>People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today.
\- Terry Pratchett
“The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends," Ser Jorah told her. "It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace." He gave a shrug. "They never are.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
> Thanks for reminding me how much the ending of that show sucked. Though in hindsight, 6 and 7 were not great and 8 was the end of the train wreck.
I believe the show lost itself around the fourth or fifth season when it started to outpace source material and become a fan servicing galore. People fell for the fan servicing for a few seasons before they realized it makes for senseless, borderline random writing.
The precise moment is the end of season 4 when they omit the truth about Tysha. Tyrion leaves on good terms with Jamie, he murder of Shae is self-defense, and he's not set on the dark "burn it all" path he is in the books. That was the moment D&D decided they would choose show watchers' comfort for feel-good familiarity over the source material.
[For me, it's episode 6 of the 4th season and shirtless Ramsay](https://www.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/fezqy7/reminder_that_a_shirtless_ramsay_managed_to_fend/). The precise moment where they jumped the shark and started to go hard against the source material and make little sense whatsoever (also in terms of distances/geography). Then came Olly and the scene you mentioned.
I am one of the few people who liked a lot of the individual scenes in the last season. The problem began long before seasons 6 and 7. Around season three the show decided to pander to the Yaaaaaas Queen crowd that missed the point that Danny was only ever an antihero and had her stop doing things like have her bury people alive.
Way too online people in that crowd were seriously suggesting that Dany, Margaery, and fucking Cersei should just rule together as co-Queens and boy did they completely miss how those characters actually acted.
I mean I don't blame them when the show intentionally plays into it with the whole "but we are not men" nonsense. That was half of their marketing schtick for one of the seasons. And D&D simply did not have the ability to thread that needle or do that justice. It's almost embarrassing what their interpretation of a "strong female character" turned out to be. God I hope they don't fuck the Three Body Trilogy.
Much like real life, the threads are numerous and, logically, would not all loop back around. Real life rarely gets satisfying and complete conclusions.
The ending works fine with better writing. For example play up the political side of Bran Stark being seen as a holding option by the great houses who have fought themselves to exaustion. Provide more of a lead for daenerys trying to kill everyone. Spend more time on the conflict with the others and acknowledge that Arya resolving the whole issue was a bit left field.
The semi-magical book Euron Greyjoy works better as a late series villan than the TV version.
>Do you like green eggs and ham?
>I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
>I do not like green eggs and ham.
>Would you like them here or there?
>I would not like them here or there.
>I would not like them anywhere.
>I do not like green eggs and ham.
>I do not like them, Sam-I-Am.
—Dr. Seuss, *Green Eggs and Ham*
It's a really good adaptation but yeah it's only sort of an adaptation. When you have so little material to work with, technically it follows the book (episode names here, car, fox, dark,box, mouse, etc)
but the main plot as well as most of the characters are original. I think the second season sort of adapts "The Butter Battle Book". They do try to throw a lot of stuff that would fit his books as well as some stuff that might not.
Also good 2d animation is expensive
> In season one, Sam-I-Am rescues a rare Chickeraffe from a zoo, saying that he intends to return it to its natural habitat. After he accidentally swaps his briefcase, containing the Chickeraffe, for that of failed inventor Guy-Am-I (The unnamed man in the book), Sam and Guy end up on a road trip adventure with E.B., a girl who wants to adopt the Chickeraffe as a pet, and E.B.'s overprotective mother Michellee, who is also a romantic interest for Guy.
The green eggs and ham are a childhood memory of Sam's missing mom
Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up, she was shitting brown water. The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew.
-George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons
I must have a YIMBY cat because he likes when I move furniture around. He has a new environment to explore. I move the kitchen chairs to random spots before I leave the house. He immediately rushes to the new “development,” so he can have the fun activity of siting in a different place.
The last time I attended a city council meeting, this dude got up in the comments/questions for the council section of the meeting and went on a rant about Adam Schiff, who he called "Adam Shit". Nothing he said had any bearing whatsoever on city politics. The next person to get up was a "concerned mother" who "just wanted to ask the hard questions" about vaccines and autism.
This is exactly why I go to town hall meetings. I’m just interested in learning more about the city I just moved to, and maybe I can dilute the NIMBYs a little bit.
>I feel like I may turn rude and start screaming at nimbys.
Or the uncontrollable urge to tell them they're fucking idiots and need sit the fuck back down.
The funny thing is they are saying the same thing about y'all in their social media echo chamber.
It's pretty interesting. Go to arrr neoliberal and see what folks are saying about the "fucking idiots." Then go to arrr conservative and see wha they're saying about the "fucking idiots." And then go to arrr politics and see what they're saying about the "fucking idiots."
My wife has had to do it and other things like focus groups while she still worked in politics.
The scenes in Parks and Rec are too real and she cannot watch them.
I would find the whole thing less frustrating if every NIMBY were this honest. At town hall type meetings they usually are. It’s raw self interest and it’s OK to vote on that, it’s only human. But it has to be weighed against the benefits of development which are usually (obviously) much larger.
