This is probably the one issue that has the biggest online/offline divide. Online, I hear nothing but YIMBY-ism. Is there any centralized online NIMBY advocacy?

▲

epistasis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	taeric 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ish. Polling is very YIMBY. So long as it is exactly what I want in my back yard. With a lot more leeway granted to what should be allowed in someone else's back yard.

▲

notatoad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

cogman10 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Here's where I come out and maybe others end up in the same scenario.

I think it's definitely a good thing to build up more high density housing. I've got no complaints there.

However, a major problem we are having locally is that while that local housing is being built like gangbusters, the infrastructure to support that housing, such as the roads and public transport, hasn't been upgraded in tandem. 10 years ago, I could drive to work in 20 minutes. Today during rush hour it's a 40 to 60 minute affair. It's start/stop traffic through the neighborhood because there's no buses, interstate, etc to service the area where all the growth is happening.

It also doesn't help that promised projects, like new parks, have been stuck in limbo for the last 15 years with more than a few proposals to try and turn that land into new housing developments.

What I'm saying is housing is important and nice, but we actually need public utilities to be upgraded and to grow with the housing increase. It's untenable to add 10,000 housing units into an area originally designed to service 1000.

▲

notatoad an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>because there's no buses, interstate, etc to service the area where all the growth is happening.

right, it'd be great if that stuff could be built to support the housing before the housing gets built. but you can't do that either without people having a fit about wasting money building a road to nowhere, or buses just being for homeless people. the NIMBYism doesn't just apply to housing, it applies to building literally anything. often because people think they can block new housing development by opposing the infrastructure that might support it.

nothing about YIMBY is about opposing infrastructure development. we need to build all the things that humans need to exist - housing, infrastructure, recreation, businesses. build it all.

"we shouldn't build any housing until there's a highway" is just another variant of "i support housing, just not here". opposing housing because there's no bus route is still opposing housing. those are fixable problems.

	▲	cogman10 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> those are fixable problems. They are fixable problems that very clearly are not being fixed here. I might have a different attitude if new bus routes or highways were being built in response to the new housing that's gone in, but like I've said, we've failed to build infrastructure for the massive expansion we've seen in the last 10 years. Why should I think it's a good thing to build another 1000 units of housing when none of the infrastructure is able to handle the current population? It's not a case of "busses to nowhere" it's a case of "we are filled to the gill and they want to add even more people". My kid's school, for example, has started paving over the playground and installing trailers in order to accommodate the kids coming in. Instead of building a new school for all the new housing, we have exactly the same schools and school buildings that we had when I first moved here. And I should say, we have even more housing planned and in construction right now all around me. That's all been approved yet I've not heard or seen a peep about adding another school, bus, etc. That's why I have a hard time seeing it as NIMBY.

▲

jeffbee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't know were you're from but in California that is not the focus of YIMBY advocacy. The entire focus of the California RHNA process is to allocate development capacity in proportion to the existing infrastructure of a place.

	▲	cogman10 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Idaho, where a lot of the Californians are fleeing to.

▲

apparent 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I always find this 'character' argument disingenuous.

The character of the neighbourhood is only invoked for perceived negative externalities. No one complains when the cracked sidewalks get repaved, or fiber internet lines replace slow copper, when increasing affluence mean that houses are better maintained, when a new sewer line allows people to remove septic tanks. That all changes the character of a neighbourhood, but never gets fought.

Go ahead and commit to the bit, lock in on the character in ALL ways: make sure you fight any alteration to any building, any change in the shade of paint should be fought! Your neighbour replacing their front door? Denied! Replacing a concrete driveway with pavers? unacceptable? Replacing incandescent bulbs with LED? Uncharacteristic! Increasing home values changing who can afford to live there? Not acceptable, gotta sell your home for what you paid to maintain the character!

> 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.

How small are we going to allow the "area" to be defined? Is it one vote per property owner, or one vote per resident? Can we call a block an area? Who decides the arbitrary boundaries? Do people living on the boundary line get to vote for projects in adjacent properties in adjacent jurisdictions?

Just call NIMBYism what it is, selfish justification for control of other people's property. Your position is - explicitly - that other people and property owners should be made less well off for your comfort. "The Character of the Neighbourhood" is a red herring.

▲

jerlam 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> make sure you fight any alteration to any building, any change in the shade of paint should be fought!

You are now describing an HOA, which overlaps with NIMBYs.

	▲	iamnothere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		HOA restrictions are at least more defensible than non-HOA NIMBYs. HOAs that don’t allow significant rule changes are reasonable, as you can understand up front what you are buying into. The problem is when HOA rules grow way beyond their original scope or become used as weapons in personal feuds.

▲

thatguy0900 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

Analemma_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

AlexandrB 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

manuelabeledo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It drives up costs.

How?

Upkeep is arguably more expensive for a detached house, and suburbs make cars almost mandatory.

▲

jerlam an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's an ironic comment because this article mostly talks about California, which is already one of the most expensive places to live and the most NIMBY. Every other state in the US is generally cheaper to live in. The places that are cost as much as California are just as NIMBY and heavily influenced by Californians (Hawaii) or is the cultural and financial center of the country (NYC).

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Look up HOA fees for a condo building.

Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc.

Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country?

Is there a cost of living chart: density vs. cost?

	▲	manuelabeledo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Look up property taxes, cost of living expenses, and overheads like parking, schools, etc. I currently live in an arguably not very dense city, in the suburbs. I pay thousands of dollars in property taxes. I must own two cars to serve the whole family, for things as basic as going grocery shopping. My HOA is almost a thousand dollars a year. A couple years ago I had to replace the roof, at a cost of several thousands of dollars. I had none of these problems when I was living in a more dense city, and on top of that, I could actually walk to the nearest coffee shop. > Is NYC the cheapest place to live in the country? NYC is dense because it appeals to more people, and the more people that move to the city, the more expensive it gets, precisely because there are not enough homes. Are you assuming that less dense cities are more desirable to live in? Is Anchorage a more appealing city to live in than NYC?

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why don't we let people who like living in dense housing build and live in dense housing? And leave those who don't in peace? Right now we only do the second one but make the first one illegal.

▲

apparent 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?

What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.

	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place? Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build? > It's the same line of thinking. It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>And leave those who don't in peace?

That's not what's happening.

People who are living like that are being invaded by high density people who want to live in high density in their communities. They want to take over and force people out.

And generally they just want to flip. Find somewhere cheap and make it expensive to make money by lowering everybody's quality of life and calling it progress.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> They want to take over and force people out.

How do you "force" people out? The existing owners have to sell land, and once they do the new owners have as much right to decide as the other residents. Are there thugs going door to door forcing sellers to sign papers?

Allowing higher density construction doesn't mean higher density must get built there. That's still up to the property owner to decide. True freedom.

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent [-]

Property taxes and cost of living causing people who own to be priced out and forced to sell their homes because of bankruptcy.

And the occasional eminent domain.

▲

iamnothere an hour ago | parent [-]

Property taxes? Not in California (prop 13).

▲

colechristensen an hour ago | parent [-]

and the YIMBY (but really somebody else's back yard) yell loudly about this property tax carveout and how terrible it is for their density goals

	▲	iamnothere an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And that yelling is their free speech. As is your complaint in response.

▲

iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree from a personal perspective, but sprawl is also terrible in its own way. The real problem is too many people.

In any case, it shouldn’t be illegal to build either dense or sparse housing.

▲

jollyllama 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless you're the only one who thinks that, you'd think there would be some centralized advocacy for your position, is what I'm saying.