My question with these NIMBY debates is how rational is the fear of any new housing for homeowners in wealthy areas? How much would one 14-story apartment building decrease home values in a neighborhood? 10%? 20%? 50%? I have no idea about the economics of it but I'm wondering whats the true loss for these homeowners that have them so fearful of new housing. Without a significant loss of property value from small amounts of affordable housing in the area, the only other fear is the slippery slope argument that any additional housing will open the floodgates, which seems ridiculous on its face.
I'd wager that purely economic concerns ("oh no, my property values!") are only a part of it. I think some of them don't want "temporary" people (i.e., renters) living in their neighborhood, or high-density buildings blocking their view, or an influx of neighbors increasing traffic and decreasing parking. Or change, in general, from a status quo that fits them just fine.
Decades of redlining have conditioned people to associate minorities moving into a neighborhood with the decline of property values. Black and brown people appearing on sidewalks is a signal to sell and move to a nicer neighborhood. If you don’t, your other white neighbors will and you’ll be the sucker left with a house you can’t sell as its value plummets. It’s called “white flight”.
That’s what this this issue is really about. Poor people = minorities. NIMBYs want to keep the minorities out of their neighborhood because they’ll trigger white flight.
I've lived in both poor areas and very affluent areas.
I don't think that poor people = minorities is true at all. There are plenty of minority neighborhoods where the residents are extremely caring.
Some of the worst neighborhoods I've been in have been low-income white. Constantly woken up by pounding on walls, smashing doors, police coming due to domestic violence, drug-use.
If I had to chose, I'd live in a minority neighborhood rather than one of low socio-economic status.
> rational is the fear of any new housing for homeowners in wealthy areas
That's the wrong question. The question is how strongly are irrational fears; more specifically, how strongly are the irrational fears of the minority of activist NIMBYs?
The understand the problem you have to understand how the process works and how its abused. The response to the massive urban projects of the 1960s and 1970s was to increase so-called community involvement. In a city like San Francisco, pulling a permit for even a minor project can result in hearing after hearing. There are people who dedicate all their free time to going to these hearings to raise objections. Objections need to be dealt with individually. If they don't then NIMBYs can go to elected officials to complain that community input procedures aren't being followed, or even go to court to obtain an injunction.
The ins and outs are complex and vary widely by jurisdiction. But the short story is that there's an extremely vocal minority who cause a huge amount of trouble by abusing process. The NIMBY vanguard can assemble larger opposition groups if a project moves too far along as they're adept at FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Though most people don't have strong opinions, they're naturally biased toward the status quo and therefore susceptible to extremist NIMBYs' FUD campaigns. They assume that when they see smoke there must be a fire, but in truth the extremist NIMBYs spend their lives blowing smoke. It's just that the only people who usually see it are the city hall employees and elected officials.
Agencies and developers know the drill so the process has gotten stricter and longer in anticipation of the community input phase. But it hasn't helped anything; it's just a symptom and part of the downward spiral of chaos.
Once upon a time poor communities bore the brunt of imposed development. But now there are professional community activists who have the knowhow and wherewithal to push back. Indeed, part of the reason for the more community-involved process was precisely to even the playing field. But just as before when community input was only a matter of holding your representative's feet to the fire, richer neighborhoods are more adept and more capable of using this process. So while poorer communities are better at pushing back, the end result is that there's simply less overall development.
For an existing property owner, any construction, noise or inconvenience is a "taking" that they can avoid by protesting. It's rational when you think about it - what's in it for them?
Also, developers are shysters who are profiting from that disruption. Why should existing owners help them?
8 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 31.6 ms ] threadThat’s what this this issue is really about. Poor people = minorities. NIMBYs want to keep the minorities out of their neighborhood because they’ll trigger white flight.
I don't think that poor people = minorities is true at all. There are plenty of minority neighborhoods where the residents are extremely caring.
Some of the worst neighborhoods I've been in have been low-income white. Constantly woken up by pounding on walls, smashing doors, police coming due to domestic violence, drug-use.
If I had to chose, I'd live in a minority neighborhood rather than one of low socio-economic status.
And not only that, figure the last generation of homebuyers would be well underwater with a 20% decrease.
That's the wrong question. The question is how strongly are irrational fears; more specifically, how strongly are the irrational fears of the minority of activist NIMBYs?
The understand the problem you have to understand how the process works and how its abused. The response to the massive urban projects of the 1960s and 1970s was to increase so-called community involvement. In a city like San Francisco, pulling a permit for even a minor project can result in hearing after hearing. There are people who dedicate all their free time to going to these hearings to raise objections. Objections need to be dealt with individually. If they don't then NIMBYs can go to elected officials to complain that community input procedures aren't being followed, or even go to court to obtain an injunction.
The ins and outs are complex and vary widely by jurisdiction. But the short story is that there's an extremely vocal minority who cause a huge amount of trouble by abusing process. The NIMBY vanguard can assemble larger opposition groups if a project moves too far along as they're adept at FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). Though most people don't have strong opinions, they're naturally biased toward the status quo and therefore susceptible to extremist NIMBYs' FUD campaigns. They assume that when they see smoke there must be a fire, but in truth the extremist NIMBYs spend their lives blowing smoke. It's just that the only people who usually see it are the city hall employees and elected officials.
Agencies and developers know the drill so the process has gotten stricter and longer in anticipation of the community input phase. But it hasn't helped anything; it's just a symptom and part of the downward spiral of chaos.
Once upon a time poor communities bore the brunt of imposed development. But now there are professional community activists who have the knowhow and wherewithal to push back. Indeed, part of the reason for the more community-involved process was precisely to even the playing field. But just as before when community input was only a matter of holding your representative's feet to the fire, richer neighborhoods are more adept and more capable of using this process. So while poorer communities are better at pushing back, the end result is that there's simply less overall development.
Also, developers are shysters who are profiting from that disruption. Why should existing owners help them?
So those are the underlying issues to address.