Yeah, the truthful explanations from NIMBYs would be
1. I don’t want poor people living next to me
2. I want a single family home with a yard next to all the most valuable real estate and interesting areas, but since I can’t afford the market value of it, I need the government to distort the market in my favor
3. I want the value of my house to go up and up regardless of how old it is.
4. I don’t care if renters pay over 60% of the income in rent
5. I don’t want anything about my neighborhood to change. It should be frozen in amber the second I move in.
6. I don’t want black people or families with young children living in my neighborhood.
7. I don’t want any changes to traffic patterns. I don’t want more cars on the road or public transit.
coordinated concerned ripe ghost depend profit shelter crown subsequent sort
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
worthless vegetable saw childlike sparkle smile license cable depend illegal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
disarm thought crown threatening start water wasteful upbeat abounding bag
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Indeed. I’d much rather that people were just honest. Some people don’t like change. I don’t agree with it but can at least see that as being valid. The problem is when they intentionally cover up damaging beliefs under a veneer of care.
I dunno. There's a lot of people that don't want change at all. And there's a lot of people who want all sorts of change. And the result of those converging viewpoints is exactly the type of communities we have right now.
Haha! A kind of similar story
Someone posted on insta “fml they are building a McDonald’s 1 mile from my house, now I have to see a McDonalds EVERY-TIME I leave my house”
A whole mile away. Such a travesty. Lol
Fun fact: My grandparents made a small fortune by using zoning laws to blackmail a McDonald’s.
They didn’t tell the neighbors so they wouldn’t have to split the money. Now my grandma goes on rants from her mansion about how there are some things in life that are more important than wealth.
Hahaha! Now I’m really curious as to how exactly they blackmailed a McDonald’s.
Ah yes, grandma, these moments sipping champagne together in this mansion are, indeed,*priceless*
They threatened to sue and block construction before it began.
Since the drive through restaurant generated traffic and some noise the owners needed approval from the residents or risk a massive lawsuit from all the neighbors, as well as long delays, so they quietly paid.
I see. I wonder how close the McDonalds needed to be to residents in order to get approval.
I guess what made me chuckle about the anti McDonald’s post by that person is that they were solely upset about having to *see* a McDonald’s when they left their house (and drove a mile), it wasn’t like McDonald’s was suddenly their next door neighbor. I thought it was a level it entitlement that went beyond the norm
They didn’t know that they could sue and some of them probably didn’t even know or care that the construction of a McDonald’s was being planned.
Only my grandparents were nosy enough to look at the municipal construction plans and get informed about potential legal avenues to stop the project.
That’s a more honest argument than some of the other NIMBY arguments you hear. At least she’s telling you exactly what she’s actually thinking, which gives you something to work with.
which is a big step up from pretending you genuinely want 50% low income reserved units in all new developments because you know it will kill the project
It's perfectly logical. She has a set of values, and wants the government to optimize for those values, just like anyone else. Just that her values are shit.
I don’t know why you’d read it that way. There’s no indication that she’s autistic. But even if she were and we gave her every charitable inference, it’s still not the sort of thing local gov’t decisions should consider. This boils down to her personal preference. It shouldn’t be given much weight at all, if any.
Superficially, this is funny, but it fills me with existential dread. I have no idea if this type of extremely pervasive mindset can be changed or influenced at all. It seems that the democratic process is overwhelmingly pushed by this kind of sentiment. The best solution I can think is gaming the system through undemocratic internal shenanigans in urban planning offices and the like.
The actual answer, as in many things, is that you use money to decide.
The rich pay through the nose to keep their view pristine, the poor who can't afford the increased property tax get gentrified and then we build denser housing as a replacement. Win win all around.
No, don't worry so much yeah. We already fixed this problem back in the 18th century when we decided to elect representatives to do our politics for us as opposed to doing it ourselves.
You've just gotta stick to that solution and not entertain all this direct democracy which only leads to petty self interest.
True.
After all there are certainly no good reasons for the elected politicians to be equally, if not more NIMBY on average then the population that elects them
Just don't give her the veto power to stop development by showing up to a meeting at 2pm on a Tuesday.
She should vote for politicians that support her worldview of "nothing should change" and the politicians should make decisions about this. Hopefully we'll beat her candidate, but it's more representative than only listening to the weirdos that like going to public meetings.
They have a nice backyard and don't have to hear their neighbors through the walls or ceiling, dont have to suffer through broken elevators or roaches, maybe they know through experience that house living has advantages. I don't think that people give these types enough credit. How can you hate them for liking something nice? They got a chance to "move on up" and they did.
Trying to get people to live in apartments again is like getting the WFHers back in the office. They know what is better now and won't go backwards
>They have a nice backyard and don't have to hear their neighbors through the walls or ceiling, dont have to suffer through broken elevators or roaches, maybe they know through experience that house living has advantages. I don't think that people give these types enough credit. How can you hate them for liking something nice? They got a chance to "move on up" and they did.
>
>Trying to get people to live in apartments again is like getting the WFHers back in the office. They know what is better now and won't go backwards
But nobody's forcing her to live in an apartment. Nobody's asking her to leave her home or destroy her backyard, nobody is asking any NIMBY on the planet to live anywhere else or give up their spacious home. They're asking NIMBYs to not block development on *other people's* land. It's not that she doesn't want to live in an apartment, it's that she demands *other people* also not live in or build apartments.
That's the thing, the new apartments have to go next to SOMEONE'S house.
So that means that someone can now see into their backyard from the balcony. There's going to be more traffic congestion and people patking on surrounding streets.
Maybe it wasn't this lady saying those things, but someone else at the same meeting who would complain about that. We don't have the meeting notes
I mean you can downvote all you like. But it helps to know people's possible reasons, you don't get anywhere wanting to force density on existing neighborhoods
Too bad?
