5 ms·

Smashing the NIMBYs created modern capitalism

27 points by momentmaker 4mo ago

rho138 4mo ago
Their non-linear storytelling is hard to keep me engaged tbh.
- glimshe 4mo ago
  I just got a Gemini summary of it... While I'll take good writing over AI any day, I'd rather read an AI summary over meandering writing.
zerobees 4mo ago
Somewhat tangentially, I think the term "NIMBY" is actually one of the most significant impediments to getting rid of NIMBYism. It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress. In reality, everyone is a NIMBY when someone shows up and tries to build a rail line or some high-density housing in your backyard. Sure, you support progress as a concept, but this is not the right place - have we considered alternate locations? Can the infrastructure cope with that? Don't we need to build another hospital or a police station first? What about the impacts on the Canada thistle and raccoon habitat? I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too if they tried to put a Costco or a highway off-ramp over there. Fundamentally, the proposition behind a lot of progress-centric projects is that they will harm some people for the well-being of others, and this is something we stubbornly fail to address. If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist, and it's all just irrationality of the select few. Make it a part of the social contract, instead of the current implicit promise that your cul-de-sac can stay the same forever. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.
- jeffbee 4mo ago
  No. Many of us are delighted to have high density housing nextdoor, across the street, or on our own property. Many are glad for new rail lines, the closer the better. The people you mentioned are just NIMBYs.
  - pj_mukh 4mo ago
    Yea exactly, OP’s argument is the same as “if you want the government to pay more taxes you should just personally write a bigger check during tax time” The underlying optimal game theoretic action is obvious (and therefore common), the problem are the laws that require you to respect the neighbors. This is why state-wide anti-NIMBY laws can get passed, everyone thinks it won’t come for them so they let it pass. Let’s pass more of those and make em stronger.
  - enaaem 4mo ago
    Indeed, in my country the vast majority of people have nothing against new development near their neighbourhood. It’s always one or two people with way too much free time that are blocking development.
- pydry 4mo ago
  nimbyism is a perfectly rational market behavior when land is untaxed - as it was with, say, prop 13. Why on earth would you want your local "historic" San francisco launderette to be turned into apartments? New supply will hurt the resale value of your apartment. nimbys behaving in a rational way are a nicer target than, say, the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation. That one is backed by fine, upstanding billionaires and not filthy middle class homeowners. We all know who is "really" to blame for all of this and it is not the billionaires who set the rules of the game, it is those who play it.
  - HDThoreaun 4mo ago
    NIMBYism is even more rational when there is a land tax. When things get built near your land your tax burden will increase. Your example doesn’t work because getting rid of the laundromat will make the area more desirable and increase property value even if new housing is built.
0gs 4mo ago
... does this article presume that lots of people want MORE capitalism?
lithocarpus 4mo ago
Didn't read the article, but regarding the title, this is kind of fundamental. NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home. Capitalism largely lives on destroying particular places to benefit people who are [mostly] somewhere else. This is the only thing happening in capitalism but it's a big part of it. The end game of this kind of capitalism is that every place is destroyed (ecologically) and it gradually grinds to a painful halt. Maybe there's a way to have some elements of capitalism in a society that doesn't destroy places but I don't know.
- hashmap 4mo ago
  > NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home. this is the reflex, and it's a sensible one to have. but the perception of what is or isnt a threat can range from something legitimate across the board ("I dont want a giant thing taking all the power and pumping my head full out sound 100% of the time near my home") to the truly detrimental ("I should get to be the last one moving into this area. Me moving to a place is good and fine; other people moving to where I live constitutes destruction. No new housing.") NIMBYs forget they moved to where they live from somewhere, and they are not more important than other people on a societal level.
  - lithocarpus 4mo ago
    Totally agree - I don't mean to promote or defend all NIMBYism - and a lot of it is simply "I got mine and don't want to share". And there's also something to be said for NIMBYs protecting the habitat they live in or near.
    - hashmap 4mo ago
      There is. That is one of those cases that it truly is good to surface, because it provides a watermark to clear. Whatever you are doing, you should have to prove that it is worth the destruction you will cause to do it. People getting to live somewhere clears that line much of the time; excesses like golf courses and yet another datacenter become gross when put into relief.

