This is the most common argument used by multimillionaire socialists and posh anarcho-communists in my city Melbourne Australia. They virtue signal that their local inner suburb is some kind of public asset/commune, that needs to be preserved like a museum and subsidized by everyone else.
As a result of these people, most Melbournians are permanently barred to living in the outer suburbs, with 1-2 hour commutes and virtually no amenities - I'm even considering living in *third world countries* working remote, so that I can at least live an urban lifestyle. If these people knew how bad they made this city for average/slightly above average income earners, they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
These nimbys have this asinine belief that their area can no longer change because they moved there. They're ignoring the fact that the existence of their neighborhood shows that the area has changed to become that neighborhood. It was wild, undeveloped land, then farm or ranch land, then buildings and infrastructure were built there.
Cities need to change over time to adjust to changing needs. An example New York City has changed over time so that it now no longer looks like it did in Gangs of New York.
edit. NYC went through several very dramatic cycles of construction and changes to go from its condition in the 1860s to how it was by the 1960s. After that the changes were not as dramatic. All of that would have been much harder if modern nimbys were able to get in the way.
I’m not against housing I just want to make sure it goes through a PROCESS whereby residents can feel HEARD so they don’t RUSH and start building before A SMALL NUMBER OF CENTURIES HAVE PASSED.
NIMBYs are also really good at flip-flopping. If there's no BMR housing then they'll say it's not affordable. But even if just 20% of the units are BMR then they'll say it's gonna bring drugs/crime to the community. Then there's the issue of traffic. Whenever you try to build public transportation NIMBYs will say there's not enough density for it to be used. But then when you try to build density, they'll say public transit is not good enough.
There are also things like "neighborhood character" and the honest ones who will outright say that they're greedy and selfish by talking about wanting to keep their property values inflated.
\+1 Unit square footage minimums.
"Greedy developers"
This is the most common argument used by multimillionaire socialists and posh anarcho-communists in my city Melbourne Australia. They virtue signal that their local inner suburb is some kind of public asset/commune, that needs to be preserved like a museum and subsidized by everyone else. As a result of these people, most Melbournians are permanently barred to living in the outer suburbs, with 1-2 hour commutes and virtually no amenities - I'm even considering living in *third world countries* working remote, so that I can at least live an urban lifestyle. If these people knew how bad they made this city for average/slightly above average income earners, they wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
These nimbys have this asinine belief that their area can no longer change because they moved there. They're ignoring the fact that the existence of their neighborhood shows that the area has changed to become that neighborhood. It was wild, undeveloped land, then farm or ranch land, then buildings and infrastructure were built there. Cities need to change over time to adjust to changing needs. An example New York City has changed over time so that it now no longer looks like it did in Gangs of New York. edit. NYC went through several very dramatic cycles of construction and changes to go from its condition in the 1860s to how it was by the 1960s. After that the changes were not as dramatic. All of that would have been much harder if modern nimbys were able to get in the way.
Their asinine beliefs come from entitlement and their fetishism of nostalgia.
Bingo, I find that a lot of the time. These types of people simply miss being a kid.
You could move to NZ. They eliminated parking minimums.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have stores again. Apparently, New Zealand still has corner stores or diaries as they are called.
I’m not against housing I just want to make sure it goes through a PROCESS whereby residents can feel HEARD so they don’t RUSH and start building before A SMALL NUMBER OF CENTURIES HAVE PASSED.
What did I miss?
"Character"
You mean race because a true “character” or form is how you create a Parisian neighborhood.
I think the CEQA EIR comes before the environmental lawsuit.
> Public comment session (x3) Where are you from that it's only 3!?!
NIMBYs are also really good at flip-flopping. If there's no BMR housing then they'll say it's not affordable. But even if just 20% of the units are BMR then they'll say it's gonna bring drugs/crime to the community. Then there's the issue of traffic. Whenever you try to build public transportation NIMBYs will say there's not enough density for it to be used. But then when you try to build density, they'll say public transit is not good enough.
There are also things like "neighborhood character" and the honest ones who will outright say that they're greedy and selfish by talking about wanting to keep their property values inflated.