Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ghobs91 2656 days ago
If it was property rights, they'd be voting on what can be built on their own property. Instead, NIMBYs vote on what can be built in the surrounding neighborhood and beyond, as if the purchase of a home also includes a guarantee that everything around it can never change.

It's elitist gatekeeping and deep selfishness masked as "wanting to retain neighborhood character".
2 comments
koboll 2656 days ago
It's rational economic self-interest. This is why zoning regulation needs to come from jurisdictions higher than the local government.
link
YaxelPerez 2656 days ago
Like Japan: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html...
link
ghobs91 2656 days ago
Which is why I don't blame the NIMBY homeowners for doing it as much as I blame the current system for being designed to allow nonstop input from local groups. There is such a thing as too much democracy, and this is it.

Zoning should be made on the state or county level, and for every development that's planned to be built, if it follows the zoning, approve it. Enough of this nonsense "yeah it follows zoning but I don't like it".

link
wankerrific 2656 days ago
No its not. I want the same things you do - good city services, shorter commutes, etc. Allowing runaway building without properly developing infrastructure is long term negative for everyone involved.

Most of those you label "NIMBY" are just looking to maintain an existing community and civic service level.

The people you should be directing your ire towards is not your strawman "NIMBY" but the city planners and commercial developers who overzone and overbuild office space and under-zone housing.

link
ghobs91 2656 days ago
Why do you think they're under-zoning housing? Because office space tends to be built away from existing homes and doesn't face as much opposition from NIMBYs.

Housing, on the other hand, is blocked by them because that "gargantuan 4 story apt building" is going to lower their precious home value. I agree that infrastructure needs to keep up with development, but that's not impossible to do.

If NYC, Chicago, Seattle, etc can do it, why does SF seem to have such a hard time doing so? Because SF local government is a shitshow that does nothing but serve the interests of existing homeowners, who somehow want to benefit from the prosperity of growing cities without the construction/density those cities require.

link