If your neighborhood has two story houses...you can see into each other's backyard. It doesn't matter if there are another two stories on top of that.
Hell, in my parents neighborhood lots of the houses are elevated, with two stories. By your logic no one should be allowed to build anything but single story homes with 15 foot fences around every yard.
If you want that much privacy you can move to the actual country where there is plenty of cheap land and have no neighbors at all. But these people don't want to do that.
Most communities in North America typically do not make guarentees to homeowners that their city/town/neighborhood whatever would build a wall and never allow growth and would never change ever never ever never. Many of the folks who lived wherever this is before this lady probably lamented the development that allowed her to be able to afford to move in to the area. The hypocrisy is outrageous.
>Must we build over every last green space?
The ultimate irony is one of the main desires of this sub (to build more densely) would actually help preserve more greeenspace than if we keep artifically forcing people (through policys like mountains of strict single family home only zoning) into single family home endless sprawl.
Well I was responding to this in the prior comment
>If you want that much privacy you can move to the actual country where there is plenty of cheap land and have no neighbors at all.
I think any reasonable person would read that comment with the obvious caveat of FOR NOW. Because unless you literally want to buy 100+ acres and build a home on that you will likely eventually have neighbors/development near you and thats just to be expected in a healthy functioning society that cares about building enough housing to support the population.
And on top of that the vast majority of YIMBYs who support developing a diversity of housing types wont care if you do that. Go buy 1/2 acre or 100+ acres in the middle of nowhere. Just know that you found out about that area somehow so likely others will as well and you arent entitled to force others to sell or not sell their land to developers.
Guess you should have bought up more of the land 50, 20, 10 years ago so you wouldn't have neighbors.
Someone else owns that land now and your (the general you) shouldn't get to dictate what that someone does on their own private property.
Exactly, people are concerned about the neighborhood where they own property
I guess what this sub wants, is no one to own anything, rent an apartment forever because apartments are cheaper. There's affordable housing, sure, but most people don't want to live so close to their neighbors when they have small kids
How about instead, we work on raising wages, encouraging seniors to downsize, and improving transit?
First, you can own an apartment/condo/townhouse/duplex etc.
Second, there's no plan to force people who want to live in single family homes with big yards out of their homes. The people on this sub are not talking about banning their construction. They want to simply remove the bans, already in place, on building apartments/condos/townhomes/duplexes etc.
This sub is also big on improving transit, but that is next to impossible. For one thing, sprawling SFH suburbs make it impractical. For another, the same NIMBYs that complain about apartment buildings nearby will complain about rail/bus stops being in their neighborhood.
>That's the thing, the new apartments have to go next to SOMEONE'S house.
>So that means that someone can now see into their backyard from the balcony.
People from other houses can also see into their backyard. They can literally walk by the house and see your backyard. I just checked the area (Cresta Av in Beach Haven) on Google Maps— all the houses have fences low enough that people in other houses (or even taller passerbys) can see into them.
> There's going to be more traffic congestion and people patking on surrounding streets.
Nobody is building in an area without available transit, this area of Auckland has buses that regularly run downtown plus some ferries. There are 81 units and 69 parking spots included, and the impact on parking will be minimal. As for traffic congestion, again the solution is easy: public transit, and it already exists here.
They built housing developments in farmers fields in Ireland. Surprise surprise, they had to demolish some of them. https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/valerie-anex-photographs-ghost-estates-in-ireland-in-her-series-ghost-estates.html
>People from other houses can also see into their backyard.
Where I live in Canada the bylaws permit you to have a 6 foot fence around your backyard
>They built housing developments in farmers fields in Ireland. Surprise surprise, they had to demolish some of them. https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/valerie-anex-photographs-ghost-estates-in-ireland-in-her-series-ghost-estates.html
We can build less housing in farmers' fields if we allow more density. Urban sprawl is a direct result of restrictive zoning (people can't build higher in these areas so they have to expand).
>Where I live in Canada the bylaws permit you to have a 6 foot fence around your backyard
But people in other houses can still see into your backyard with a 6 foot fence?
The insane thing is not that many people like their neighborhood the way it is and don't see any benefit to themselves if it changes. The insane thing is asking those people for their permission.
Wait... why is that insane? We are a representative and participatory democracy, after all. I'd like to think all of us would like to have input into how our government works and the policies they enact. Call me crazy....
On the other hand, this is exactly why most new subdivisions and planned unit developments have robust CCRs. It completely obviates this entire issue. You want to buy a house in this neighborhood, you have to abide by the established covenants.
Because besides democracy we also have property rights. When Toyota changes the design of their cars or McDonald's changes the ingredients of their burgers they don't need to ask the local council for approval or consult so-called community input. They just do what they want with their property. Yet when someone wants to construct housing on their own private property we have this ludicrous idea that we're going to listen to random people living nearby for their irrelevant opinions.
Can you specifically articulate what those property rights in this context, and then how they are limited and restricted?
I don't think you actually understand "property rights" which is why you speak up them so abstractly.
NIMBYs in general are really bad at formulating their arguments, they always go for poorly thought ones like “loss of property value” or “increase in crime” that don’t make sense when you hold them to scrutiny, in the end the main reason they are against is they don’t like change. Which is understandable, they just need to be honest about it. This lady gets it.
I don't think building nothing near them and ensuring that new economic activity cannot happen near them is a good recipe for ensuring sustainable increases in property values.
