Somewhat tangentially, I think the term "NIMBY" is actually one of the most significant impediments to getting rid of NIMBYism. It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
In reality, everyone is a NIMBY when someone shows up and tries to build a rail line or some high-density housing in your backyard. Sure, you support progress as a concept, but this is not the right place - have we considered alternate locations? Can the infrastructure cope with that? Don't we need to build another hospital or a police station first? What about the impacts on the Canada thistle and raccoon habitat?
I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too if they tried to put a Costco or a highway off-ramp over there.
Fundamentally, the proposition behind a lot of progress-centric projects is that they will harm some people for the well-being of others, and this is something we stubbornly fail to address. If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist, and it's all just irrationality of the select few. Make it a part of the social contract, instead of the current implicit promise that your cul-de-sac can stay the same forever. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.
While it's true that everyone is ultimately driven by self-interest, I don't think it's true that everyone is a NIMBY. Many people just don't see development of their area as being against their interests. Local business owners want the extra customers that come with new residential developments. Young people want more stuff to do in their area. Young families might want other young families to move into their area so their kids have others to play with. Renters don't care about the impact on property prices. People who moved to big cities, probably moved there because of the things that NIMBYs oppose.
In my experience NIMBYs tend to be heavily over-represented in the older and wealthier demographic. And this demographic has outsized political power in most Western democracies, which is a big part of the problem.
> It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
I feel kind of the opposite way really. I've even known plenty of people who lease apartment units and don't want other apartments built because newer construction = more expensive (even if it keeps their own rent from being more expensive since it relieves some of the demand).
Not all "progress" is the same. If they put a high rise apartment next to me that's great, we need more housing in this city. If they put a data center (or, as in your example, a Costco) across the street I'd be pissed. (& I think we've got enough highway off-ramps in this country thank you).
No. Many of us are delighted to have high density housing nextdoor, across the street, or on our own property. Many are glad for new rail lines, the closer the better. The people you mentioned are just NIMBYs.
Indeed, in my country the vast majority of people have nothing against new development near their neighbourhood. It’s always one or two people with way too much free time that are blocking development.
“if you want the government to pay more taxes you should just personally write a bigger check during tax time”
The underlying optimal game theoretic action is obvious (and therefore common), the problem are the laws that require you to respect the neighbors.
This is why state-wide anti-NIMBY laws can get passed, everyone thinks it won’t come for them so they let it pass. Let’s pass more of those and make em stronger.
> I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. <
it's true. i have plenty of these friends too. owning land is structurally sociopathogenic. maybe the way to route around that is if you own land you instead get to vote on zoning/development projects one town over or something.
> I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too.
The "My Backyard" part of the shortcut explains that very well
> It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
because it is exactly that. Just that "small" class" contains everyone that has a backyard and something else is there to affect their backyard.
"Sacrifice of an unit to benefit the whole long term" is concept people romanticise, but not preach.
Also like 80% NIMBY problems are caused specifically by housing and property being value store instead of utility. If your property is most of your net worth and you are still paying for its mortgage, any attack on its value is existential threat to your (and your family, and possibly your kid's inheritance) well being.
> If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist and it's all just irrationality of the select few. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.
Pretty much. If the loss of perceived value would be compensated above market value, there would be far less problems with it. But if the deal is "you get rough value of your house but now you need to dive into housing market again and hope you get decent deal that still have stuff you want around be around", who would want that? Even worse when compensation is low enough that you'd need to downgrade your standard of living.
nimbyism is a perfectly rational market behavior when land is untaxed - as it was with, say, prop 13.
Why on earth would you want your local "historic" San francisco launderette to be turned into apartments? New supply will hurt the resale value of your apartment.
nimbys behaving in a rational way are a nicer target than, say, the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation. That one is backed by fine, upstanding billionaires and not filthy middle class homeowners. We all know who is "really" to blame for all of this and it is not the billionaires who set the rules of the game, it is those who play it.
