society has been mutilated as a result. I think you could ascribe this to either NIMBY or YIMBY harebrained thinking. We need a third option that's pro-human. We need public fucking housing.
    - roenxi 8mo ago
      You seem fairly keen on building public housing. Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? The YIMBYs are the lobby that tends to be pro-new-buildings. If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea.
      - FranklinJabar 8mo ago
        > Wouldn't that qualify you as a YIMBY? YIMBY is the pro-private-development lobby, as best I can tell. PHIMBY is the term I've seen. > If you want to build public housing, only the NIMBYs would really oppose the idea. I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this.
        roenxi 8mo ago
        > I suspect most who go by YIMBY would also oppose this. Well I'm not sure what you're proposing but if it can be characterised as "mass public housing" it sounds like a terrible idea on the face of it, and most people would probably oppose it on that ground. But the YIMBYs would have to agree that you're allowed to try it if you want, otherwise they'd be NIMBYs, on the basis that they are telling other people they can't build on their land.

kjshsh123 8mo ago

Market housing will be expensive until you allow developers to build as much housing as the market demands. Non-market housing will have extremely long wait times if there is not as much of it as the market demands. And the NIMBYs and left-NIMBYs are still winning. Relevant substack article (Towers Don't Cause the Housing Crisis): https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/towers-dont-cause-the-housing-crisis https://open.substack.com/pub/shonczinner/p/towers-dont-caus...