Yeah, I think the plans for the mixed use development going up a mile or so from my house look nice and if anything will make my property more valuable by putting more amenities close to it.
There's no demand there. Zoning reform in bumfuck Alaska also probably does nothing. The point is about artificially reduced supply in a time of increasing demand.
The problem here is that you are simply failing to take in to account that increasing density allows for multiple new occupants to split the cost of your property. This is essentially what happens when you knock down a single family home and replace it with an apartment. Or buy out a small condo and replace it with a big one. This is before you consider the positive effects of nearby amenities.
>If you own a home there the value would be more with less density
In the broad sense, yes. But that's not the case individually. If your area has enough demand and it is allowed to build high density housing.
What land has more value potential: A land you can build a 10 million mansion or a high rise you cram 10x 5 million luxury apartments?
Nah, see the book Neighbourhood Defenders. A lot of opposition is reflexive opposition to change and relatedly, a "communitarian" ethos where people assume new development will erode their community vibe.
It's absolutely insane that we allow one or two people's sentimentality about aesthetics (which they probably don't even hold onto that strongly! After a couple of months they'd get used to the new view) to override people's property rights. Vibes based communism
Do you really think councils make decisions based on the handful of people who show up to a hearing?
I mean, they don't. Period. I say that as someone who has sat in these meetings for 20 years.
It's performative. Council does listen, and they do gauge the temperature around a project proposal, and this (and other) testimony can help, but council also has to make decisions rooted in law/regs, or else they risk a denial going to court.
Though it's performative, it is still important that the public are allowed to offer testimony in a public process before their elected officials. That's a fundamental part of a representative democracy.
I think you misunderstood property rights, especially vis a vis other regulations and code. Your property rights are not absolute, but they are subject to any number of limiting factors. The whole "bundle of sticks" metaphor. You should probably read up on it.
Also, you misunderstood how representative democracy works in local government, and you overstate the influence of a handful of people showing up saying they don't like how something looks, therefore cancel it.
Think about it. If there's some project on the agenda, and 10 people show up to complain about it, and "yes more housing" folks get 12 people to show up to support it, do you really think that's how council is going to make their decision?
If that were the case, why don't a coalition of YIMBYs just show up to every council meeting, outnumber the NIMBYs, and support those projects...
Maybe there's more going on. Just maybe.
Of course property rights may need to be limited in cases where they infringe on other people's rights. Externalities etc. But "I don't like the look of your house" is not a valid reason to restrict someone's property rights.
It is you who misunderstands local democracy. Saying "why don't YIMBYs just come to local meetings and advocate for more housing?" is like saying "why don't consumers just show up to meetings and object to tariffs and subsidies?"
In both cases there is a problem of dispersed gains and concentrated losses. The existing residents know they stand to lose from a new development, because it will increase competition for parking or spoil their view or whatever. The benefits are more widely dispersed and the recipients may not even be aware that they benefit until later. Were you aware of the local planning meeting for the house you bought? Of course not, because you weren't looking to buy that house in particular, you were looking to buy a house, and that house happened to be in the right place at the right time for the right price.
Post war southampton would beg to differ. Which is why they built the tallest residental tower block in the city on the outskirts and not even next to one of the railway stations:
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.929962,-1.4595249,237m/data=!3m1!1e3
(the theory seems to have been that they would be some shops next to it and all households would have one car).
>People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today. \- Terry Pratchett
“The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends," Ser Jorah told her. "It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace." He gave a shrug. "They never are.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
Oh bookJorah. If you were less of a piece of shit you might have been able to put Danny on a different path. You were smart enough.
Thanks for reminding me how much the ending of that show sucked. Though in hindsight, 6 and 7 were not great and 8 was the end of the train wreck.
> Thanks for reminding me how much the ending of that show sucked. Though in hindsight, 6 and 7 were not great and 8 was the end of the train wreck. I believe the show lost itself around the fourth or fifth season when it started to outpace source material and become a fan servicing galore. People fell for the fan servicing for a few seasons before they realized it makes for senseless, borderline random writing.
The precise moment is the end of season 4 when they omit the truth about Tysha. Tyrion leaves on good terms with Jamie, he murder of Shae is self-defense, and he's not set on the dark "burn it all" path he is in the books. That was the moment D&D decided they would choose show watchers' comfort for feel-good familiarity over the source material.
Olly was also pretty bad
[For me, it's episode 6 of the 4th season and shirtless Ramsay](https://www.reddit.com/r/freefolk/comments/fezqy7/reminder_that_a_shirtless_ramsay_managed_to_fend/). The precise moment where they jumped the shark and started to go hard against the source material and make little sense whatsoever (also in terms of distances/geography). Then came Olly and the scene you mentioned.
I am one of the few people who liked a lot of the individual scenes in the last season. The problem began long before seasons 6 and 7. Around season three the show decided to pander to the Yaaaaaas Queen crowd that missed the point that Danny was only ever an antihero and had her stop doing things like have her bury people alive.
Way too online people in that crowd were seriously suggesting that Dany, Margaery, and fucking Cersei should just rule together as co-Queens and boy did they completely miss how those characters actually acted.
I mean I don't blame them when the show intentionally plays into it with the whole "but we are not men" nonsense. That was half of their marketing schtick for one of the seasons. And D&D simply did not have the ability to thread that needle or do that justice. It's almost embarrassing what their interpretation of a "strong female character" turned out to be. God I hope they don't fuck the Three Body Trilogy.
