4 ms·

that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice I don't have a dog in the fight, but I respect the right of people to help d

by crusso 13y ago

that's also the fault of the NIMBYs, who should be squashed with extreme prejudice I don't have a dog in the fight, but I respect the right of people to help determine the kind of city they want to have. Enough people who already live in SF are saying that they don't want to be New York. What's wrong with that?

cynicalkane 13y ago
They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. NIMBYs are the economic version of "finders keepers" together with not caring about anyone's well-being. This is suboptimal, even in lassiez-faire, to say nothing of an actual egalitarian society. Then there's the additional problem of the most ornery and stubborn NIMBYs commanding the greatest political influence. This is also suboptimal in any economic model.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. It's amusing, because this is almost the exact opposite of the typical argument I see against gentrification of lower-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan in which most of the longtime residents are not property owners (ie, "They were here first").
- crusso 13y ago
  simply possess on being there first Being there first is a really strong reason to respect someone's wishes. The ones who have been there have formed the place into much of what it is that makes it so desirable. If being there first doesn't carry much weight, being a johnny-come-lately carries even less.
natrius 13y ago
What you've described would be desirable were it not for a widespread flaw in human reasoning. When people invest time and/or money into a place, they want to make sure it doesn't change for the worse. The default strategy to achieve that goal is to fight any change at all, which doesn't work in growing cities. You can try to keep the buildings the same as they are, but the people will change, as will the transportation problems. A growing city requires more housing to slow the rise of housing prices. A growing city requires more housing near its transportation investments (especially where capacity can easily be increased) so more people can get to where they need to go quickly. NIMBYism prevents both of those, and is the cause of many problems in the modern American city.

by crusso 13y ago

cynicalkane 13y ago

They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. NIMBYs are the economic version of "finders keepers" together with not caring about anyone's well-being. This is suboptimal, even in lassiez-faire, to say nothing of an actual egalitarian society. Then there's the additional problem of the most ornery and stubborn NIMBYs commanding the greatest political influence. This is also suboptimal in any economic model.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> They exercise privilege that they haven't paid into but simply possess on being there first, nor do they have economic incentive to see development that is beneficial for others. It's amusing, because this is almost the exact opposite of the typical argument I see against gentrification of lower-class neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan in which most of the longtime residents are not property owners (ie, "They were here first").
crusso 13y ago
simply possess on being there first Being there first is a really strong reason to respect someone's wishes. The ones who have been there have formed the place into much of what it is that makes it so desirable. If being there first doesn't carry much weight, being a johnny-come-lately carries even less.

natrius 13y ago

What you've described would be desirable were it not for a widespread flaw in human reasoning. When people invest time and/or money into a place, they want to make sure it doesn't change for the worse. The default strategy to achieve that goal is to fight any change at all, which doesn't work in growing cities. You can try to keep the buildings the same as they are, but the people will change, as will the transportation problems. A growing city requires more housing to slow the rise of housing prices. A growing city requires more housing near its transportation investments (especially where capacity can easily be increased) so more people can get to where they need to go quickly. NIMBYism prevents both of those, and is the cause of many problems in the modern American city.