Hacker News Reader

Yup. I used to think I was a massive YIMBY, right up until learnt about plans to build student housing on a park and playground where I played with my kids every day. Rational me could make lots of arguments about why the city needs more student housing (big university town, with too little student housing) and why that would be a perfect place to build student housing (very close to one of the main campuses and existing student housing). Actual me didn't care about any of those arguments, and strongly opposed the plans. Nothing to do with property values, I just selfishly wanted a nice park and playground within walking distance of my apartment. Turns out I wasn't a YIMBY after all, just massive hypocrite and a YIYBY (Yes In Your Back Yard).

Out of curiosity, if you look at your area from satellite were there (in your opinion) valid places where the student housing could have been built? A derelict lot, a large car-park or low-density housing? Curious to where your line is. It's a sad fact that green-spaces are often sacrificed because of the lack of private ownership and therefore care over them.

We had the same in my old home, where we needed a new primary school. Logically a chunk of a park could be converted with many rational benefits. Yet still half the village came out to argue that it'd ruin their dog-walking route.

> Having lived in a place where I lived within that very proximity to people who were homeless and in recovery, I know what to expect from it. Yeah I’m a fucking NIMBY. I don’t want it here. I moved out of the city to be further away from that shit, and I want to continue feeling safe and comfortable walking my 2 and 7 year old to school.

That isn't quite the usual idea of "Not In My BackYard". The observation there was that people opposed the development of beneficial things near themselves.

You're opposing the development of a detrimental thing near yourself. Sure, it's worse when it's closer to you, but an ephemeral housing lot for vagrants makes everyone worse off no matter where it gets built.

Unless you're saying you'd support it if it was built a few blocks over?

> makes everyone worse off no matter where it gets built

No? It's not like the vagrants will disappear if you don't build an housing lot. They'll just exist not in your backyard and continue to be an overall issue. That's the definition of NIMBY

> It's not like the vagrants will disappear if you don't build an housing lot.

That's exactly what it's like. An issue that didn't exist in the past doesn't need to exist in the future, either. If you set up institutions specifically to make hanging out and harassing people in the neighborhood a viable lifestyle, you'll cause more people to engage in that lifestyle.

> An issue that didn't exist in the past doesn't need to exist in the future

Do you genuinely think homelessness is something of a new phenomenon?

We know it is; read literature from earlier periods and you'll find that phenomena related to homelessness present very differently. You can find no end of American hobo stories.

And hobos themselves, or as they were called elsewhere "tramps", are something that came into being because social institutions were developed to create them.

Beggars and the homeless have always existed in any relatively large settlement.

I'm fairly sure that if you got transported back to ancient mesopotamia you'd find homeless people

There would be beggars. It's less obvious that there would be homeless, assuming you exclude the Amorites, but it's possible.

But their numbers would be low. The number of homeless and beggars you get is a function of how much support exists for a homeless / beggar lifestyle. Establishing institutions to help them creates them in large numbers.

Interesting, how children are a convenient excuse for so many evil things.

I think it's less a "convenient excuse" and more like sincere conviction that "I will do anything to help/protect them" for better or worse.

That's correct, it always fascinates me how a woman before and after child birth are like two completely different persons. Men, not always.

> I don’t care if I sound like a NIMBY when I say this: it’s not always motivated by profit.

100 agree. I think an LVT would probably not magically fix all incentives around development. What it would do though is create a better alignment between government zoning and infrastructure improvements + people's desires. For example, under an lvt, the government can significantly improve their tax revenues by improving the value of land. So having zoning for parks, public transit, and reducing crime will now directly impact the government's bottom line.

Lvt would help with picking the best backyard, but it doesn't change the fact that it would still be somebody's backyard, and that somebody might not like it. I will never want to live next to a landfill, and anyone gaslighting me into thinking I'm wrong about that is crazy... But the landfill has to go somewhere, and if I am the only person living in a really good spot for it then I probably get the short end of the stick.