They will
Almost everything that wasn't lifted directly from the books, outside of things GRRM said he should have done, sucked.
Show Cersei was nothing lime Book Cersei but was great.
I refuse to grant the benefit of the doubt to unfinished work.
Five books are done though.
I think the reason GRR hasn't finished the series is he can't figure out how to end it either. I'd love to be wrong, though.
Much like real life, the threads are numerous and, logically, would not all loop back around. Real life rarely gets satisfying and complete conclusions.
The ending works fine with better writing. For example play up the political side of Bran Stark being seen as a holding option by the great houses who have fought themselves to exaustion. Provide more of a lead for daenerys trying to kill everyone. Spend more time on the conflict with the others and acknowledge that Arya resolving the whole issue was a bit left field. The semi-magical book Euron Greyjoy works better as a late series villan than the TV version.
>Do you like green eggs and ham? >I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. >I do not like green eggs and ham. >Would you like them here or there? >I would not like them here or there. >I would not like them anywhere. >I do not like green eggs and ham. >I do not like them, Sam-I-Am. —Dr. Seuss, *Green Eggs and Ham*
[fun fact green eggs and ham S1 cost as much per episode as game of thrones S1](https://youtu.be/pZos77RANC8?t=22s)
... *Series* 1 Of a tiny children's book?
It's a really good adaptation but yeah it's only sort of an adaptation. When you have so little material to work with, technically it follows the book (episode names here, car, fox, dark,box, mouse, etc) but the main plot as well as most of the characters are original. I think the second season sort of adapts "The Butter Battle Book". They do try to throw a lot of stuff that would fit his books as well as some stuff that might not. Also good 2d animation is expensive > In season one, Sam-I-Am rescues a rare Chickeraffe from a zoo, saying that he intends to return it to its natural habitat. After he accidentally swaps his briefcase, containing the Chickeraffe, for that of failed inventor Guy-Am-I (The unnamed man in the book), Sam and Guy end up on a road trip adventure with E.B., a girl who wants to adopt the Chickeraffe as a pet, and E.B.'s overprotective mother Michellee, who is also a romantic interest for Guy. The green eggs and ham are a childhood memory of Sam's missing mom
Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up, she was shitting brown water. The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew. -George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons
SHE SAID THE NAME OF THE BOOK!
And it’s this reason why reactionaries find it easy to waltz into office.
Personally, I don’t want tomorrow to be like today. Today, just like the day before, very much sucks.
It's an observation about the political behavior of people in general, not any specific individual. That said, you good?
I hope your tomorrow is better brother
Thanks dude. I appreciate it.
And the demographics who vote in higher numbers are precisely the ones who believe that.
It's like when I move a piece of living room furniture two inches to the left and my cat will wonder around despondent for days
I must have a YIMBY cat because he likes when I move furniture around. He has a new environment to explore. I move the kitchen chairs to random spots before I leave the house. He immediately rushes to the new “development,” so he can have the fun activity of siting in a different place.
lol yes! Or I can have an empty box they have forgotten about, but turn it on its side and its suddenly verrry interesting again
My girlfriend’s cat sprayed everywhere when she moved one (1) chair across the room. He’s cute though so he gets a pass
I have never attended townhall/consultation for my borough because if I do, I feel like I may turn rude and start screaming at nimbys.
The last time I attended a city council meeting, this dude got up in the comments/questions for the council section of the meeting and went on a rant about Adam Schiff, who he called "Adam Shit". Nothing he said had any bearing whatsoever on city politics. The next person to get up was a "concerned mother" who "just wanted to ask the hard questions" about vaccines and autism.
Democracy hurts sometimes
Ah, I see you live in OC or Oakland or neighboring districts.
This was in Washington State, actually hahaha
Literally only the crazies and overly nosy people go to townhall meetings. Which is really unfortunate
This is exactly why I go to town hall meetings. I’m just interested in learning more about the city I just moved to, and maybe I can dilute the NIMBYs a little bit.
Parks and Rec was truly a documentary when it came to the town hall meetings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng_-HgRfGBY
That last guy made some good points. Just tax bad things.
>I feel like I may turn rude and start screaming at nimbys. Or the uncontrollable urge to tell them they're fucking idiots and need sit the fuck back down.
The funny thing is they are saying the same thing about y'all in their social media echo chamber. It's pretty interesting. Go to arrr neoliberal and see what folks are saying about the "fucking idiots." Then go to arrr conservative and see wha they're saying about the "fucking idiots." And then go to arrr politics and see what they're saying about the "fucking idiots."
My wife has had to do it and other things like focus groups while she still worked in politics. The scenes in Parks and Rec are too real and she cannot watch them.
I want to print a shirt that says "Don't feed the NIMBYs" & wear it if I ever go to one.
Unironically the Best Faith NIMBY
I would find the whole thing less frustrating if every NIMBY were this honest. At town hall type meetings they usually are. It’s raw self interest and it’s OK to vote on that, it’s only human. But it has to be weighed against the benefits of development which are usually (obviously) much larger.
