I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. I'm not the one who decided to approve all those new office buildings. Yet I was the problem for renting an overpriced apartment from an SF native who bought in the 90s, and now pays less than $8K/yr in taxes on a place worth over $1M. And now I'm still the problem if I decide to leave?
You obviously see that in states where Californians are moving, but you even see that in California against those who moved there recently for a job.
Frankly I find it completely bizarre.
How can you possibly be surprised that people don't want the things they like about the place they live to change? This doesn't mean they "own" the city, but it does mean it's quite understandable for them to try to do things to prevent the change if they can. I'm not arguing that this is good, or even completely rational in all cases, but it's far from surprising.
People can and should obviously get upset (or excited!) about specific changes. What I'm more surprised at is the idea that some people have that any change at all is unacceptable. It's not like the town that one loved sprung up into existence as is, it took change to get the parts that you like in the first place! No one has an affirmative right for their town to remain as-is from their favorite point in time, as that's just not how life works.
I'm specifically thinking of my time in Santa Monica, with the residents thinking that they should be able to keep their small town vibe despite living close to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. It struck me as neigh upon delusional to think that one can live near a major city and demand that the city halt expansion wherever it might be convenient to you. That's just not how humanity has ever worked, ever. Cities expand, live too close to them at your own peril.
Very few people are are against any new growth in cities. We could likely have a more productive discussion if we framed it around the optimal rate of growth of a city.
It seems you’ve never met a NIMBY.
“No new people in my city” is actually a pretty surprisingly popular position. Usually these people are super pro growth, as long as that’s somewhere else.
I keep thinking it would be amusing to give out bumper stickers that change in the rain -- with text to the effect of "STAY OUT", or "GO HOME", and a red circle/slash over an image of California. When it rains, the image of California changes to an image of Mexico.
Once they are in, people want the door shut right behind them.
Opinions change very quickly once they involve people personally.
Imagine, in SimCity terms, if your Low-Density High-Wealth Residential citizens passed a ballot measure preventing you from building Medium-Density Residential zones, and you have the essential problem of SF and other regions in a nutshell.
People don't like density upgrades, and they fight against them tooth and nail. It's what we get for allowing density to be zoned locally, and it's something that other countries just don't even allow when it's bad enough that homelessness is a problem. "Your city block is being upgraded to a megatower, here's due payment for your home and you get first right of refusal on a free home in the megatower."
Be warned, though; once you become an established local, you are extremely vulnerable to falling prey to this exact behavior. I know several awesome people who finally made their wealth and bought a house in SF, and promptly turned into anti-density NIMBY folks - because they were afraid that they might not make a profit on their home, or because they liked their neighborhood, or whatever.
"Due to your citizens refusing to approve tax levies for sewage system upgrades, your city has died of dysentery."
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-05/nimbyism-...
It affects your _home_. You've lived in a place for 10 years and suddenly you have no privacy because a big block of units gets stood up looking right over you. Or they block your sunlight, build right up to the boundary, or your quiet leafy neighbourhood just isn't quiet anymore and that's after you lived next to a construction site for 6 months. These things can have impacts on people's relationships as well.
Of course the world changes, such is the price of progress, and _usually_ those affected can afford to wipe their tears with big stacks of cash.
But I don't think it's fair to characterise all NIMBYs as just greedy, a lot of people just want to live in the neighbourhood they thought they were buying into.
'I like they way my lawn is and i don't like construction noises'
vs
'I can't get a job because it's too expensive to rent or buy where the jobs are, so i live in poverty' (or i can't start family because i can only afford a room-share, or any number of other effects from NIMBYism)
Existing residents resisting change really aren't any more selfish than new residents demanding change. Both are championing changes that are in their self interest at the expense of the self interest to others.
And with your attitude, I guess you celebrate colonialism. After all, those were people looking for new places to live.
Sure, but the problem at hand is they have more than property rights, they have rights to a neighbor's property, conversely my neighbors have rights to my property, and how's that fair under capitalism. Besides, there are other capitalist countries where zoning is not a local level affair and they don't seem to be marxist hell-holes as you imply.
> I guess you celebrate colonialism
I don't celebrate anything but people are born in increasing numbers, the whole economy and governments rely on this trend so I think it is only fair to the new generations if we at least return to the respect of the private property which is long gone.
You are talking about a kind of societal contract of society having to provide housing for people. Likewise, there are other societal contracts.
"I don't celebrate anything but people are born in increasing numbers, the whole economy and governments rely on this trend so I think it is only fair to the new generations if we at least return to the respect of the private property which is long gone."
The argument "the economy depends on more people being born" doesn't really fly in a discussion of how more people cause problems (like needing a place to stay). I don't think most people are asking other people to have lots of children.
Even if you assume everybody should be provided with such a place, why in my backyard (or anybody else's)? Since you seem to have given up on the notion that people might deserve a nice place to stay in, why not just build ugly skyscrapers somewhere else (other than my backyard), and house people there? How about starting in your backyard?
It's possible there was a promise of "quiet surroundings and lovely views" when they bought the land from the government. So the government should stick to those promises.
It would have been hard to win friends or votes if anti-housing people 50 years ago disclosed what segment of "people looking for a place to live" bothered them so much. It's no coincidence that this all starts around the 1968–1974 period: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-franci...
>I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years.
California's population has increased 4x since 1950 vs 2x for the country as a whole, more so in SF. To say there is no new housing is just ignoring the (finally waning) population boom.
What "everybody else" is doing?
I have no problem with the people that move to California but the back pressure is bound to happen and native Californians seem despised for it.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/585765/golden-gates...
[1] The Californians Are Coming. So Is Their Housing Crisis [2] Example: According to a recent study by Redfin, the national real estate brokerage, the budget for out-of-town home buyers moving to Boise is 50 percent higher than locals’ — $738,000 versus $494,000. In Nashville, out-of-towners also have a budget that is 50 percent higher than locals. In Austin it’s 32 percent, Denver 26 percent and Phoenix 23 percent.