A whole lot of people in the comments who clearly didn't read the article, given the great lengths the author went to to distinguish NIMBYism (which most of the comments are about) from "NITBYism," i.e. historic conservationism which the article is actually about. Most of the objections being raised here are also points made in the article.

Of course all that's undermined by the choice to use NIMBY in the headline, which is perplexing.

▲

casey2 a day ago | parent [-]

It's a meaningless distinction if the market doesn't give a hoot about history. Playing this word game is extremely cynical when the housing shortage and homelessness are such problems, especially in a country like the US that doesn't have much history.

If it's worth preserving, then it's worth paying for out of your own pocket. Leaving it to the government just lets biased people decide what's worth preserving instead of letting the market work. Claiming market failure requires strong evidence beyond "a thing I don't like".

	▲	gipp a day ago \| parent [-]
		Huh? You seem to think the author, or maybe I, have some strong stance in favor of the status quo on conservationism, which is not the case. The article is just about trying to understand why the movement has been so successful, and what would have to change to get past it. It's not "word games" because they're two different movements, with two different sets of causes and therefore two different sets of needs to be addressed.