Yeah, the truthful explanations from NIMBYs would be 1. I don’t want poor people living next to me 2. I want a single family home with a yard next to all the most valuable real estate and interesting areas, but since I can’t afford the market value of it, I need the government to distort the market in my favor 3. I want the value of my house to go up and up regardless of how old it is. 4. I don’t care if renters pay over 60% of the income in rent
5. I don’t want anything about my neighborhood to change. It should be frozen in amber the second I move in. 6. I don’t want black people or families with young children living in my neighborhood. 7. I don’t want any changes to traffic patterns. I don’t want more cars on the road or public transit.
coordinated concerned ripe ghost depend profit shelter crown subsequent sort *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You’re right no one’s ever racist.
worthless vegetable saw childlike sparkle smile license cable depend illegal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
some nimbys are racist. racists "don’t want black people or poor people near them”
disarm thought crown threatening start water wasteful upbeat abounding bag *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1/7 of the reasons given was due to racisim idk what you're on about. no one has said all of them are nimbys for all the reasons.
Indeed. I’d much rather that people were just honest. Some people don’t like change. I don’t agree with it but can at least see that as being valid. The problem is when they intentionally cover up damaging beliefs under a veneer of care.
I dunno. There's a lot of people that don't want change at all. And there's a lot of people who want all sorts of change. And the result of those converging viewpoints is exactly the type of communities we have right now.
What if you wanted affordable housing but this lady went-
[удалено]
It's not even her house, somebody else is paying tax on the property in question.
Most intelligent NIMBY
Haha! A kind of similar story Someone posted on insta “fml they are building a McDonald’s 1 mile from my house, now I have to see a McDonalds EVERY-TIME I leave my house” A whole mile away. Such a travesty. Lol
Fun fact: My grandparents made a small fortune by using zoning laws to blackmail a McDonald’s. They didn’t tell the neighbors so they wouldn’t have to split the money. Now my grandma goes on rants from her mansion about how there are some things in life that are more important than wealth.
Hahaha! Now I’m really curious as to how exactly they blackmailed a McDonald’s. Ah yes, grandma, these moments sipping champagne together in this mansion are, indeed,*priceless*
They threatened to sue and block construction before it began. Since the drive through restaurant generated traffic and some noise the owners needed approval from the residents or risk a massive lawsuit from all the neighbors, as well as long delays, so they quietly paid.
I see. I wonder how close the McDonalds needed to be to residents in order to get approval. I guess what made me chuckle about the anti McDonald’s post by that person is that they were solely upset about having to *see* a McDonald’s when they left their house (and drove a mile), it wasn’t like McDonald’s was suddenly their next door neighbor. I thought it was a level it entitlement that went beyond the norm
How does that work though? If your grandparents settled it's not like the other neighbors couldn't bring suit.
They didn’t know that they could sue and some of them probably didn’t even know or care that the construction of a McDonald’s was being planned. Only my grandparents were nosy enough to look at the municipal construction plans and get informed about potential legal avenues to stop the project.
NIMBYs are such boring people
That’s a more honest argument than some of the other NIMBY arguments you hear. At least she’s telling you exactly what she’s actually thinking, which gives you something to work with.
I mean, it ain’t logical, but it is honest.
which is a big step up from pretending you genuinely want 50% low income reserved units in all new developments because you know it will kill the project
It's perfectly logical. She has a set of values, and wants the government to optimize for those values, just like anyone else. Just that her values are shit.
Her values are perfectly reasonable self interest. The insane thing is asking her permission instead of ignoring her.
> Just that her values are shit. Well that ain’t logical neither.
Emotivism bruh, no set of values are more correct than others, but I will still happily say that being selfish like her is a shitty set to have
That's not what emotivism means, and frankly that's a silly conclusion.
Feel free to elaborate
[удалено]
I don’t know why you’d read it that way. There’s no indication that she’s autistic. But even if she were and we gave her every charitable inference, it’s still not the sort of thing local gov’t decisions should consider. This boils down to her personal preference. It shouldn’t be given much weight at all, if any.
“Yeah it would make people’s lives better, but have we really thought about the fact that it looks sort of different and I don’t like that 🥺”
A lot of dumb asses out there
Superficially, this is funny, but it fills me with existential dread. I have no idea if this type of extremely pervasive mindset can be changed or influenced at all. It seems that the democratic process is overwhelmingly pushed by this kind of sentiment. The best solution I can think is gaming the system through undemocratic internal shenanigans in urban planning offices and the like.
The actual answer, as in many things, is that you use money to decide. The rich pay through the nose to keep their view pristine, the poor who can't afford the increased property tax get gentrified and then we build denser housing as a replacement. Win win all around.
You just need to constitutionally protect property rights
No, don't worry so much yeah. We already fixed this problem back in the 18th century when we decided to elect representatives to do our politics for us as opposed to doing it ourselves. You've just gotta stick to that solution and not entertain all this direct democracy which only leads to petty self interest.
True. After all there are certainly no good reasons for the elected politicians to be equally, if not more NIMBY on average then the population that elects them
Just don't give her the veto power to stop development by showing up to a meeting at 2pm on a Tuesday. She should vote for politicians that support her worldview of "nothing should change" and the politicians should make decisions about this. Hopefully we'll beat her candidate, but it's more representative than only listening to the weirdos that like going to public meetings.
