4 ms·
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 bene
by 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 agosimply 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.