No, I am NOT a NIMBY! My neighbors asked me to sign a petition to stop the county from approving a new townhome development. I refused. "People have to live SOMEWHERE." I told them. NIMBY's are the people who don't want others to use their private property as they see fit. They oppose backyard chickens. And painting your house a color that doesn't meet with their approval. Sometimes even flying the flag. Our area recently incorporated because they wanted to stop the building of - well, ANYTHING really. But specifically apartment buildings.
NIMBYISM is one of the most destructive forces in America right now. It's why we can't have high speed rail. It's why housing is so expensive. It's one of the major forces behind ICE forces occupying major cities. The NIMBY's want these people GONE. In the NIMBY mind, they aren't supposed to be here, they weren't invited, they weren't vetted, and they need to be arrested and sent back to where they came from, consequences be damned.
Of course, governments could do a better job of controlling growth. Maybe if they added lanes to the roads BEFORE they put up the apartments. And built new schools first. Growth is good, but it's not without its problems. Failure to address or even acknowledge those problems has led to the rise of the NIMBY army. But if you think you hate living in an area that's growing, you would REALLY hate living in one that's dying. There, the schools are closing. So are the hospitals. People leave. Jobs go away. Stores are shuttered. Sometimes, a city council puts together a program to lure businesses back, which attracts new residents. That's what they did in Springfield, Ohio. And we all know how that turned out.
No Merrie. Those are just the NIMBYs you disagree with. The NIMBYs you agree with stand with you in opposition to them. We are all NIMBYs or we become serfs.
As a Florida resident currently doing an Everglades study with my grandson I object to being called a Nimby. They Everglades is the source of drinking water for most of the state of Florida. Putting raw sewage and construction materials into the water is not good for the entire state. Having lights on 24 seven is not good for the wildlife. So you’re either in favor of treating people like animals and putting them in cages or you’re in favor of having a source of water for the entire state of Florida. The Everglades is actually the backyard for the entire state of Florida.
The "backyard" in NIMBY is a bit more expansive than one's literal back yard. NIMBYs opposing things like high speed rail aren't doing so because the train tracks are literally on their property.
A NIMBY *would* oppose backyard chickens for the morning noise pollution from roosters, the smell of a chicken coop wafting onto their patio, etc.
We really have different definitions of the acronym. A YIMBY ascents to central government determining what happens in my backyard, whether I can or can’t have chickens or who has rights on my property. A NIMBY doesn’t consent to that. The specific sides of individual issues are not part of that equation.
In my definition, the issue is less about central gov't and more about externalities. A NIMBY wants to keep the status quo - that is, one without any new externalities being heaped upon them. A YIMBY is one who looks at the externalities and determines that they're worth the benefit that the change will bring.
To use a Chicago example, on the northeast corner of Irving Park and Sheridan roads is an empty lot that was once housing. It sits fallow, despite being in a great location across from the Sheridan Red Line train station. Let's say that a developer purchases that tract of land (currently owned by Thorek Hospital) and decides that it's going to build an eight story apartment complex.
It'll inflict the following externalities on local residents:
* More crowding and traffic and activity.
* Worries about increased crime.
* Worries about further gentrifying the neighborhood.
* More stress on our existing city services.
* Lower residential property values and rents (due to more supply).
The benefits for local residents include:
* Lower rents and mortgages. Folks on the verge of being priced out of the neighborhood get a respite.
* More population brings in new local businesses.
* Helps address the local homeless problems by increasing the supply of housing for everyone.
* Puts a fallow lot to economically-productive work.
Every knee-jerk NIMBY that I know would oppose the development due to the externalities alone, without taking into account the benefits. A YIMBY at least looks at the benefits and makes a calculation that the benefits are worth the costs incurred. (If the costs are NOT worth the benefit, YIMBY becomes a NIMBY, but one who's at least considered the entire picture.)
Note that the central gov't has nothing to do in this case (other than zoning) and the construction happens on land wholly owned by a private party.