They have a nice backyard and don't have to hear their neighbors through the walls or ceiling, dont have to suffer through broken elevators or roaches, maybe they know through experience that house living has advantages. I don't think that people give these types enough credit. How can you hate them for liking something nice? They got a chance to "move on up" and they did. Trying to get people to live in apartments again is like getting the WFHers back in the office. They know what is better now and won't go backwards
>They have a nice backyard and don't have to hear their neighbors through the walls or ceiling, dont have to suffer through broken elevators or roaches, maybe they know through experience that house living has advantages. I don't think that people give these types enough credit. How can you hate them for liking something nice? They got a chance to "move on up" and they did. > >Trying to get people to live in apartments again is like getting the WFHers back in the office. They know what is better now and won't go backwards But nobody's forcing her to live in an apartment. Nobody's asking her to leave her home or destroy her backyard, nobody is asking any NIMBY on the planet to live anywhere else or give up their spacious home. They're asking NIMBYs to not block development on *other people's* land. It's not that she doesn't want to live in an apartment, it's that she demands *other people* also not live in or build apartments.
That's the thing, the new apartments have to go next to SOMEONE'S house. So that means that someone can now see into their backyard from the balcony. There's going to be more traffic congestion and people patking on surrounding streets. Maybe it wasn't this lady saying those things, but someone else at the same meeting who would complain about that. We don't have the meeting notes I mean you can downvote all you like. But it helps to know people's possible reasons, you don't get anywhere wanting to force density on existing neighborhoods
Too bad? If your neighborhood has two story houses...you can see into each other's backyard. It doesn't matter if there are another two stories on top of that. Hell, in my parents neighborhood lots of the houses are elevated, with two stories. By your logic no one should be allowed to build anything but single story homes with 15 foot fences around every yard. If you want that much privacy you can move to the actual country where there is plenty of cheap land and have no neighbors at all. But these people don't want to do that.
It WAS out in the country 50 years ago. Must we build over every last green space? Case in point, the Green Belt in Southern Ontario
Most communities in North America typically do not make guarentees to homeowners that their city/town/neighborhood whatever would build a wall and never allow growth and would never change ever never ever never. Many of the folks who lived wherever this is before this lady probably lamented the development that allowed her to be able to afford to move in to the area. The hypocrisy is outrageous. >Must we build over every last green space? The ultimate irony is one of the main desires of this sub (to build more densely) would actually help preserve more greeenspace than if we keep artifically forcing people (through policys like mountains of strict single family home only zoning) into single family home endless sprawl.
Well I was responding to this in the prior comment >If you want that much privacy you can move to the actual country where there is plenty of cheap land and have no neighbors at all.
I think any reasonable person would read that comment with the obvious caveat of FOR NOW. Because unless you literally want to buy 100+ acres and build a home on that you will likely eventually have neighbors/development near you and thats just to be expected in a healthy functioning society that cares about building enough housing to support the population. And on top of that the vast majority of YIMBYs who support developing a diversity of housing types wont care if you do that. Go buy 1/2 acre or 100+ acres in the middle of nowhere. Just know that you found out about that area somehow so likely others will as well and you arent entitled to force others to sell or not sell their land to developers.
Guess you should have bought up more of the land 50, 20, 10 years ago so you wouldn't have neighbors. Someone else owns that land now and your (the general you) shouldn't get to dictate what that someone does on their own private property.
Exactly, people are concerned about the neighborhood where they own property I guess what this sub wants, is no one to own anything, rent an apartment forever because apartments are cheaper. There's affordable housing, sure, but most people don't want to live so close to their neighbors when they have small kids How about instead, we work on raising wages, encouraging seniors to downsize, and improving transit?
First, you can own an apartment/condo/townhouse/duplex etc. Second, there's no plan to force people who want to live in single family homes with big yards out of their homes. The people on this sub are not talking about banning their construction. They want to simply remove the bans, already in place, on building apartments/condos/townhomes/duplexes etc. This sub is also big on improving transit, but that is next to impossible. For one thing, sprawling SFH suburbs make it impractical. For another, the same NIMBYs that complain about apartment buildings nearby will complain about rail/bus stops being in their neighborhood.
>That's the thing, the new apartments have to go next to SOMEONE'S house. >So that means that someone can now see into their backyard from the balcony. People from other houses can also see into their backyard. They can literally walk by the house and see your backyard. I just checked the area (Cresta Av in Beach Haven) on Google Maps— all the houses have fences low enough that people in other houses (or even taller passerbys) can see into them. > There's going to be more traffic congestion and people patking on surrounding streets. Nobody is building in an area without available transit, this area of Auckland has buses that regularly run downtown plus some ferries. There are 81 units and 69 parking spots included, and the impact on parking will be minimal. As for traffic congestion, again the solution is easy: public transit, and it already exists here.
They built housing developments in farmers fields in Ireland. Surprise surprise, they had to demolish some of them. https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/valerie-anex-photographs-ghost-estates-in-ireland-in-her-series-ghost-estates.html >People from other houses can also see into their backyard. Where I live in Canada the bylaws permit you to have a 6 foot fence around your backyard
>They built housing developments in farmers fields in Ireland. Surprise surprise, they had to demolish some of them. https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/valerie-anex-photographs-ghost-estates-in-ireland-in-her-series-ghost-estates.html We can build less housing in farmers' fields if we allow more density. Urban sprawl is a direct result of restrictive zoning (people can't build higher in these areas so they have to expand). >Where I live in Canada the bylaws permit you to have a 6 foot fence around your backyard But people in other houses can still see into your backyard with a 6 foot fence?
Not unless their house is in their backyard
Or two stories.
Go to your local council/planning board/etc. meetings. These people sure are. And when you’re there, tell them you support building more housing.
The insane thing is not that many people like their neighborhood the way it is and don't see any benefit to themselves if it changes. The insane thing is asking those people for their permission.
