Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I think YIMBYs really like to cast NIMBYs as their evil adversaries, but the problem is systemic. Any policy change, be it "what can be built on this lot", or "what social services do we fund", or, in particular for my muni, "how do we deal with leaf collection in Autumn" will generate three cohorts of people:

(i) People who don't like the change

(ii) People who don't care about the change (most people)

(iii) People who do like the change

People who don't like the change (i), regardless of the amplitude of their dislike, will turn out and give public comment and put up yard signs.

People who like the change (iii) will turn out and give public comment only if they are weirdos like me, with off-the-charts amplitude for their feelings.

The net result is that the only public opinion that is legible to staff and electeds is opposite. Again: regardless of what the change is.

View on HN

I don’t know what YIMBYs like to cast people who oppose housing. I am pointing out an effect of the lack of new housing.

I reccommend you read, if you haven’t already, Katherine Einstein’s book ‘Neighborhood Defenders.’ It accurately describes the housing politics in Massachusetts.

Any housing analysis is incomplete without taking into the geographical effect: The only people who care strongly one way or the other about new homes are the people who live near the proposed construction. Almost invariably, people who live nearby are against the change. Those who live far away are actually fine with new construction, at least in the abstract. The very same people who show up to protest nearby construction are also typically fine with housing on other side of the city. People just don’t want new housing in their neighborhood.

This has a practical lesson: control of housing policy, particularly, density, must be ripped from local city councils, where it now rests. Local city councils are beholden to their NIMBY homeowners, as homeowners are the only one who typically vote in city elections. The states thus need to reclaim their legal right to set housing a policy, a right they have ceded to municipalities.

The difference here is whether or not folks are actually pro-social.

Do you care about other people’s wellbeing or not?

Most folks who are “against” things are against them because they perceive change as “bad for them”, and perhaps “good for people I dislike for historical and tribal reasons”

Civilization is a an endless series of Tradeoffs. Compromises. Loss of something in the short term in exchange for something better in the long term. If you aren’t willing to suffer in any meaningful way for your fellow human, eventually the entire bargain falls apart.

No! This is more about economies of attention, and about cognitive availability, than it is about deontology --- ethics are a trap here.

Both can be true at the same time.

Insightful!

Makes me think a bit about how negative content engages more people. Is this the same with people who don't like change? Not liking change activates people more than people who do like change?

Sounds like loss aversion to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

I am from the (possibly naive) believe that beauty will change the world. So if you want to present any changes, it has to be beautiful. Ethical and logical arguments only work if people already desire your vision and are only used to rationalise their emotions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w

Reply on news.ycombinator.com