7 ms·

Genuine question, how is giving even more (hyper)local control gonna solve it? This is the exact breeding ground for NIMBYism and the like. The author doesn't r

by fpo 3y ago

Genuine question, how is giving even more (hyper)local control gonna solve it? This is the exact breeding ground for NIMBYism and the like. The author doesn't really present an argument in favor of that, just sort of drops it as an assertion in the end with a CYA "but yea maybe I'm wrong".

Eumenes 3y ago
Whats wrong with locals deciding local issues?
- CalRobert 3y ago
  They profit by blocking other people from becoming locals.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    This seems like an unwarranted assumption. Some people are going to want to keep others out, other people will have a different attitude. Why would you assume the incentives run the same way for everyone?
    - burnished 3y ago
      Because the outcomes all seem to be the same.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      When the phenomenon locks out development in an entire municipality, we can stop discussing it as a benign consumer/resident preference, and start discussing it as the public policy problem it is. That's where we're at now. In the US, I look at it this way: once you get your own school system, you surrender the moral authority to erect barriers to entry for new residents.
    - cultureswitch 3y ago
      They don't, but empirically the overwhelming majority of people who are property owners in some area will either do nothing or actively oppose new housing being built in their area.
- fpo 3y ago
  That's a separate question. But I think all evidences points to that NOT solving any housing crises.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The Collective Action Problem. Locals have a concentrated interest in preventing development. The broader public's interest in there being housing outweighs that, but it's diffuse. You see the same thing play out over and over again in cities around the world: it's so much easier to organize opposition to housing than support that no housing gets built.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Sounds good to me. I don't really care for the masses/others.
    - BirdieNZ 3y ago
      Just take this a step further, bring "local" all the way down to "the person who owns the land". Let the locals decide what to do on the land they own. If they want an apartment, or a store, or a giant mansion in the middle of 20 acres, as long as they own the land let them do it! They're the most local individual, right?
      - Eumenes 3y ago
        I'd rather just manipulate zoning laws to prohibit soviet style apartment blocks from appearing in my little slice of heaven
        tptacek 3y ago
        To a US suburban resident in a single-family lot, any apartment building is a Soviet-style apartment block.
        smcl 3y ago
        In any HN discussion on housing there is inevitably a couple of people acting like you’re trying to build a krushchevka on their lawn. It’s like if we pretended all detached housing was like the infamous “groverhaus”[0]. The user you’re replying to appears to be getting a kick out of trolling as a NIMBY, slightly odd but it takes all sorts I suppose. [0] - best source is unfortunately knowyourmeme @ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/groverhaus https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/groverhaus the phrase “load-bearing dry wall” appears
- arcticbull 3y ago
  You end up with people trying to optimize for their own personal well-being at a micro level leading to an untenable macro-level situation.
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Sounds good to me. I tend to try and optimize for my own well being over the the macro-level of society, as most do.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Which is why you shouldn't be in charge of making those kinds of decisions :) neither should I, for similar reasons.
    - govolckurself 3y ago
      [dead]
- davidsawyer 3y ago
  Developer: "Hi neighbor, would you like me to build a house so that someone can live in it? Do keep in mind that it would increase housing supply in your area, thus increasing supply and putting downward pressure on your property's value. That okay?" Neighbor: "No, thank you!"
  - Eumenes 3y ago
    Sounds good to me. I'm surrounded by woods, I'd 100% oppose any development around me.
    - nmfisher 3y ago
      Understandable on a personal level, but bad policy. Other people's right to have somewhere to live trumps your right to be surrounded by woods. That's an opinion, of course, but I can't see how any other opinion leads to a stable outcome for society at large.
    - SgtBastard 3y ago
      Do you own the woods around you? If not, it’s these attitudes as to why we can’t have nice things.
- dionidium 3y ago
  Nothing, so long as their decisions don't abridge other fundamental rights. I can't speak to Ireland, but we've pretty clearly in the U.S. created a regime that fundamentally violates foundational principles of private property.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Because "local issues" aren't just local issues, as much as NIMBYs hope to frame it that way for persuasion purposes. There are larger global effects. In this case, a crippling housing crisis, leading to disenfranchisement and alienation of large swathes of the populace, leading to human suffering, inequality, and political extremism.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  I actually support that. That's why I think someone local to a plot of land is the person who should decide what to build there.
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  The problem is which locals end up being those that dominate the deciding. What we've seen happen over the decades is that those with the most amount of time and money available end up drowning out the voices of others, as they have more time to devote. So inevitably older, wealthy, established interests end up dominating the discussion as younger, marginalized, working class people are too busy just trying to get by to engage in local planning. Accordingly the local consultative process ends up favouring the older wealthy and established land owning locals and not the marginalized working renter class locals.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  There isn’t enough housing. To solve this we must do some of the following: - Increase density of living in existing stock (no more solo pensioners living in mansions) - Increase housing stock This will have to impact someone, somewhere. All locals will say no so the problem will not get solved by local groups. More fair is that there is a process by which the impact is spread somewhat evenly and extreme impact is avoided entirely. This cannot be coordinated by locals because they have no incentive to take on any of the burden.
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
I think the unstated assumption is that if you limit the number of people who have a say enough, a developer could just offer kickbacks to the lot. It's hard to change people's mind by giving a lot of people a little money. It's much easier to give fewer people a modest amount of money.
bo1024 3y ago
It turns 'sell your house to a developer' into a prisoner's dilemma. If every other block is zoned single-family and your block votes to rezone for large apartment buildings, the value of your property goes up. Of course, then every block should do vote yes, and then the value of everyone's property goes down. And lots of housing gets built. (City-wide NIMBYism is a solution to the prisoner's dilemma: band together to require that nobody be allowed to redevelop.) Disclaimer: armchair analysis.

by fpo 3y ago

Eumenes 3y ago

Whats wrong with locals deciding local issues?

