Hacker News Reader

Comment by malms | Hacker News Reader

this is literally nimby

As I understand it, the opposition to the TMT isn't a NIMBY issue: it's more about a historically ignored group trying to gain influence over issues it cares about.

it's still nimby too

Not really. As typically used "NIMBY" has a component of hypocrisy. Just not wanting something to happen is "opposition". "Not in my backyard" connotes the idea that someone supports some project in principle, but not when it affects them directly. "I like wind power, but not when it blocks the view of my cottage", "I like high density housing, but not if it affects my property values", "I like mass transit, but don't want a subway station in my neighborhood."

In this case, "I don't want another giant telescope on my culture's sacred mountain" isn't about astronomy at all, it's about the culture (and the larger perspective of indigenous interest in local resources, and respect for a pre-existing treaty that wasn't quite honored -- these folks aren't primitives or hippies, they know very well this is a political process in the real world).

The majority of the indigenous interests support the telescope. This is about a minority of a group trying to gain status at the expense of everyone's interests.

They would equally oppose a luxury hotel or a housing development.

I don't think it's the same as NIMBYism either, because the people who oppose it aren't all in the area, and there are cultural issues and issues of colonialism involved.

That said, the idea that NIMBYs won't oppose a luxury hotel or housing development is laughable. My NextDoor is filled with people posting proposed development of our downtown, criticizing it with specious reasoning, and trying to rally people against it. The nature of the development doesn't matter. How much it will improve our property values doesn't matter. How much it will help with housing or traffic doesn't matter.

A luxury hotel... I can already hear them shrilly decrying how we don't "need to bring more people to the area," as stupid an argument as that would be for a hotel.

I was trying to conjure up an image of how most island economies are glad, at least initially, to see development that brings jobs.

I don't know how to flesh it out better.

Would they oppose a 5th luxury hotel being built next to 4 other luxury hotels?

> Would they oppose a 5th luxury hotel being built next to 4 other luxury hotels?

IIRC, the anti-TMT protestors would ideally like all the telescopes on Mauna Kea removed. However, obstructing the construction of the new one is the most practical present course of action for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com