4 ms·

I live near a small town of about 10,000 people that's about 30 minutes away from a "hot commodity" city. The crown jewel of this small town is the main street,

by quacked 15d ago

I live near a small town of about 10,000 people that's about 30 minutes away from a "hot commodity" city. The crown jewel of this small town is the main street, which retains a bit of kitschy Americana that has remained charming for decades and even draws tourists, for whatever reason. A local business owner bought up one of the blocks in the center of the street and announced plans to demolish it in order to build a 5-over-1 complex several stories higher than any of the other buildings. Without the public comment process, he'd have been able to do this practically overnight, completely ruining the street. The public fought back long and hard for many months and eventually won by convincing the town council to vote against the rezoning that would permit this construction. I can't say I'm opposed to the public comment process. (Note that this was not a case of never-change NIMBYism; tons of other similar buildings are going up all over the town completely unopposed. It was the ugly, generic design and the sheer size put so blatantly in the middle of everyone's favorite part of town.)

tptacek 15d ago
I don't know, this sure sounds like NIMBYism to me. Public comment was used to organize against multifamily housing units. That's approximately the whole story; I think you pretty much just have to add "organizing against new renewable and grid upgrades" to complete it.
- quacked 15d ago
  They weren't multifamily units.
  - alex43578 15d ago
    "5-over-1 or over-1s, also known as a one-plus-five or a podium building,[1] is a type of multi-family residential building commonly found in urban areas of North America", so either you're wrong about them wanting to build a 5 over 1 or wrong about them being multi-family.
    - quacked 14d ago
      Then maybe I used to wrong term. It was a building full of singles, built to look almost exactly like the classic 5-over-1.
      - tptacek 14d ago
        Yes, that's a multifamily development.
- harimau777 15d ago
  NIMBYism isn't always wrong.
  - tptacek 15d ago
    We can agree to disagree, so long as we can at least recognize NIMBYism when we see it. "Public comment works great because it enabled us to organize to keep a multifamily development out of our vicinity" is like the archetypical NIMBY project.
  - mitxela 15d ago
    When it's a data center, maybe, but these people got housing densification shot down, keeping home prices and rent high for everybody.
sethherr 15d ago
You clarified it wasn’t “never change NIMBYism” - was it a case of just changes I don’t like NIMBYism?
- quacked 15d ago
  As I understand it, NIMBYism is "don't ever build anything anywhere in the neighborhood/town", not "don't build in this one spot we all really like". As I said, there are tons of other buildings going up over town.
  - tptacek 15d ago
    It's literally "don't build on this one spot I really like". It's in the name!
    - harimau777 15d ago
      I didn't know that the acronym was NITOSIRL. Sure seems like a weird way to spell NIMBY, but who am I to judge?
  - greatquux 15d ago
    Exactly. The "my" in "my backyard" can apply to everyone therefore nothing gets built. The alternative is everything gets built. There has to be a middle ground, which is what zoning laws are meant to accomplish. We have buildings and multi-family housing going up in our town too, but we also have historically-protected buildings on the main street that require some more work if you want to do stuff with them. This is a good balance.
    - tptacek 15d ago
      Zoning laws accomplished what they were intended to do, which was to enforce economic and racial segregation by preventing new affordable housing from being built near areas of opportunity. I don't think anybody working on housing affordability thinks this is a good balance, and the trend is sharply towards rolling these rules back. Apropos this particular thread I think it's notable that the most popular way of accomplishing that is to remove home rule authority for municipalities on zoning minimums and re-vesting that power exclusively in the state, which can't be mugged by local special interest groups spawn camping public comment opportunities.
lacy_tinpot 15d ago
If it's everyone's favorite part of town why not just codify it at the city level?
- quacked 15d ago
  That's what they're working on next.
  - anonymousiam 15d ago
    So what will likely follow is a 'takings clause' case by the owner, who can no longer use their property the way they want.
Panzer04 15d ago
The fact you're using this as an example of public review being a good thing shows how fucked up the process is. You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street. Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?
- quacked 14d ago
  Is your opinion that the denizens of a locale ought to have no say in what happens to it?
  - tptacek 14d ago
    They should have exactly the same say as everybody else in that electorate who votes. They should not get an extra say.
  - Panzer04 13d ago
    If you don't own the land and can't demonstrate a direct, severe impact to you and yours from the actions of someone else, you shouldn't have a say. "More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.
Dylan16807 15d ago
> several stories higher than any of the other buildings If the highest other building was 2 stories then it would have been 4 taller. More likely 3? Not several. I appreciate your complaint about generic design but damn putting apartments downtown sounds amazing actually, not ruining. Would you have been happy if they had a better design and it was 3 over 1?
- mitxela 15d ago
  "5 over 1" refers to the section of the building code, wooden (part 5) over concrete (part 1) or something like that. Coincidentally it's also the number of floors allowed, but a 3 over 1 would be built of something else.
  - Dylan16807 15d ago
    Interesting claim. Wikipedia is unsure but uses the floor count meaning in the article. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States–based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the IBC uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber.[5][6]
    - cucumber3732842 14d ago
      In most US jurisdictions if you pick reasonable ceiling heights plus a little margin for un-level ground making the building effectively taller on one side 6-floors is also about the maximum number of floors you can build before you get kicked in the dick by all the highrise regulatory compliance so that probably has a bit to do with it.

