Americans stand united on one thing: NIMBYism (2020) | Hacker News Reader

Americans stand united on one thing: NIMBYism (2020)

therealdeal.com

36 pointsmgh252 comments

I wonder how much of American NIMBYism is due to framing the debate exclusively in terms of giving more people a place to live (i.e. helping other people) instead of looking at the benefits of housing density to the people who already live there. The poll results for Democrats in particular suggest they view building more housing as a thing you do to help other people, so they're in favor of it, but they view it as a negative for existing residents, so they'd rather it happened somewhere else.

I think a lot of the debate would change and YIMBYism would be more popular if there was more emphasis on why you want more housing where you live, and not just as an act of charity to would-be homeowners. It's not for everyone and it's not 100% upside, but increased housing density has a lot going for it because it encourages building stuff close to where you live that simply would not exist without a critical mass of people.

You’d do better with some kind of insurance for property values I think. That’s what people are worried about.

I get the concern for sure, but is it actually a risk that needs mitigation, or just a concern that needs better information?

I haven't conducted a comprehensive study, but my general sense is that the value of any given housing unit correlates fairly positively with density. An average sized single family house in the middle of a dense city is generally going to be worth way more than the same house located in an exurb. I'm sure there are counter examples, but I'd be willing to bet that for the most part, the denser the area, the more valuable the housing.

Basic supply and demand might suggest the value of your house would go down the more housing is built in your neighborhood, but that ignores that more housing might create even more demand because the increased population and density makes it a more desirable place to live. And if you own lower density housing from before all that growth, your house can demand a premium for people who want the benefits of density but are able to pay for more space for themselves.

Houses are for living, not to be your piggy bank.

But for decades, the US economy has sold SFH as just that. Every time I go to the bank, I get solicited by a bank employee to take out a HELOC.

I agree that's how it should be, but unfortunately buying a house is commonly understood to be a great investment strategy. And in this precarious economy with few safety nets, people clutch tightly to their home values. These people also have lots of power within HOAs (a strange and powerful quasi-government structure) and tends to be more influential in local politics.

As someone with progressive politics, I believe this is a huge problem.

I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners. Reason being a developer would have the ability to buy the whole property and build an apartment building.

Each apartment may cost less than the house that was there before, but the value of property together (land + apartment building + individual units) is sure to cost more than when only a single home was on it.

Condo owners, on the other hand, would see the value of their units decrease with the extra competing supply. This, of course, being one of the benefits of YIMBYism for everyone else (increases affordability).

Others, though, see increased higher density housing as more traffic, increased crowding in existing schools, and lowering property values. At least in the US, higher density housing in the surburbs is seen as a negative, even if there may be some benefits, however nebulous.

> I would mention that it may actually cause property values to go up for single family homeowners.

This is an exception more than a rule, and generally only for specific areas that might be gentrifying or for home owners in very old properties that might border a larger land area a developer might buy.

And then you always have holdouts which could spoil the deal, which leads to IMO one of the most evil government things there is in the US in modern times—eminent domain

Eminent domain is amazing. It should be used more often. The key is that the people whose property is being taken should be fairly compensated.

What’s “fair”? Who gets to chose that number? The developer? The government that stands to gain from larger tax revenue from the same property?

Sorry it’s a purely evil thing. Specifically designed to rid poor people of property to enrich the pockets of wealthier people. Hell, Donald Trump was the biggest cheerleader of its use in the ‘90s.

The problem is that zoning is so incredibly restricted, if any place becomes even vaguely developed in a modern mix use way, property prices go up like crazy.

If simply everything was getting developed, then the impact would be much more distributed.

There is also systematic bias and failure in the property assessment system. Strongtowns has been doing a lot of work on that.

> the benefits of housing density to the people who already live there

In other words, propagandize them?

Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.

> Maybe people are capable to seeing things for themselves.

Except that no one builds their opinions in a vacuum. There are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't consider without outside influence.

False NIMBY narratives run deep.

> There are a lot of truths and viewpoints that we wouldn't consider without outside influence

This goes nowhere, except towards censorship. Maybe the NIMBYs did hear the YIMBYs arguments but didn't buy them.

> This goes nowhere, except towards censorship.

I don’t understand what you’re talking about. How could sharing views and facts could lead towards censorship?

well, you said "False NIMBY narratives run deep." There's a worldwide move towards censoring "misinformation" which certainly sounds like what some people want. Do those "false NIMBY narratives" need to be suppressed?

If you just want to provide other views, then carry on.

> In other words, propagandize them?

Why make this comment? Maybe I'm capable of seeing things in the OP's comment for myself.

It's not an explanation of OP; it's a characterization. You're free to disagree with it.