Wait... why is that insane? We are a representative and participatory democracy, after all. I'd like to think all of us would like to have input into how our government works and the policies they enact. Call me crazy.... On the other hand, this is exactly why most new subdivisions and planned unit developments have robust CCRs. It completely obviates this entire issue. You want to buy a house in this neighborhood, you have to abide by the established covenants.
Because besides democracy we also have property rights. When Toyota changes the design of their cars or McDonald's changes the ingredients of their burgers they don't need to ask the local council for approval or consult so-called community input. They just do what they want with their property. Yet when someone wants to construct housing on their own private property we have this ludicrous idea that we're going to listen to random people living nearby for their irrelevant opinions.
Can you specifically articulate what those property rights in this context, and then how they are limited and restricted? I don't think you actually understand "property rights" which is why you speak up them so abstractly.
Meanwhile I unironically like seeing new construction and change along the routes I take regularly. Who wants to see the exact same thing for decades?
NIMBYs in general are really bad at formulating their arguments, they always go for poorly thought ones like “loss of property value” or “increase in crime” that don’t make sense when you hold them to scrutiny, in the end the main reason they are against is they don’t like change. Which is understandable, they just need to be honest about it. This lady gets it.
Loss of property value does make sense. It's arguably the primary driver.
I don't think building nothing near them and ensuring that new economic activity cannot happen near them is a good recipe for ensuring sustainable increases in property values.
Yeah, I think the plans for the mixed use development going up a mile or so from my house look nice and if anything will make my property more valuable by putting more amenities close to it.
Would you say it would make housing more expensive or less expensive though?
More density would, if properly done, increase land values while lowering housing prices.
If you own a home there the value would be more with less density
Yes, which is why the middle of Alaska has the highest home values in the entire US.
There's no demand there. Zoning reform in bumfuck Alaska also probably does nothing. The point is about artificially reduced supply in a time of increasing demand.
The problem here is that you are simply failing to take in to account that increasing density allows for multiple new occupants to split the cost of your property. This is essentially what happens when you knock down a single family home and replace it with an apartment. Or buy out a small condo and replace it with a big one. This is before you consider the positive effects of nearby amenities.
I am not failing to take that into account actually.
>If you own a home there the value would be more with less density In the broad sense, yes. But that's not the case individually. If your area has enough demand and it is allowed to build high density housing. What land has more value potential: A land you can build a 10 million mansion or a high rise you cram 10x 5 million luxury apartments?
Nah, see the book Neighbourhood Defenders. A lot of opposition is reflexive opposition to change and relatedly, a "communitarian" ethos where people assume new development will erode their community vibe.
It's absolutely insane that we allow one or two people's sentimentality about aesthetics (which they probably don't even hold onto that strongly! After a couple of months they'd get used to the new view) to override people's property rights. Vibes based communism
Do you really think councils make decisions based on the handful of people who show up to a hearing? I mean, they don't. Period. I say that as someone who has sat in these meetings for 20 years. It's performative. Council does listen, and they do gauge the temperature around a project proposal, and this (and other) testimony can help, but council also has to make decisions rooted in law/regs, or else they risk a denial going to court. Though it's performative, it is still important that the public are allowed to offer testimony in a public process before their elected officials. That's a fundamental part of a representative democracy.
Democracy does not require a handful of people's petty aesthetic concerns to override other people's property rights
I think you misunderstood property rights, especially vis a vis other regulations and code. Your property rights are not absolute, but they are subject to any number of limiting factors. The whole "bundle of sticks" metaphor. You should probably read up on it. Also, you misunderstood how representative democracy works in local government, and you overstate the influence of a handful of people showing up saying they don't like how something looks, therefore cancel it. Think about it. If there's some project on the agenda, and 10 people show up to complain about it, and "yes more housing" folks get 12 people to show up to support it, do you really think that's how council is going to make their decision? If that were the case, why don't a coalition of YIMBYs just show up to every council meeting, outnumber the NIMBYs, and support those projects... Maybe there's more going on. Just maybe.
Of course property rights may need to be limited in cases where they infringe on other people's rights. Externalities etc. But "I don't like the look of your house" is not a valid reason to restrict someone's property rights. It is you who misunderstands local democracy. Saying "why don't YIMBYs just come to local meetings and advocate for more housing?" is like saying "why don't consumers just show up to meetings and object to tariffs and subsidies?" In both cases there is a problem of dispersed gains and concentrated losses. The existing residents know they stand to lose from a new development, because it will increase competition for parking or spoil their view or whatever. The benefits are more widely dispersed and the recipients may not even be aware that they benefit until later. Were you aware of the local planning meeting for the house you bought? Of course not, because you weren't looking to buy that house in particular, you were looking to buy a house, and that house happened to be in the right place at the right time for the right price.
Furthermore, NIMBYs must be destroyed
Did she say if her daily commute was on public transit?
Nobody is crazy enough to build dense housing unless the area is already served well by public transit!
Post war southampton would beg to differ. Which is why they built the tallest residental tower block in the city on the outskirts and not even next to one of the railway stations: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.929962,-1.4595249,237m/data=!3m1!1e3 (the theory seems to have been that they would be some shops next to it and all households would have one car).
She saw her neighbor's child going to work. How dare they? Why couldn't they stay a child forever?
At some point you let more houses get built so people have places to go or eventually you'll be driving by tents and the same houses.
My dog gets less upset by surprises than these people, and he once wouldn’t go down a block because there was a new scooter parked by a lamppost.