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 34 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.