Comment by jjav | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjav | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Now, they still might revolt for other reasons, like not wanting undesirables like people poorer than themselves to move in next door, or not wanting to see as many houses in their morning walk, but from a financial sense, upzoning is a big positive for existing landowners.

This is a very uncharitable take. People choose a place to live based on criteria they like. If you want to live in a super dense city you might gravitate to Manhattan. If you want to live in a quiet suburb you end up in such a place.

If suddenly that reality is torn down and substituted for something you didn't want, it's going to hurt. If you wanted a quiet suburb and you found it, you won't be happy if suddenly all your neighbor houses are torn down and replaced with apartment buildings. It has nothing to do with "not wanting undesirables". It is because the conditions they wanted and bought into are no longer there.

> from a financial sense, upzoning is a big positive for existing landowners

Except for house flippers, people don't care about the financial sense. A house is a home, in a place they like. Telling someone that the neighborhood they cared about it no longer a reality but it's ok because they made money, will not satisfy anyone. It's not about money.

> This is a very uncharitable take.

You should go to a city council meeting and see how NIMBY homeowners behave. It is impossible to be worse than they are and it's impossible to describe them uncharitably.

You can say "they just like their neighborhoods" all you like but they hate poor people, young people, richer people, anyone who might park a car in front of their house, anyone who might use all the parking spots at the grocery store, any men (they'll molest their daughters, you know), and anyone who might approve a cell phone tower (it'll give them 5G cancer).

The above will be communicated half in claims they've lived there longer than you and you're a developer shill / corporate plant and half in death threats.

> but they hate

You paint with a very broad brush. I have no doubt that for each aspect you list, you can indeed find an example of some extremist who hates it.

But the average regular person doesn't particularly hate any of these, they just want to live in their home in an area they like.

> You can say "they just like their neighborhoods"

I assume you have selected place(s) to live? Did you have any criteria for selecting the area?

Most people have a list of things they absolutely want, and deal breakers they won't put up with. So you find a home that meets these. This is what I mean by they like the neighborhood they selected when making that decision.

Is it at all surprising that after they selected a suitable neighborhood, they don't particularly want it to transform into something completely different that no longer meets any of their criteria?

> You paint with a very broad brush.

No I don't, this is realistic. You can easily experience it anytime you like. They're also on Nextdoor if you can't go to any planning meetings.

> I have no doubt that for each aspect you list, you can indeed find an example of some extremist who hates it.

The problem is the political system is set up to only listen to these people, because urban planners are embarrassed about when they did urban renewal, and now they make up for it for every new project by delaying it until someone like this tells them to cancel it and then cancelling it.

> I assume you have selected place(s) to live? Did you have any criteria for selecting the area?

Walkable to a grocery store. Obviously it can close, but I can't stop that from happening.

And we're not supposed to care what these people want; they have influence over their property. They don't have influence over the "neighborhood" because they're not paying for it.

> > I assume you have selected place(s) to live? Did you have any criteria for selecting the area?

> Walkable to a grocery store. Obviously it can close, but I can't stop that from happening.

But I bet you'd be unhappy if you chose this place specifically for the walkable grocery store and suddenly it's gone and now you need to drive. Maybe you don't even have a car, or even parking, because you built your life plans around the choice to walk to the grocery. Surely you'd be quite sad and probably annoyed by all that, suddenly having rearrange your life in a big way (either move, or get a car and parking).

(Also, people do protest and lobby for stores to remain open all the time. Sometimes they succeed sometimes they don't.)

> And we're not supposed to care what these people want; they have influence over their property. They don't have influence over the "neighborhood" because they're not paying for it.

That is a very dystopian world to live in. The whole point of society is that there are common norms in an area. If you're not allowed to have a voice about anything except what you financially own, that's a bleak future.

> Surely you'd be quite sad and probably annoyed by all that, suddenly having rearrange your life in a big way (either move, or get a car and parking).

I would say the point of housing abundance is to make moving easy. This is both the best way to increase customer power vs landlords and the best way to let people reduce their commutes as their life circumstances change (like where their job is and where their children go to school).

> The whole point of society is that there are common norms in an area. If you're not allowed to have a voice about anything except what you financially own, that's a bleak future.

There's room for it, but overly local democracy is usually bad because it's more corrupt and people pursue things that are against the interests of every other local area. In particular because of Prop 13 in CA, everyone wants the job sites but not the employee housing.

> I would say the point of housing abundance is to make moving easy.

That's an interesting take, although I can't agree these are related.

It's not scarcity of housing that keep people from moving, it is that moving is mostly undesirable once you settle somewhere. If both spouses have a job and kids in school, you have three sites anchoring you there. And you like your neighbors and friends in the area and you like the neighborhood. Why would I move, even if there is an infinite supply of housing?

Because your kids move out eventually, or go to different schools, or your job sites change.

I'm basing the reasons for why people don't want development in their neighbourhood off real-world observations; I didn't intend to be uncharitable, just realistic. To be honest, I toned back the reasoning quite a bit from some of what I've heard before.

Maybe the underlying truth is merely "I don't like change", but the actual literal reasons given by many people when blocking development in their neighbourhoods in my city are not saying they don't want change, it's far more targeted at the kinds of people who will move in. I tend to operate on the assumption that the true reasons they have for not wanting development are worse than what they will voice in public, and at least certainly not better.

> Except for house flippers, people don't care about the financial sense.

I agree that typically this isn't the issue; the person I responded to did seem to think it might be though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com