If people could infer everything themselves there would be no need for educational material. Just sit a child down at an intersection and tell them to observe.

It's certainly true that it spans political divides. YIMBYs are starting to notch up some wins, though, and both these pro-housing organizations are growing rapidly:

* https://yimbyaction.org/

* https://welcomingneighbors.us/

As always, there's more going on behind the scenes as well. I'm a big fan of TikTok for getting insight into "what's out there" in the broad public psyche, and there are a lot of people[1] on there expressing in no uncertain terms their "displeasure" with the current system design. They tend to not get into details about to what extent they're willing to go to modify this state of affairs (or seek revenge), but history[1] well illustrates how carried away people can get when they are angry.

[1] And I'm not talking the usual suspects (Trump supporters, "conspiracy theorists", etc)

[2] Even as recent as January 6, 2021

I appreciate what those organizations are doing and I agree with their arguments, but like I said in my other top level reply to this article, I think those organizations would be more successful if they talked about why people should want more housing where they live specifically by focusing on the benefits for existing residents. Framing it entirely in terms of affordable housing or fighting homelessness or undoing racial segregation makes it really easy for people to take the position that we should absolutely build more housing in general, but why does it have to be where I live? The whole idea of NIMBYism is not necessarily opposing the idea of more housing, but just not wanting it in your neighborhood, and neither of those organizations seem to be making much of a counter-argument.

I don't think YIMBY organizations should stop making those arguments, since it's certainly an important part of the debate. But I think they should also try appealing to people's self-interest by highlighting personal benefits like density building local businesses and services that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Give people a reason to not only want more housing, but want more housing where they already live.

It spans political divides because it's a class issue not a culture one.

No, it's that humans don't like crowding. More competition for everything.

Humans who are incumbent property owners don't like crowding and want to preserve their privilege. Those who aren't don't mind being crowded in.

Or don't have any choice.

One test of that would be, do they opt for more personal space if the chance arises?

If people want personal space, the best way to ensure that is to buy up a large chunk of property.

What people actually want is 1) to live in a nice place where there are a bunch of amenities and 2) to have space. But since 2 is expensive in nice places, they use zoning laws and other NIMBY stuff to try and get the space at others' expense, rather than buying a sufficiently large lot, which is not cheap.

Yes and to me, this is far more dangerous then the US political issues. House and Rent exponential price rises can be directly linked to this.

To get a house and especially apartment buildings are almost impossible in many parts of the US.

Zoning is the foundation system for nimby to exist and be effective.

Maybe, if NIMBYism is so prevalent across the political spectrum in the united states, maybe the NIMBYs have a somewhat valid perspective that we should at least consider?

There are many legitimate reasons to oppose any particular development. In another comment I mentioned concerns about historical and environmental preservation, for example. Those are valid concerns, which I often share. However, across many cases they have to be weighed against concerns about equity and sustainability. In a better world each "side" would win some and lose some. The problem is that the way municipal government works systematically favors opposition to any kind of new development even of a positive sort - e.g. mass transit, higher density. It's easier to block than to push forward. Any sufficiently motivated group of NIMBYs can win practically all of these battles, and thus things that need to happen somewhere never do anywhere.

Put another way, NIMBYism is not so much prevalent (i.e. a majority hold that view) as dominant (i.e. it prevails nonetheless). They're not the same thing.

Well but it IS CONSIDERED. In fact its currently the only thing that is considered.

This is a concentrated 'harm' vs distributed gain, except there really is very little 'harm'.

The "harm" is that you're competing with more people for parking, sidewalk space, spots in the gym, space in the supermarket aisles... on and on.

Parking is definitely a big issue, but all of the others can also scale with population density.

Luckily, population density brings economics of scale for walkable areas and public transport, so the need for parking should reduce.

That's an urbanite point of view.

How so? I've never lived in (what I would consider) an urban area. Closest is living in suburbs outside of a city.

Maybe if racism is so prevalent we should…

Or, maybe that is not the basis for a sound argument

Do we want to reward those who would pull up the ladders after they themselves used them? NIMBYism is nothing but "f__k you, got mine" mentality writ large.

I think most of this stems from the fact that local governments are notoriously bad at improving infrastructure at the same speed as approving high density housing developments. They will agree to add hundreds of homes or apartments and just ignore the need for a better city or county public transportation system.

Why isn't it done as a pay-as-you-go deal with developers? Make the permit to break ground contingent on making arrangement to finance the road and utility build-outs?

Arizona has been surprisingly forward thinking about tnis in recent years (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/pdfs/value_capture/strategies_i...) but it doesn't seem to impede their suburban sprawl much.