A NIMBY wants to use the government to control what people can do with their property. The best example is in housing, where zoning regulations prevent the building of anything but single-family housing - sometimes with minimum lot sizes involved.
NIMBYs want nothing to change: they'll use "neighborhood character" as an excuse to not allow for denser housing. They'll use environmental laws to prevent in-fill housing from being built, which then leads to sprawl and destruction of the very environment those laws were intended to protect. Or they'll say it's gentrification to build more housing in a neighborhood, when really stopping any housing development makes the prices rise to unaffordable levels and creates the very gentrification they claim to hate.
I think it's best to view it with nuance, similar to regulation: some regulations are for the public good, and others are intended to protect certain private interests that may go against the public good. Being able to understand those nuances is a necessity towards making good policy.
Proud Atlanta NIMBY. Recently signed a petition for a lengthy environmental review to keep PDK from adding hangar space. Real motive? Don’t want the noise from added flights.
On Abundance and more affordable housing, same deal - no dice. Why should I support the exact same people who systematically destabilize communities with their bullshit soft on crime policies and “equity” in schools? If these clowns want an affordable house, then they should move to the south side where their preferred social programs are already in place…and housing is drastically undervalued as a result.
They can either be high functioning normal adults and go gentrify a place, or they can go broke paying to live near such people. But voting their way out of the consequences of their own agenda via zoning changes is a nonstarter. Not in my backyard! It’s huge, like a private park, and I have our county commissioner on speed dial. Deal with it, Outlander!
One ATLien quibble with an otherwise fine piece. I believe most of the Stop Cop City weirdos are from out of town. Hence their almost total lack of council and broader support. Local support is important. Governance is just steering, and in this country we self govern. My impression of most YIMBY’s is that they’re not actually pushing to open their own patch, they want to open someone else’s. Hence their lack of local support in most cases, and their need to obfuscate and shame and whine about stuff instead of doing it.
Well, I hope that you are very comfortable down there in Dekalb County. Because my neighbors up here in Gwinnett are determined to keep anyone else from moving up here.
You should thank your neighbors. They’re doing what they can to maintain quality of life and property values. At present, Gwinnett is at a fork in the road. Go the way of Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, and Douglas. Or go the way of north Fulton, North DeKalb, and east Cobb.
The former kept building and kept putting up more and more affordable housing, until crime went up and schools went down and property values cratered.
In the latter, property owners with agency used zoning, city-hood, and the maintenance of standards to keep things nice. Ergo now they’re “unaffordable.” My guess is that Gwinnett takes the latter path. Lots of high agency immigrants there. At the first sign of trouble, they’ll bail.
Well, part of that is also how many developments are HOAs - and HOAs are effectively the local government...
Schools close when there aren't enough students or a large enough tax base to pay for the costs. Part of that is due to limiting growth (stagnancy is death), and partly it's people staying in-place after their children age out of the district.
The bigger issue with preventing dense housing is that it does lead to sprawl, which then requires even more resources - pavement for roads, sewer and water pipes, electrical/gas service, etc... - to serve the larger area.
Everyone does have to live somewhere but without planning, amenities and other facilities become unusable. There's also a reason criminals and other undesirables move to urban areas.
People live in urban areas because urban areas are desirable and productive. It's not a lack of planning: if anything, planning has been overly-stringent in many cities, leading to lack of development and investment. This leads to higher housing costs, displacement of long-term residents, and all that those issues bring.
All that changes quickly when capacities are exceeded and criminals. druggies, homeless derelicts, gangs and illegals move in. Then, the more normal people become targets and prey and victims.
My question is did you bring your wife down from up north or is she a Georgia girl? I've had the same wife for 63 years and I can't imagine her getting on a roof much less putting a tarp on one.
No, I am NOT a NIMBY! My neighbors asked me to sign a petition to stop the county from approving a new townhome development. I refused. "People have to live SOMEWHERE." I told them. NIMBY's are the people who don't want others to use their private property as they see fit. They oppose backyard chickens. And painting your house a color that doesn't meet with their approval. Sometimes even flying the flag. Our area recently incorporated because they wanted to stop the building of - well, ANYTHING really. But specifically apartment buildings.
