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.

shoxidizer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The use of "back yard" refers to the local area, not the literal extent of one's property. This usage is not unique to NIMBY and it's derivatives. YIMBY sentiment also clearly extends beyond developers themselves and simple libertine principles. Many people want development to occur around them, in their back-yard so to speak, because they prefer it occurs. The semantic change you're arguing for erases this concept just to sidestep the notion of local community. It's a needlessly aggravating approach when the simple answer is just that both NIMBY and YIMBY advocates can support their cause beyond their own area because they believe their cohort is right and deserves it.

▲

bpt3 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They are telling communities that they have no part of how to manage themselves.

Rancho Palos Verdes should not be required to comply with the request of some random activist who probably has never even stepped foot in the town.

	▲	epistasis an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state. Rancho Palos Verdes should comply with the law, or face the consequences of not being able continue that control of their land management. A great value of democracy is that a "random activist" can petition the government to enforce the law, that's how we keep the whole thing in check. The idea that random activists could not be a check on illegal behavior of the government is a very, well, authoritarian idea that is not compatible with any of the values embodied in the US or California constitutions, our legal system, or the very character and culture of the US.
	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		US cities are under the jurisdiction of their states. States hold the power to abolish or establish cities. Cities are required to follow state law. Whether residents or non-residents remind cities of their legal obligations is utterly irrelevant. If a city was allowing racial discrimination and no one within the city sued, would that make it ok?
	▲	energy123 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's a euphemism for NIYBY.