NIMBYism is even more rational when there is a land tax. When things get built near your land your tax burden will increase. Your example doesn’t work because getting rid of the laundromat will make the area more desirable and increase property value even if new housing is built.
getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability. it simply increased the supply of apartments to live in the area.
if your property's value remains unaffected by the supply of properties nearby you will be indifferent to it. in fact, if it's desirable not to you but to others you will be inclined to yield it because your tax bill jumped.
> getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability.
I think this is a crazy take. Why do some areas become more valuable? Clearly it is because dilapidated amenities leave and in demand ones move in. Removing the laundromat was textbook gentrification. New housing is itself an amenity and it also brings people with money who will support and grow other nearby amenities which increases desirability.
Didn't read the article, but regarding the title, this is kind of fundamental.
NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.
Capitalism largely lives on destroying particular places to benefit people who are [mostly] somewhere else.
This is the only thing happening in capitalism but it's a big part of it. The end game of this kind of capitalism is that every place is destroyed (ecologically) and it gradually grinds to a painful halt.
Maybe there's a way to have some elements of capitalism in a society that doesn't destroy places but I don't know.
> NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.
this is the reflex, and it's a sensible one to have. but the perception of what is or isnt a threat can range from something legitimate across the board ("I dont want a giant thing taking all the power and pumping my head full out sound 100% of the time near my home") to the truly detrimental ("I should get to be the last one moving into this area. Me moving to a place is good and fine; other people moving to where I live constitutes destruction. No new housing.")
NIMBYs forget they moved to where they live from somewhere, and they are not more important than other people on a societal level.
Somewhat tangentially, I think the term "NIMBY" is actually one of the most significant impediments to getting rid of NIMBYism. It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
In reality, everyone is a NIMBY when someone shows up and tries to build a rail line or some high-density housing in your backyard. Sure, you support progress as a concept, but this is not the right place - have we considered alternate locations? Can the infrastructure cope with that? Don't we need to build another hospital or a police station first? What about the impacts on the Canada thistle and raccoon habitat?
I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too if they tried to put a Costco or a highway off-ramp over there.
Fundamentally, the proposition behind a lot of progress-centric projects is that they will harm some people for the well-being of others, and this is something we stubbornly fail to address. If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist, and it's all just irrationality of the select few. Make it a part of the social contract, instead of the current implicit promise that your cul-de-sac can stay the same forever. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.
While it's true that everyone is ultimately driven by self-interest, I don't think it's true that everyone is a NIMBY. Many people just don't see development of their area as being against their interests. Local business owners want the extra customers that come with new residential developments. Young people want more stuff to do in their area. Young families might want other young families to move into their area so their kids have others to play with. Renters don't care about the impact on property prices. People who moved to big cities, probably moved there because of the things that NIMBYs oppose.
In my experience NIMBYs tend to be heavily over-represented in the older and wealthier demographic. And this demographic has outsized political power in most Western democracies, which is a big part of the problem.
> It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
I feel kind of the opposite way really. I've even known plenty of people who lease apartment units and don't want other apartments built because newer construction = more expensive (even if it keeps their own rent from being more expensive since it relieves some of the demand).
Not all "progress" is the same. If they put a high rise apartment next to me that's great, we need more housing in this city. If they put a data center (or, as in your example, a Costco) across the street I'd be pissed. (& I think we've got enough highway off-ramps in this country thank you).
No. Many of us are delighted to have high density housing nextdoor, across the street, or on our own property. Many are glad for new rail lines, the closer the better. The people you mentioned are just NIMBYs.
Indeed, in my country the vast majority of people have nothing against new development near their neighbourhood. It’s always one or two people with way too much free time that are blocking development.
Yea exactly, OP’s argument is the same as
“if you want the government to pay more taxes you should just personally write a bigger check during tax time”
The underlying optimal game theoretic action is obvious (and therefore common), the problem are the laws that require you to respect the neighbors.
This is why state-wide anti-NIMBY laws can get passed, everyone thinks it won’t come for them so they let it pass. Let’s pass more of those and make em stronger.
> I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone tries to ruin their backyard tranquility. <
it's true. i have plenty of these friends too. owning land is structurally sociopathogenic. maybe the way to route around that is if you own land you instead get to vote on zoning/development projects one town over or something.