NIMBYISM is one of the most destructive forces in America right now. It's why we can't have high speed rail. It's why housing is so expensive. It's one of the major forces behind ICE forces occupying major cities. The NIMBY's want these people GONE. In the NIMBY mind, they aren't supposed to be here, they weren't invited, they weren't vetted, and they need to be arrested and sent back to where they came from, consequences be damned.
Of course, governments could do a better job of controlling growth. Maybe if they added lanes to the roads BEFORE they put up the apartments. And built new schools first. Growth is good, but it's not without its problems. Failure to address or even acknowledge those problems has led to the rise of the NIMBY army. But if you think you hate living in an area that's growing, you would REALLY hate living in one that's dying. There, the schools are closing. So are the hospitals. People leave. Jobs go away. Stores are shuttered. Sometimes, a city council puts together a program to lure businesses back, which attracts new residents. That's what they did in Springfield, Ohio. And we all know how that turned out.
No Merrie. Those are just the NIMBYs you disagree with. The NIMBYs you agree with stand with you in opposition to them. We are all NIMBYs or we become serfs.
If Merrie's YIMBYism is really NIMBYism in disguise, then does the term NIMBY really have any useful meaning?
From the way I've always read the term, NIMBYism walks hand-in-hand with keeping things the way they are and resisting the disruption of change.
As a Florida resident currently doing an Everglades study with my grandson I object to being called a Nimby. They Everglades is the source of drinking water for most of the state of Florida. Putting raw sewage and construction materials into the water is not good for the entire state. Having lights on 24 seven is not good for the wildlife. So you’re either in favor of treating people like animals and putting them in cages or you’re in favor of having a source of water for the entire state of Florida. The Everglades is actually the backyard for the entire state of Florida.
But NIMBYs don’t oppose backyard chickens. Private property is private.
The "backyard" in NIMBY is a bit more expansive than one's literal back yard. NIMBYs opposing things like high speed rail aren't doing so because the train tracks are literally on their property.
A NIMBY *would* oppose backyard chickens for the morning noise pollution from roosters, the smell of a chicken coop wafting onto their patio, etc.
We really have different definitions of the acronym. A YIMBY ascents to central government determining what happens in my backyard, whether I can or can’t have chickens or who has rights on my property. A NIMBY doesn’t consent to that. The specific sides of individual issues are not part of that equation.
In my definition, the issue is less about central gov't and more about externalities. A NIMBY wants to keep the status quo - that is, one without any new externalities being heaped upon them. A YIMBY is one who looks at the externalities and determines that they're worth the benefit that the change will bring.
To use a Chicago example, on the northeast corner of Irving Park and Sheridan roads is an empty lot that was once housing. It sits fallow, despite being in a great location across from the Sheridan Red Line train station. Let's say that a developer purchases that tract of land (currently owned by Thorek Hospital) and decides that it's going to build an eight story apartment complex.
It'll inflict the following externalities on local residents:
* More crowding and traffic and activity.
* Worries about increased crime.
* Worries about further gentrifying the neighborhood.
* More stress on our existing city services.
* Lower residential property values and rents (due to more supply).
The benefits for local residents include:
* Lower rents and mortgages. Folks on the verge of being priced out of the neighborhood get a respite.
* More population brings in new local businesses.
* Helps address the local homeless problems by increasing the supply of housing for everyone.
* Puts a fallow lot to economically-productive work.
Every knee-jerk NIMBY that I know would oppose the development due to the externalities alone, without taking into account the benefits. A YIMBY at least looks at the benefits and makes a calculation that the benefits are worth the costs incurred. (If the costs are NOT worth the benefit, YIMBY becomes a NIMBY, but one who's at least considered the entire picture.)
Note that the central gov't has nothing to do in this case (other than zoning) and the construction happens on land wholly owned by a private party.