CalRobert 3y ago
They profit by blocking other people from becoming locals.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  This seems like an unwarranted assumption. Some people are going to want to keep others out, other people will have a different attitude. Why would you assume the incentives run the same way for everyone?
  - burnished 3y ago
    Because the outcomes all seem to be the same.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    When the phenomenon locks out development in an entire municipality, we can stop discussing it as a benign consumer/resident preference, and start discussing it as the public policy problem it is. That's where we're at now. In the US, I look at it this way: once you get your own school system, you surrender the moral authority to erect barriers to entry for new residents.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    They don't, but empirically the overwhelming majority of people who are property owners in some area will either do nothing or actively oppose new housing being built in their area.
fpo 3y ago
That's a separate question. But I think all evidences points to that NOT solving any housing crises.
tptacek 3y ago
The Collective Action Problem. Locals have a concentrated interest in preventing development. The broader public's interest in there being housing outweighs that, but it's diffuse. You see the same thing play out over and over again in cities around the world: it's so much easier to organize opposition to housing than support that no housing gets built.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Sounds good to me. I don't really care for the masses/others.
  - BirdieNZ 3y ago
    Just take this a step further, bring "local" all the way down to "the person who owns the land". Let the locals decide what to do on the land they own. If they want an apartment, or a store, or a giant mansion in the middle of 20 acres, as long as they own the land let them do it! They're the most local individual, right?
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      I'd rather just manipulate zoning laws to prohibit soviet style apartment blocks from appearing in my little slice of heaven
      - tptacek 3y ago
        To a US suburban resident in a single-family lot, any apartment building is a Soviet-style apartment block.
        smcl 3y ago
        In any HN discussion on housing there is inevitably a couple of people acting like you’re trying to build a krushchevka on their lawn. It’s like if we pretended all detached housing was like the infamous “groverhaus”[0]. The user you’re replying to appears to be getting a kick out of trolling as a NIMBY, slightly odd but it takes all sorts I suppose. [0] - best source is unfortunately knowyourmeme @ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/groverhaus https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/groverhaus the phrase “load-bearing dry wall” appears
arcticbull 3y ago
You end up with people trying to optimize for their own personal well-being at a micro level leading to an untenable macro-level situation.
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Sounds good to me. I tend to try and optimize for my own well being over the the macro-level of society, as most do.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Which is why you shouldn't be in charge of making those kinds of decisions :) neither should I, for similar reasons.
  - govolckurself 3y ago
    [dead]
davidsawyer 3y ago
Developer: "Hi neighbor, would you like me to build a house so that someone can live in it? Do keep in mind that it would increase housing supply in your area, thus increasing supply and putting downward pressure on your property's value. That okay?" Neighbor: "No, thank you!"
- Eumenes 3y ago
  Sounds good to me. I'm surrounded by woods, I'd 100% oppose any development around me.
  - nmfisher 3y ago
    Understandable on a personal level, but bad policy. Other people's right to have somewhere to live trumps your right to be surrounded by woods. That's an opinion, of course, but I can't see how any other opinion leads to a stable outcome for society at large.
  - SgtBastard 3y ago
    Do you own the woods around you? If not, it’s these attitudes as to why we can’t have nice things.
dionidium 3y ago
Nothing, so long as their decisions don't abridge other fundamental rights. I can't speak to Ireland, but we've pretty clearly in the U.S. created a regime that fundamentally violates foundational principles of private property.
hackerlight 3y ago
Because "local issues" aren't just local issues, as much as NIMBYs hope to frame it that way for persuasion purposes. There are larger global effects. In this case, a crippling housing crisis, leading to disenfranchisement and alienation of large swathes of the populace, leading to human suffering, inequality, and political extremism.
renewiltord 3y ago
I actually support that. That's why I think someone local to a plot of land is the person who should decide what to build there.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
The problem is which locals end up being those that dominate the deciding. What we've seen happen over the decades is that those with the most amount of time and money available end up drowning out the voices of others, as they have more time to devote. So inevitably older, wealthy, established interests end up dominating the discussion as younger, marginalized, working class people are too busy just trying to get by to engage in local planning. Accordingly the local consultative process ends up favouring the older wealthy and established land owning locals and not the marginalized working renter class locals.
pharmakom 3y ago
There isn’t enough housing. To solve this we must do some of the following: - Increase density of living in existing stock (no more solo pensioners living in mansions) - Increase housing stock This will have to impact someone, somewhere. All locals will say no so the problem will not get solved by local groups. More fair is that there is a process by which the impact is spread somewhat evenly and extreme impact is avoided entirely. This cannot be coordinated by locals because they have no incentive to take on any of the burden.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago

I think the unstated assumption is that if you limit the number of people who have a say enough, a developer could just offer kickbacks to the lot. It's hard to change people's mind by giving a lot of people a little money. It's much easier to give fewer people a modest amount of money.

bo1024 3y ago

It turns 'sell your house to a developer' into a prisoner's dilemma. If every other block is zoned single-family and your block votes to rezone for large apartment buildings, the value of your property goes up. Of course, then every block should do vote yes, and then the value of everyone's property goes down. And lots of housing gets built. (City-wide NIMBYism is a solution to the prisoner's dilemma: band together to require that nobody be allowed to redevelop.) Disclaimer: armchair analysis.