Hacker News Reader

Comment by ktRolster | Hacker News Reader

Everyone is a NIMBY in their own way, it's just a difference of how much annoyance you are willing to tolerate. Most people wouldn't want a noisy factory or a smelly dairy next door, for example, but those things have to be somewhere.

Now imagine you spent a lot of money to get a house with a nice view. Suddenly Larry Ellison decides to build a skyscraper next door, which blocks the sun on your property every day. You can't even grow flowers anymore because there's not enough sun. Some of your trees die. Are you happy?

Now imagine you spent a lot of money for your house. A housing company proposes changes to the neighborhood that will reduce the value of your house by 20%. In other words, you will be working and paying for years on a portion of your house that no longer has value. Are you happy? Well, maybe you can handle it because you're rich.

So these are the kinds of things that go through the minds of NIMBYs.

View on HN

> Everyone is a NIMBY in their own way

It certainly seems that many people want to be the last person to move into their neighborhood/area.

> Are you happy? Well, maybe you can handle it because you're rich.

I'm happy, because for me housing is consumption, not an investment.

I think it would mean that either you rent (but someone else is still an owner and has to deal with the situation) or you don't care much about the property value (which means, in other words, you are rich).

> which means, in other words, you are rich

Or it means I'm not planning to sell for a very very long time and thus appreciate the tax break a lower appraisal gives me. The same logic applies if I am a landlord--as long as the rent and thus cash flow stays the same, I don't particularly care about what some appraiser says the property is worth.

Anyways, it seems to me that restrictions on construction are a lazy owner's way to maintain property values. After all, there is no better way to add value to and capture the revenue from my house than to add another 2 stories to it and rent it out. I do own the land underneath it, after all.

Funny you mention Ellison. That's pretty much what he's doing on Lānaʻi, though less the giant skyscraper and more the idea of remaking the island for his own purposes.

Yeah, it (more or less) happened to him actually: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023036548045763437...

How strange is it to be Larry Ellison? Actually, all parties in that dispute are weird. Dude expects the world to freeze around him (who knew that redwoods would grow), so he offers to double the landowner's investment, giving them an $8 million dollar profit...and they don't accept.

Know what I'd do with $8 million dollars in real estate profit? Retire immediately.

> so he offers to double the landowner's investment, giving them an $8 million dollar profit...and they don't accept.

Being able to tell Larry Ellison to &#%@ off? Some things are priceless.

"You know, I don't do things like that. I'm a public figure."

Jesus what a self-important thing to say while not outright denying it.

That's not NIMBY. In that case, my right of light is violated by a neighbor.

We must pass a noble law...

>Now imagine you spent a lot of money to get a house with a nice view. Suddenly Larry Ellison decides to build a skyscraper next door, which blocks the sun on your property every day. You can't even grow flowers anymore because there's not enough sun. Some of your trees die. Are you happy?

I have trees now!? Flowers? Luxury! My current apartment doesn't get enough sun to grow plants that need sun. And we pay $2200/month for a two-bedroom apartment here.

You're arguing the hypothetical...

No, I'm pointing out that the hypotheticals used to make NIMBY sound sensible apply very, very rarely, and also presume that the supposed beneficiaries of NIMBY have a higher initial, pre-urban-density standard of living than we actually do.

So you live next to a noisy factory and a smelly dairy farm too?

I think you need to read the third paragraph, which is the more common case (although the other two paragraphs were based on real-life experience, too).

Housing is supposed to be a durable good, not an investment asset.

I own because I want to live where I am, but I might eventually want to move. If someone builds something that lowers my home's value by 25%, then that's a good chunk of change that I won't be able to repay on the loan if I were to want to sell. I didn't buy because it's an investment, but it acts like one anyhow, whether I like it or not. I'd prefer it if someone else's actions don't essentially shackle me to where I am.

Wow $2200 for a 2 bed? Luxury! That's how much you'll pay for a studio here in Mission, SF... if you're lucky. (and I wish this were a Four Yorkshiremen reference[1]. No!)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com