This really drives me nuts. I live in a very liberal but also very NIMBY town. Just today I was informed of a new petition to resist a zoning change near the town center, to preserve "historic character" that practically none of the signers gave a damn about before. Not a year has gone by, out of 24 I've lived here, when that same excuse hasn't been used to stymie more affordable higher-density development or new transit options. Similarly, there's a petition to impose strict rules on removal of trees. More than half the signers either had trees removed from their own properties already, or bought in on lots where that had happened recently. Seems like they didn't really give a damn about that issue either, until it no longer inhibited their own choices and actions. Then those very same people also complain about how the town center is dying, with half the space taken by banks because those are the only entities that can afford the sky-high rent. Not much "historic character" left, but at least no poor people either so they think that's OK.

I fight them every chance I get. I point out that if you oppose every individual move to make something good happen, over and over again, then you don't really support it happening at all. But it's hard to win when people are so good (having been well trained at law school etc.) at hiding their real motivations behind high-sounding excuses like history or environmental concern. At least right-wing NIMBYism is honest about motivations.

Is the town center historic or is it actually just a 1960 car-depended dead wasteland? Are there historical parking lots?

It actually is historic, "shot heard around the world" and all that, but the "historic" label is applied far more broadly than reason would suggest. For example, a couple of years ago there was a proposal to build several townhouses on a lot miles away from the town center. Nobody but neighbors ever saw the house that was there, which had fallen into serious disrepair because nobody cared. Then suddenly, when a higher-density replacement was proposed, those same neighbors got very interested in the fact that the original architect had achieved some slight fame in the 1800s, slapped the "historic" label on it, and blocked the development.

AFAIK the property has fallen even further into disrepair since, and that's just fine with the NIMBYs. Effectively more space for them to enjoy, without actual burden of ownership. Everybody knew that it was a thin excuse, used cynically to advance the interests of a few, but the residents had demonstrated their ability/willingness to outspend any possible opponents so they got away with it. More relevantly, similar stories have repeated over and over here, with the effect that the town is actually in the state's crosshairs for its failure to meet affordable-housing or transit standards. Whatever beliefs the residents might loudly espouse, this is revealed preference at its most blatant.

NIMBY, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard," describes the phenomenon in which residents of a neighbourhood designate a new development (e.g. shelter, affordable housing, group home) or change in occupancy of an existing development as inappropriate or unwanted for their local area.

http://archive.today/MsgNs

This is what happens when you tie everyone's wealth into how much their house is worth.

Just because we have a quirky epithet for it doesn't make it morally wrong. Where I live is desirable because I am a steward of my environment and culture, and because of the absence of others. Nature is beautiful because it's not paved over and full of the environmental degredation that poverty and tourism creates. The solution to poverty isn't to consume more nature or spread it into neighborhoods and communites. It's to have perimeters that preserve them so that when people manage to improve their situations, there is somewhere for them to arrive.

To be anti-NIMBY is like being anti-anything, where it's just a proxy for suppressed aggression, and it has absolutely no connection to a sense of compassion or selflessness toward the people they are ostensibly "helping" by exporting poverty into areas where people have worked very hard to pull themselves up and leave it.

Mainly, anti-NIMBY'ism is to establish a beach head of people who depend on public services in the district or riding who will vote for politicians who promise spending on them, or worse, people who just want to center themselves as managing the chaos of their own invention. It's pure, cynical, realpolitik and all the epithets in the world do not change that.

Journalists stand united on one thing too: manufactured conflict for the sake of spectacle, and being setup as a hate effigy, for any reason, including because I don't want to live around poverty, is petty and obnoxious.

> Mainly, anti-NIMBY'ism is to establish a beach head of people who depend on public services in the district or riding who will vote for politicians who promise spending on them, or worse, people who just want to center themselves as managing the chaos of their own invention.

This is just not how this works in practice. In actuality, NIMBYism drives up housing prices forcing out community contributors in favor of highly paid office workers that make fewer local contributions.

The price effect on housing where residents organize to discourge homeless shelters, safe injection sites, and even (less nobly) out of the cold programs at churches, is the value they add to their communities that makes their houses valuable. If you want a house, move to where there are houses. If you want services, move to where there are services. Parachuting in services to places where housing is not available to the people who need them is cynical. Few people in govt are really that dumb, they're just ethically worse than most people are willing to admit.

> move to where there are houses

I’m not sure if you’re joking, but people who are getting priced out don’t always have the privilege of just up and moving. People rely on friends, family, and community for childcare and basic needs. Chasing everyone around the country upending their lives every other year isn’t the answer, affordable housing is.

"Screw everyone else, I got mine!"

- OP

Reply on news.ycombinator.com