A NIMBY wants to use the government to control what people can do with their property. The best example is in housing, where zoning regulations prevent the building of anything but single-family housing - sometimes with minimum lot sizes involved.
NIMBYs want nothing to change: they'll use "neighborhood character" as an excuse to not allow for denser housing. They'll use environmental laws to prevent in-fill housing from being built, which then leads to sprawl and destruction of the very environment those laws were intended to protect. Or they'll say it's gentrification to build more housing in a neighborhood, when really stopping any housing development makes the prices rise to unaffordable levels and creates the very gentrification they claim to hate.
I think it's best to view it with nuance, similar to regulation: some regulations are for the public good, and others are intended to protect certain private interests that may go against the public good. Being able to understand those nuances is a necessity towards making good policy.
Proud Atlanta NIMBY. Recently signed a petition for a lengthy environmental review to keep PDK from adding hangar space. Real motive? Don’t want the noise from added flights.
On Abundance and more affordable housing, same deal - no dice. Why should I support the exact same people who systematically destabilize communities with their bullshit soft on crime policies and “equity” in schools? If these clowns want an affordable house, then they should move to the south side where their preferred social programs are already in place…and housing is drastically undervalued as a result.
They can either be high functioning normal adults and go gentrify a place, or they can go broke paying to live near such people. But voting their way out of the consequences of their own agenda via zoning changes is a nonstarter. Not in my backyard! It’s huge, like a private park, and I have our county commissioner on speed dial. Deal with it, Outlander!
One ATLien quibble with an otherwise fine piece. I believe most of the Stop Cop City weirdos are from out of town. Hence their almost total lack of council and broader support. Local support is important. Governance is just steering, and in this country we self govern. My impression of most YIMBY’s is that they’re not actually pushing to open their own patch, they want to open someone else’s. Hence their lack of local support in most cases, and their need to obfuscate and shame and whine about stuff instead of doing it.
Well, I hope that you are very comfortable down there in Dekalb County. Because my neighbors up here in Gwinnett are determined to keep anyone else from moving up here.
You should thank your neighbors. They’re doing what they can to maintain quality of life and property values. At present, Gwinnett is at a fork in the road. Go the way of Rockdale, Clayton, Henry, and Douglas. Or go the way of north Fulton, North DeKalb, and east Cobb.
The former kept building and kept putting up more and more affordable housing, until crime went up and schools went down and property values cratered.
In the latter, property owners with agency used zoning, city-hood, and the maintenance of standards to keep things nice. Ergo now they’re “unaffordable.” My guess is that Gwinnett takes the latter path. Lots of high agency immigrants there. At the first sign of trouble, they’ll bail.
Well, part of that is also how many developments are HOAs - and HOAs are effectively the local government...
Schools close when there aren't enough students or a large enough tax base to pay for the costs. Part of that is due to limiting growth (stagnancy is death), and partly it's people staying in-place after their children age out of the district.
The bigger issue with preventing dense housing is that it does lead to sprawl, which then requires even more resources - pavement for roads, sewer and water pipes, electrical/gas service, etc... - to serve the larger area.
Everyone does have to live somewhere but without planning, amenities and other facilities become unusable. There's also a reason criminals and other undesirables move to urban areas.
People live in urban areas because urban areas are desirable and productive. It's not a lack of planning: if anything, planning has been overly-stringent in many cities, leading to lack of development and investment. This leads to higher housing costs, displacement of long-term residents, and all that those issues bring.
All that changes quickly when capacities are exceeded and criminals. druggies, homeless derelicts, gangs and illegals move in. Then, the more normal people become targets and prey and victims.
And that's where the problem with capacity being artificially constrained comes into play.
Astounding that you referenced “Cop City”. Well done. Surprised, but well done.
I shouldn’t be caught off guard, I guess.
My question is did you bring your wife down from up north or is she a Georgia girl? I've had the same wife for 63 years and I can't imagine her getting on a roof much less putting a tarp on one.
She’s a Georgia native.
Lucky guy.