> I'm only half-joking here. I have plenty of notionally anti-NIMBY friends and they, without fail, are collecting petitions and protesting at planning meetings every time someone ruin their backyard tranquility. And I'm sure I'd be doing that too.
The "My Backyard" part of the shortcut explains that very well
> It reduces the debate to fighting some imagined, small class of property owners who oppose progress.
because it is exactly that. Just that "small" class" contains everyone that has a backyard and something else is there to affect their backyard.
"Sacrifice of an unit to benefit the whole long term" is concept people romanticise, but not preach.
Also like 80% NIMBY problems are caused specifically by housing and property being value store instead of utility. If your property is most of your net worth and you are still paying for its mortgage, any attack on its value is existential threat to your (and your family, and possibly your kid's inheritance) well being.
> If we're OK with that as a society, we should say so, and we should have streamlined ways to lessen these impacts instead of pretending they don't exist and it's all just irrationality of the select few. And once we have that, just build stuff - without years of reviews, environmental studies, lawsuits, and so forth.
Pretty much. If the loss of perceived value would be compensated above market value, there would be far less problems with it. But if the deal is "you get rough value of your house but now you need to dive into housing market again and hope you get decent deal that still have stuff you want around be around", who would want that? Even worse when compensation is low enough that you'd need to downgrade your standard of living.
nimbyism is a perfectly rational market behavior when land is untaxed - as it was with, say, prop 13.
Why on earth would you want your local "historic" San francisco launderette to be turned into apartments? New supply will hurt the resale value of your apartment.
nimbys behaving in a rational way are a nicer target than, say, the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation. That one is backed by fine, upstanding billionaires and not filthy middle class homeowners. We all know who is "really" to blame for all of this and it is not the billionaires who set the rules of the game, it is those who play it.
NIMBYism is even more rational when there is a land tax. When things get built near your land your tax burden will increase. Your example doesn’t work because getting rid of the laundromat will make the area more desirable and increase property value even if new housing is built.
getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability. it simply increased the supply of apartments to live in the area.
if your property's value remains unaffected by the supply of properties nearby you will be indifferent to it. in fact, if it's desirable not to you but to others you will be inclined to yield it because your tax bill jumped.
> getting rid of the SF laundromat had no impact on the area's desirability.
I think this is a crazy take. Why do some areas become more valuable? Clearly it is because dilapidated amenities leave and in demand ones move in. Removing the laundromat was textbook gentrification. New housing is itself an amenity and it also brings people with money who will support and grow other nearby amenities which increases desirability.
I believe it's common knowledge that SF got popular for reasons that are entirely unrelated to its redevelopment of historic laundromats.
Their non-linear storytelling is hard to keep me engaged tbh.
I just got a Gemini summary of it... While I'll take good writing over AI any day, I'd rather read an AI summary over meandering writing.
Didn't read the article, but regarding the title, this is kind of fundamental.
NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.
Capitalism largely lives on destroying particular places to benefit people who are [mostly] somewhere else.
This is the only thing happening in capitalism but it's a big part of it. The end game of this kind of capitalism is that every place is destroyed (ecologically) and it gradually grinds to a painful halt.
Maybe there's a way to have some elements of capitalism in a society that doesn't destroy places but I don't know.
> NIMBYs want to protect some aspects of a particular place usually because it is their home.
this is the reflex, and it's a sensible one to have. but the perception of what is or isnt a threat can range from something legitimate across the board ("I dont want a giant thing taking all the power and pumping my head full out sound 100% of the time near my home") to the truly detrimental ("I should get to be the last one moving into this area. Me moving to a place is good and fine; other people moving to where I live constitutes destruction. No new housing.")
NIMBYs forget they moved to where they live from somewhere, and they are not more important than other people on a societal level.
Totally agree - I don't mean to promote or defend all NIMBYism - and a lot of it is simply "I got mine and don't want to share".
And there's also something to be said for NIMBYs protecting the habitat they live in or near.
... does this article presume that lots of people want MORE capitalism?