Hacker News Reader

Comment by offsign_p | Hacker News Reader

This won't be popular, but special interests play a far greater role in the chilling affect for modern urban infrastructure than the so called "NIMBYs" do...

. Want to build a new housing complex? How many of the units are earmarked for 'affordable' housing, and you've got to have solar . Building a new bridge? Better ensure at least one lane is pedestrianized so that that <1% of potential traffic can use it as well . Want to extend public transit? Maybe, but you can't raise prices as it might affect the poor . Want to build a park? Will it be fully ADA compliant so everyone can enjoy it. . Want to install a sidewalk on a roadway? Have you also allocated space for a fully protected bike lane... can't get started without that.

View on HN

Everything you listed sounds like a good thing to me. Infrastructure should serve the people.

> How many of the units are earmarked for 'affordable' housing

This one is called IZ (inclusive zoning) and is an extremely popular weapon with SF and Portland "left-NIMBYs". They know if the number is set too high, it will both make them look good and cancel literally every housing project in the pipeline (as noone can afford to build it anymore), so set it too high they have, and so their project pipeline collapsed.

When it's used at low levels it can work, but only if you accept that it fundamentally makes the project more expensive, which means the more "luxury" projects are more likely to survive, and means the cost of the market-rate units goes up.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. In my experience the points you made are used as justification by those responsible for delivering those things as to why they are not doing so. Essentially, house builders want to maximise profit and not build parks. Neo liberals don't want public transport to be subsidised as a public good etc etc.

When we build, to we absolutely must build the right thing because changing it later will be much harder. That does involve lots of hard work persuading people of the benefits.

Then I think you misstate my conclusion.

Simply pointing out that NIMBY/no builders aren't the sole or even dominate factor of 'Why America can't build.' Or rather, special interest groups who seek to impose their will on public infrastructure excerpt their own form of Nimbyism -- they block development until it conforms to their interests. One can certainly argue the merits or determents of any of this advocacy, but as you state... it makes the outcome harder to achieve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com