NIMBY'S or YIMBY's?

[Dariusb]

In your opinion which are more detrimental; YIMBY'S or NIMBY'S? You can answer this in general or in relation to the development of your city.

[Sam Hill]

You gotta be kidding me.

[daniel]

NIMBY's are detrimental, YIMBY's are beneficial.

[The North One]

NIMBYs by far

Most delusional, irrational and psychotic people on earth.

[Vlajos]

As with almost everything in life, moderation is best.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

You gotta be kidding me.

I'm serious. I know saying yes or no to everything isn't good but depending on the city or circumstanceson, one may be a little better than the other.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

As with almost everything in life, moderation is best.

That's certainly true.

[ocman]

Would deforestation and continuous sprawl be considered YIMBY?

[montréaliste]

A hybrid NYIMBY in NYC, of course.

[Yuri]

NIMBY's are detrimental, YIMBY's are beneficial. (2)

Originally Posted by ocman

Would deforestation and continuous sprawl be considered YIMBY?

I don't think so. YIMBYs support, near them, projects that will benefit the community/city as whole.

NIMBYs do the opposite: they ignore the common welfare and block any project near them. They feel they not only own their houses, but the whole place.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by ocman

Would deforestation and continuous sprawl be considered YIMBY?

Deforestation has more to do with clearing land for farming. Not really something that has anything to do with Yimbys.
Continous sprawl? I guess some yimbys could think that way, but the vast majority want density.

[eschaton]

Even if someone leaned more towards NIMBYism than YIMBYism, YIMBYs have next-to-no power as of yet in most cities, hence they can't do any "damage."

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Even if someone leaned more towards NIMBYism than YIMBYism, YIMBYs have next-to-no power as of yet in most cities, hence they can't do any "damage."

NIMBY homeowners are easily one of the most powerful voting blocs in nearly every city. It's not entirely their fault. We, as a country, decided long ago to treat home ownership as an ever appreciating asset. People think their protecting their investments and their lifestyle by blocking others from living near them. We glorified people who bought affordable housing and 'fixed it up' to make a large profit, even if it locked certain people out of the ability to buy a house. The housing crisis is a making of our own doing. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worse than the Suburban 'progressive' NIMBY. The type of person who hangs a 'Hate has no home here' unless of course you want to live near them.

[benp]

Detrimental to what?

Detrimental to change? - NIMBY
Detrimental to preservation? - YIMBY

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

NIMBY homeowners are easily one of the most powerful voting blocs in nearly every city. It's not entirely their fault. We, as a country, decided long ago to treat home ownership as an ever appreciating asset. People think their protecting their investments and their lifestyle by blocking others from living near them. We glorified people who bought affordable housing and 'fixed it up' to make a large profit, even if it locked certain people out of the ability to buy a house. The housing crisis is a making of our own doing. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worse than the Suburban 'progressive' NIMBY. The type of person who hangs a 'Hate has no home here' unless of course you want to live near them.

I'm not even sure it's about "protecting your investment." Looking at housing as an investment, NIMBYism makes zero sense.

First, if housing is an asset, strict zoning is like a restricted asset. Unrestricted zoning is an unrestricted asset. You can do a lot more with your property, from subdivide the lot to build a second home, to sell to a developer who builds a new large mixed-use project. hence, you make out better.

But, even if you don't want to cash out or upzone, you're still better off. Look at the prices of the remaining single-family homes surrounded by dense mixed-use development in any city, and you'll find they cost $$$. There's a select market of very wealthy people who would love to have access to a detached single-family home with off-street parking only steps away from busy commercial districts, and they will pay top dollar!

Really, I think NIMBYism is more just about old people who don't like change than rational self-interest, at least in urban areas.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

In your opinion which are more detrimental; YIMBY'S or NIMBY'S? You can answer this in general or in relation to the development of your city.

It depends on what's being said yes or no to. For example, IMO, the NIMBYs were right in not wanting freeways through San Francisco.

In my own county, Beverly Hills residents were NIMBYs when they didn't want a freeway built in the geographical center of their town; even my own town of South Pasadena recently thwarted a freeway that would have initially bulldozed its historic center.

East LA residents decades ago successfully fought the construction of a prison in their area. I sided with those "NIMBYs"

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Really, I think NIMBYism is more just about old people who don't like change than rational self-interest, at least in urban areas.

I think to a more general point, and maybe this is why NIMBYISM is successful, there are multiple reasons people think NIMBYISM is good for them. Like a lot of urban progressive NIMBY's aren't old. They think they are 'stopping gentrification' or whatever, even though limiting housing production will have the opposite effect and exasperate prices of the existing housing stock.

[pdxtex]

^^^^^ the asset is the lifestyle. its the house, compatible social culture, schools, income levels. progressives seem to cloister themselves off in big cities and conservatives have a hoa out in the burbs. same concept, different neighborhoods. portland is one of those cities that dropped sfh zoning. actually it is state law now. ill say 10 years ago I barely saw any town homes but now I see tons of them, and smaller footprint apartments going up too. so its a start.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I think to a more general point, and maybe this is why NIMBYISM is successful, there are multiple reasons people think NIMBYISM is good for them. Like a lot of urban progressive NIMBY's aren't old. They think they are 'stopping gentrification' or whatever, even though limiting housing production will have the opposite effect and exasperate prices of the existing housing stock.

Eh, I dunno. The people who I actually see show up to the community meetings to oppose development are like 80% boomers.

When there's development within historically black communities there is often a more diverse set of people opposing new development, but they're also much more likely to lose, because zoning historically has been pretty loose in formerly blighted majority-black neighborhoods.

[pdxtex]

Those boomers are probably the ones who started the process. I dunno, we can round and round on pros and cons of gentrification but we know how those conversations go. I think in the end you need both yimbys and nimbys. You need to think outside of the box but you also need some self control.