My theory is that the major parties are currently going through another swap of ideals, so the free-speech absolutists don't have a home.

The regions that give the strongest support to the Democrats, like Marin County in California, don't want anything built, are actively kicking out ranchers that have lived there for generations, are adamantly against anyone calling anyone else something offensive, and are in general against what was classically liberal.

Meanwhile, rural Texas counties that give the strongest support to the Republicans are for worker protections, generally against government-prohibitions on insulting someone, are increasing in their support for populism, and so on.

The Democrats used to support free-speech absolutists, who are no longer welcome there, but the Republicans are just opening up to the ideal, and don't fully support it yet.

This comment is a hilarious example of: https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279?lang...

They were sued by the current administration and recorded as domestic terrorists,held down and sprayed in the face by irregular paramilitary with extrajudicial powers, detained without probable cause or charges, investigated by the FBI in the dead of night, placed on no fly lists, post retirement rank demoted, fired, laid off, swatted, delivered pizza in the name of dead relatives, and all the wonderful stuff that’s making America great again.

Hi I'm right here

Free speech should obviously be protected in all circumstances including this one. I don’t know what you are going on about, but it’s probably the unfortunately common and flawed perception that anyone who supports “free speech” right now is an unprincipled right winger who only supports it for their ideological allies.

I like free speech.

I also oppose mandatory licensing. (In this case, to practice law)

The latter is the accusation, it seems impossible it’s not thrown out.

[flagged]

It's a common tactic to gain state enforcement of gate keeping and protectionism. It's extremely useful at both preventing individuals from acting for themselves but also limiting individuals from recourse against the misdeeds of those who are licensed. See also, The Licensing Racket by Rebecca Haw Allensworth: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/217564698-the-licensing-...

Public polling is very YIMBY too, they are the majority.

It's just the public input process is a filter that selects for extremely high activation, interest, and agency. So if a democratic vote ruled these decisions, YIMBYism would rule the day, but if you go to the meetings it's NIMBYs who are prevalent.

There are definitely centralized NIMBY groups, like Livable California:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/how-to-br...

And there are tons of smaller groups that organize locally, far more than YIMBY groups. In my city there are 2-3 people that typically organize a group, give it a new name, make a web page, and act like they have the backing of everybody in the city when they talk even though most people disagree with them. They've been doing it for decades, and have found many tactics to amplify their voice to be much larger than the sum of the individual group members. YIMBYs are far behind on doing this, though they are getting better at it.

When I first joined NextDoor about a decade ago I dared speak up in favor of a plan to allow apartments to be built on a commercial thoroughfare, and the onslaught of a single person in their replies and direct messages was completely overwhelming (If people here think I'm loquacious, well, I have been far bested in that....). That was my first entrance into city politics, and I quickly learned that this person was in charge of a large "group" that mostly consisted of that single person. They had also been doing it for years, with creative group names, the best of which was probably "Don't Morph the Wharf" which even launched lawsuits to prevent changes to the wharf, delaying necessary maintenance and repairs which a few years ago resulted in the front falling off of the wharf. Individuals can have very undemocratic impacts on local politics.

nobody thinks they're a nimby. every nimby ever will tell you they aren't against development, they just don't think this project is right for this neighbourhood.

if there was any centralized advocacy, they'd have to confront the fact that they all want development to happen in each other's backyards and it would expose the lie.

Not sure why people think that no one thinks they're a NIMBY. I am. I bought a house in a neighborhood with a particular character and if it turns into a bunch of urban high-rises, I won't like that.

I would make money, since more high rises means higher price per square foot of land, but I wouldn't like having to move. If someone moves into an area that is zoned for particular types of properties, then new zoning is imposed by outside fiat (not a vote of the people who live there) is not appropriate.

Not many people consider themselves a nimby even if they are. I was talking with my mom about how I'll never be able to afford a house and she agrees with me it's insane then says that she voted against allowing apartments near her house because it will bring in more crime, she wasn't connecting the dots.

It’s not “centralized” (because as the sibling comment noted, nobody thinks they’re a NIMBY, they just want to stop development in their town), but some of it happens on Facebook and NextDoor. I think a lot more happens face-to-face at the sort of activities that older and retired people hang out at though.

Yes, there are plenty. They don't call themselves NIMBY though. Usually it's stuff like opposing gentrification, protecting the environment/green spaces, or protecting historical areas. The net effect is NIMBY.

I totally get it. People don't like change - I certainly don't. Especially when it changes the neighborhood you're living in.

Housing density sucks.

It makes people unable to do anything themselves because they don't have space.

It gives investor groups exclusive power over housing and locks even people who own into rent-like housing association fees.

It removes people even further from nature.

It drives up costs.

I agree that local communities are best at determining their own line when disputes arise between protecting the freedoms of one party versus another, which is a stance also held by the supreme court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards

In this case though, it's not someone going to a non-local city council or school board meeting and arguing for or against some policy that is up to that local board, but it is someone pointing out a policy that has been set at the state level. Any arguments for or against that policy need to take place at the state level, because that is the only place where it can be changed.

If you live in California I can assure you beyond any doubt that people from some far-away place have had outrageous levels of influence on your local housing policy. Almost the entire body of CEQA jurisprudence has been developed by two lawyers and a handful of labor union executives.