by quacked 15d ago

tptacek 15d ago

I don't know, this sure sounds like NIMBYism to me. Public comment was used to organize against multifamily housing units. That's approximately the whole story; I think you pretty much just have to add "organizing against new renewable and grid upgrades" to complete it.

quacked 15d ago
They weren't multifamily units.
- alex43578 15d ago
  "5-over-1 or over-1s, also known as a one-plus-five or a podium building,[1] is a type of multi-family residential building commonly found in urban areas of North America", so either you're wrong about them wanting to build a 5 over 1 or wrong about them being multi-family.
  - quacked 14d ago
    Then maybe I used to wrong term. It was a building full of singles, built to look almost exactly like the classic 5-over-1.
    - tptacek 14d ago
      Yes, that's a multifamily development.
harimau777 15d ago
NIMBYism isn't always wrong.
- tptacek 15d ago
  We can agree to disagree, so long as we can at least recognize NIMBYism when we see it. "Public comment works great because it enabled us to organize to keep a multifamily development out of our vicinity" is like the archetypical NIMBY project.
- mitxela 15d ago
  When it's a data center, maybe, but these people got housing densification shot down, keeping home prices and rent high for everybody.

sethherr 15d ago

You clarified it wasn’t “never change NIMBYism” - was it a case of just changes I don’t like NIMBYism?

quacked 15d ago
As I understand it, NIMBYism is "don't ever build anything anywhere in the neighborhood/town", not "don't build in this one spot we all really like". As I said, there are tons of other buildings going up over town.
- tptacek 15d ago
  It's literally "don't build on this one spot I really like". It's in the name!
  - harimau777 15d ago
    I didn't know that the acronym was NITOSIRL. Sure seems like a weird way to spell NIMBY, but who am I to judge?
- greatquux 15d ago
  Exactly. The "my" in "my backyard" can apply to everyone therefore nothing gets built. The alternative is everything gets built. There has to be a middle ground, which is what zoning laws are meant to accomplish. We have buildings and multi-family housing going up in our town too, but we also have historically-protected buildings on the main street that require some more work if you want to do stuff with them. This is a good balance.
  - tptacek 15d ago
    Zoning laws accomplished what they were intended to do, which was to enforce economic and racial segregation by preventing new affordable housing from being built near areas of opportunity. I don't think anybody working on housing affordability thinks this is a good balance, and the trend is sharply towards rolling these rules back. Apropos this particular thread I think it's notable that the most popular way of accomplishing that is to remove home rule authority for municipalities on zoning minimums and re-vesting that power exclusively in the state, which can't be mugged by local special interest groups spawn camping public comment opportunities.

lacy_tinpot 15d ago

If it's everyone's favorite part of town why not just codify it at the city level?

quacked 15d ago
That's what they're working on next.
- anonymousiam 15d ago
  So what will likely follow is a 'takings clause' case by the owner, who can no longer use their property the way they want.

Panzer04 15d ago

The fact you're using this as an example of public review being a good thing shows how fucked up the process is. You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street. Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?

quacked 14d ago
Is your opinion that the denizens of a locale ought to have no say in what happens to it?
- tptacek 14d ago
  They should have exactly the same say as everybody else in that electorate who votes. They should not get an extra say.
- Panzer04 13d ago
  If you don't own the land and can't demonstrate a direct, severe impact to you and yours from the actions of someone else, you shouldn't have a say. "More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.

Dylan16807 15d ago

> several stories higher than any of the other buildings If the highest other building was 2 stories then it would have been 4 taller. More likely 3? Not several. I appreciate your complaint about generic design but damn putting apartments downtown sounds amazing actually, not ruining. Would you have been happy if they had a better design and it was 3 over 1?

mitxela 15d ago
"5 over 1" refers to the section of the building code, wooden (part 5) over concrete (part 1) or something like that. Coincidentally it's also the number of floors allowed, but a 3 over 1 would be built of something else.
- Dylan16807 15d ago
  Interesting claim. Wikipedia is unsure but uses the floor count meaning in the article. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States–based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the IBC uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber.[5][6]
  - cucumber3732842 14d ago
    In most US jurisdictions if you pick reasonable ceiling heights plus a little margin for un-level ground making the building effectively taller on one side 6-floors is also about the maximum number of floors you can build before you get kicked in the dick by all the highrise regulatory compliance so that probably has a bit to do with it.