Because "yimby"s go to higher government to force localities to adopt rules they vote against, i.e. they get their way with authoritarian policies that apply outside of "their backyard". Some even think there should be national laws! They want their policies applied to essentially an entire continent. Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality. San Francisco wants giant skyscrapers? Cool, none in my city, thanks. That's why we chose to live in an area that bans high density.

From what I've seen the actual policies being pushed by "yimbys" seem much closer to yiyby.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Nimbys typically don't care about things that are not part of their locality

Yimbys go even smaller. They don't care about things that are not in their backyard.

You want an apartment building on your land? Cool, none on my land thanks.

If you care about freedom, go with yimbys. The nimbys are the ones putting encumbrances on your property.

▲

ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

Obviously I don't care about that freedom. Just like I don't care about the freedom to put up ugly billboards on your land. That's why we bought a home in an area that bans those things. It also requires ugly parking lots to be set back behind a tree line, and new residential developments must have bike trails that connect to the wider network. I'm happy for you to live somewhere where you have that freedom though. I know "no rules" appeals to some!

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-]

So you don't care about other people's freedoms but yimbys are bad because they're "authoritarian". Got it, totally cool, logical, and consistent.

You could just be honest and say "I want to use government power to suit my needs, even if it costs other people. But no one else can do that". It's pretty selfish but at least we'll know where you stand.

▲

ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah that's why I moved somewhere where those were the agreed local regulations and everyone else was on the same page. That's why local governance is good. Everyone can find somewhere where they can be happy.

▲

triceratops 3 days ago | parent [-]

> everyone else was on the same page

You can't know that though. Unless you hold a referendum to renew the rules every year and they pass by a 100% majority.

The only honest way to do it is without invoking government power. Move to a gated community. Have a neighborhood association, funded solely by residents, whose bylaws require that it gets to have any property up for sale in the community as long as it matches any other accepted offer on it.

If you want your "dream community" spend your own money. Don't go into other people's pockets.

	▲	ndriscoll 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't subscribe to pure anarchism. We also have local public schools, parks, libraries, bike trails, etc. funded by "other people's" (our) pockets. It's fine. The US at least has 10 million sq km. Plenty of room for different types of communities to exist. The are cities in multiple directions a few miles away with less restrictive zoning if people like the area but want apartments, townhomes, or advertising.

▲

danaris 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And this is because individual property rights must not be sacrosanct in a civilized society.

We already have a number of rules of what you can and can't do with your private property that I think most people agree on. You can't build a slaughterhouse right in the middle of a residential area. You can't dump your garbage into the water flowing through your property. Etc.

Those are rules we all agree on because they have immediate and very visible primary effects.

The things we're talking about now are less visible secondary effects, but they're still very real.

The ability of our entire society to be able to securely and affordably house all its members is a much stronger imperative than the ability of people in any particular area to have nice views, or neighbors who all share the same socioeconomic class/skin color/native language as them.

	▲	immibis 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We should probably try to keep them to a minimum though, lest we stifle innovation. You wouldn't want to stifle innovation, would you? Or inadvertently destroy shareholder value?