If your local building code requires an elevator that can accommodate a hospital stretcher, which is almost certainly does, that was jotted down in the building code by literally one guy from Glendale, Arizona, on the basis of a whim.

> If lobbyists were influencing my municipality from afar on the basis of laws that I disagreed with

Hah, they most certainly are! To such an extreme extent that I figure you'd probably reword this to something like "If I was aware of all the ways that lobbyists were influencing my municipality from afar". They are most certainly constantly and relentlessly influencing your municipality on every issue that is relevant to them.

To those downvoting, if you tell me your municipality I will provide you with evidence of corporate lobbying influencing decisions of governance at the municipal level.

https://www.govtech.com/archive/uber-encourages-voting-gets-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkIiLWuXBE

> 1 people per square mile... Then the state decided that this was the perfect place to build 100 MW of 630 foot wind turbines

That is correct, for the reason you yourself gave. Since it bothers you so much personally, I'm very sorry about your bad luck. But it was objectively the right decision.

If NIMBY were all willing to move away from civilisation, nobody would have a problem with them. You wanting peace and quiet in the middle of nowhere affects no one else - that's quite different from demanding everyone around you cater to your desire in the middle of an urban area

It does feel sometimes like you can't escape. I got tired of the nonstop noise and loud cars of a big city and moved to a smaller suburb. Then I learned about Leaf Blowers. If every neighbor has gardeners come at ~7am once every two weeks, the odds are you will wake up to the soothing sound of a 2 stroke Leaf Blower almost every morning!

I'd say the blinking red lights are pretty mild compared to the non-stop LEO satellites you see zipping across the sky anywhere on earth nowadays.

There are a lot of old laws on the books about licensing that go beyond legal advice.

In many places it’s illegal to call yourself an engineer unless you match certain criteria, such as being a licensed engineer or working for a company in the industry that can oversee your work in a specified capacity.

There was a famous case where someone tried to get some attention about a traffic problem at an intersection in their city. They included a drawing of the intersection. The politicians involved didn’t like person so they tried to retaliate by going after the person for doing civil engineering work (aka making a drawing of a road) without an engineering license.

The worst part is that they actually might have had a case under the licensing laws. The licensing laws are outdated and mostly unenforced, but they’re out there. If you call yourself a software engineer you might be breaking a law in your location.

Also hilarious to think you can't offer "legal analysis" without a license. As long as you don't do it for hire or while representing yourself as an attorney, the first amendment protects your right to offer your legal analysis of something. The exceptions are either are in regards to offering commercial services or representation without a license, not the underlying speech.

The first amendment explicitly gives you the right to petition the government. They actually do have to listen.

That's mostly true, but may not be in the case of government representatives.

citizens have a right to be heard by their government.

Are they appropriating other people's land and building in their backyard? That would be called eminent domain.

They just want everyone to build what they want in their own backyard.

NIMBYs might more accurately be called NIYBYs.

State law recently increased my neighborhood’s density. It’s obliging these towns to do the same. I’m happy about both, which makes me YIMBY like the people in this organization

Let’s remember, CA is in a housing CRISIS. I feel an immediate urgency to build as many houses as possible in this state so that my young children can feasibly afford to live here without being an AI engineer when they are adults

not your back yard if you don't own the land.

More housing in region X will result in lower housing prices in region Y. The interests of people from region Y are valid.

You can accuse them of being hypocrites if they don't also support more housing in region Y but that's a pretty big if you have to prove there.

But you can't say their interests are invalid.

> Right next door is Hawthorne

30 minutes drive in no traffic, crossing half a dozen cities and the 405. There's reasons to inveigh against the YIMBYs (why are they celebrating densifying a coastal area that's actively falling into the pacific[1], nevermind it's inherent beauty) but let's not deny geography.

Also RPV doesn't have 1-5 acre lots, it just costs ~$4m for an house on a normal lot, rising to ~$20m as you get to the coast. You might be thin thinking of Rolling Hills, to the extent you're thinking of anything on the peninsula at all?

[1]: https://www.rpvca.gov/719/Landslide-Management-Program

Can you clarify why it is absurd to add density to an area with huge 5 acre lots?

How is that absurd? If I own land and want to build 650 new homes, what exactly is the argument for stopping me, besides "I don't like it"?

If you don't want people developing their 5 acre lots, you should buy all of the 5 acre lots. Problem solved.

> The absurdity of adding 650 homes to this area is astounding

Let the free market decide whether it wants the homes or not.

I think insane real estate prices are more of a motivation to leave California than local political drama.

If you're going to invent the term YIYBY are you willing to acknowledge far more NIYBY than NIMBY behavior?

Barring eminent domain, YIYBY is impossible. It's always YIMBY.

I don't know, does new housing or municipal services get built in anyone's literal backyard? So it's not Your or My Backyard, really.

NIMBYism has always been about nosy people obstructing progress.

Definitely YIYBY.

So if I build an apartment building on some lots zoned for single-family and someone complains, they're a "tattletale" too? And nobody should like that either?

> "we will sue you into obeying state law" is basically being a tattletale.

Is going into cities that are violating civil rights laws basically being a tattletale?

>they don't want to do through passing laws.

Yes, that is how the rule of law works.