27 points by momentmaker 4mo ago

rho138 4mo ago

Their non-linear storytelling is hard to keep me engaged tbh.

glimshe 4mo ago
I just got a Gemini summary of it... While I'll take good writing over AI any day, I'd rather read an AI summary over meandering writing.

zerobees 4mo ago

Somewhat tangentially, I think the term "NIMBY" is actually one of the most significant impediments to getting rid of NIMBYism. It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress. In reality, everyone is a NIMBY when someone shows up and tries to build a rail line or some high-density housing in your backyard. Sure, you support progress as a concept, but this is not the right place - have we considered alternate locations? Can the infrastructure cope with that? Don't we need to build another hospital or a police station first? What about the impacts on the Canada thistle and raccoon habitat? I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too if they tried to put a Costco or a highway off-ramp over there. Fundamentally, the proposition behind a lot of progress-centric projects is that they will harm some people for the well-being of others, and this is something we stubbornly fail to address. If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist, and it's all just irrationality of the select few. Make it a part of the social contract, instead of the current implicit promise that your cul-de-sac can stay the same forever. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.

jeffbee 4mo ago
No. Many of us are delighted to have high density housing nextdoor, across the street, or on our own property. Many are glad for new rail lines, the closer the better. The people you mentioned are just NIMBYs.
- pj_mukh 4mo ago
  Yea exactly, OP’s argument is the same as “if you want the government to pay more taxes you should just personally write a bigger check during tax time” The underlying optimal game theoretic action is obvious (and therefore common), the problem are the laws that require you to respect the neighbors. This is why state-wide anti-NIMBY laws can get passed, everyone thinks it won’t come for them so they let it pass. Let’s pass more of those and make em stronger.
- enaaem 4mo ago
  Indeed, in my country the vast majority of people have nothing against new development near their neighbourhood. It’s always one or two people with way too much free time that are blocking development.
pydry 4mo ago
nimbyism is a perfectly rational market behavior when land is untaxed - as it was with, say, prop 13. Why on earth would you want your local "historic" San francisco launderette to be turned into apartments? New supply will hurt the resale value of your apartment. nimbys behaving in a rational way are a nicer target than, say, the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation. That one is backed by fine, upstanding billionaires and not filthy middle class homeowners. We all know who is "really" to blame for all of this and it is not the billionaires who set the rules of the game, it is those who play it.
- HDThoreaun 4mo ago
  NIMBYism is even more rational when there is a land tax. When things get built near your land your tax burden will increase. Your example doesn’t work because getting rid of the laundromat will make the area more desirable and increase property value even if new housing is built.

0gs 4mo ago

... does this article presume that lots of people want MORE capitalism?

lithocarpus 4mo ago

Didn't read the article, but regarding the title, this is kind of fundamental. NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home. Capitalism largely lives on destroying particular places to benefit people who are [mostly] somewhere else. This is the only thing happening in capitalism but it's a big part of it. The end game of this kind of capitalism is that every place is destroyed (ecologically) and it gradually grinds to a painful halt. Maybe there's a way to have some elements of capitalism in a society that doesn't destroy places but I don't know.

hashmap 4mo ago
> NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home. this is the reflex, and it's a sensible one to have. but the perception of what is or isnt a threat can range from something legitimate across the board ("I dont want a giant thing taking all the power and pumping my head full out sound 100% of the time near my home") to the truly detrimental ("I should get to be the last one moving into this area. Me moving to a place is good and fine; other people moving to where I live constitutes destruction. No new housing.") NIMBYs forget they moved to where they live from somewhere, and they are not more important than other people on a societal level.
- lithocarpus 4mo ago
  Totally agree - I don't mean to promote or defend all NIMBYism - and a lot of it is simply "I got mine and don't want to share". And there's also something to be said for NIMBYs protecting the habitat they live in or near.
  - hashmap 4mo ago
    There is. That is one of those cases that it truly is good to surface, because it provides a watermark to clear. Whatever you are doing, you should have to prove that it is worth the destruction you will cause to do it. People getting to live somewhere clears that line much of the time; excesses like golf courses and yet another datacenter become gross when put into relief.