| |
| ▲ | munk-a 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's like a thirty minute city. You want those services nearish to you but never so close that they'd effect property value. "Nobody" wants to live next to a high school - your house might be TP'd, but you want a good school within bus range, "Nobody" wants to live next to a super market, they have large parking lots and are "undesirable" but you want to be able to drive half a dozen blocks to it. I've never thought of the B in NIMBY as literally meaning backyard - it figuratively means "near enough to effect me" but people still want it within reach - so the ultimate NIMBY dream would likely be to live in an island of placid suburbia surround by a ring of vital services that are just far away enough that you don't need to see them every day. (There's also, I think, a separate environmental NIMBYism but that's a really strange concept and usually more of a deliberate misinterpretation by people with an agenda to push - I'm more concerned with city service NIMBYism around public transit, food availability, hospitals, etc...) | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is that what YIMBY activists do? Live exclusively in SFHs and make everyone else build apartments? |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a large forest near your local community. You and others often walk in the forest and kids play there. Its calming and has been there forever. The state wants your community to turn it into apartments, but obviously the community is icey about it. Then activists from another city dozens of miles away, who have never cared for your town or really been to it, show up at Town Hall meetings and are scheduling meetings with town councilors to push for building the apartments. Those out of town people jumping into your community to dictate change are the YIYBY people. If the apartments are built, they'll put another feather in their cap while walking around the forest near their home. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would they cut down the forest to turn it into apartments? It's more economical to bulldoze existing single-family homes and do it there. The roads are already built, you'd just need to upgrade utilities and so on. There are people living in those single-family homes who would gladly take the opportunity to sell their land for higher than market value but are prevented from doing so. It's more common for forests to be cut down because dense housing is illegal, so cities have to keep expanding outwards. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > large forest near your local community. Who owns the forest and why do you think you get to say if people build on it or not? | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The town, a democratic institution for which you are a tax paying constituent, owns the forest. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. Local zoning shouldn’t have an impact on whether or not a city-owned forest (or a park, or vacant land) is forcibly sold and developed. That’s a different problem. If someone already owns the forest, then they should get to build on their land. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Are these out of town people, who surely can’t vote in local elections, somehow forcing the town to sell the forest to developers? If so then that is the problem. They are "forcing" in the same way billionaires "force" politicians to lower taxes on them. I think the term you meant to use is "lobbying", which is in fact what these YIYBY groups would be doing. They are lobbying a random town that they are no part of to cut down their forest and build apartments. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lobbying (through letters and meetings) is legal free speech. If they are engaging in kickbacks or other quid pro then that’s illegal. Lobbying can’t force the town to sell the forest. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent [-] | | Correct, not sure what point you are trying to make. People who live in the community don't want unaffiliated outsiders lobbying their town leaders. Those people doing the lobbying would be "Yes In Your Backyard" people. They would be this because it is not their backyard they are lobbying for, but yours. I cannot be more straightforward in explaining the term YIYBY than that, heh | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yet that lobbying is legal under the first amendment, so the people have no ground to stand on. They can do their own lobbying in response. If the voters did their job and elected good representatives, who respect the interest of the voters, then they have nothing to worry about: the forest will not be sold. Voters could also try to establish a referendum system where public lands cannot be sold without a local vote, assuming this is not in conflict with state law. Edit: The point I am trying to make: - You said that the town owns the forest in your example. I presented points to explain why this is not an issue, as lobbyists cannot force the sale of public land. - I wanted to clarify that YIMBYs cannot force property owners to build against their will, except in limited circumstances (eminent domain) that usually requires assent from local government. - To be clear, I think that individual property rights should be respected. I can build on my land, I can’t force you to build (or not build) on your land unless you are voluntarily bound by some covenant. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent [-] | | I would implore you to go back and read the top comment, the person was asking what YIYBY is. I explained. For some reason you are trying to argue with me about the merits of YIYBY, when I never took a stance on it, just explained what it is and why people don't like it. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere an hour ago | parent [-] | | Pixl97: >> Who owns the forest and why do you think you get to say if people build on it or not? You: > The town, a democratic institution for which you are a tax paying constituent, owns the forest. That’s what I was arguing about, primarily. The other points emerged after you deviated from that point further down. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And what's you argument? That people wouldn't be upset that outsiders are lobbying their town? I never said anything about outsiders forcing anything. They simply lobby and people get mad about it, those lobbyists are "YIYBY". Its the origin of a term. You built a strawman about forcing a town to do something, and are really intent on attacking that strawman. But you built it, I never said anything to that effect. Of course they cannot force the town to do anything and of course the lobbyiest have first amendment rights. Never said anything to the contrary. EDIT: Our convo is now rate limited, but I'm glad you live in a place where politicians work for voters and ignore lobbyists. Treasure it, most are not that lucky. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How is it YIYBY if they can’t force the town to sell the land? They can lobby until they are blue in the face, but they can’t really accomplish anything. You are the one who said the town owns the land. If they own the land, it looks like the voters are safe—nothing should happen. You are the one who built the strawman by inventing a public forest under threat from lobbyists. I was just showing that this strawman was an illusion. I believe that NIMBYs often try to do a motte and bailey argument where they make it seem like someone is literally going to force property owners to build something, when in reality they are trying to prevent property owners from using their property as they want. That really gets my goat, because it’s dishonest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a pretty core element of democracy, that if the majority says they get to do a violence against you for a certain behavior, then they get to do that. It might be immoral but it's the current religion of this area of the world *. * But muh republic -- spare me, the zoning fiasco shows the current constitutional limits on democracy doesn't stop it. |
|
|
|
