Re:Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable hou...
by ghaff on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:21PM
(#15536145)
NIMBY is such a tired criticism. I live in an exurban/rural town on the East Coast. My town pretty consistently votes against major developments. We like the apple orchards and forest land like it is. We don’t want suburban style developments that increase traffic and taxes or industrial development outside of the light industry on the north side of town near the highway. If you want to call it NIMBY go ahead. As far as I’m concerned it’s just voting for how the local community should be.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable hou...
by mikeash on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:30PM
(#15536223)
I feel like if you want to control what gets built on a certain parcel of land, you should own it. If you want to keep those apple orchards around, make a better offer when a developer tries to buy them out.
Re:Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable hou...
by ghaff on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:39PM
(#15536295)
As a practical matter that means no one except the very richest could live anywhere and have any control over arbitrary construction happening next door or their neighborhood as a whole. There’s plenty of precedent throughout history of groups taking collective actions based on the will of the majority.
Re:Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable hou...
by mikeash on Monday October 23, 2017 @03:47PM
(#15536359)
Why should a person have any control over arbitrary construction happening in their neighborhood?
Re:Bay Area hammered by loss of jobs: Lack of affordable hou...
by davidw on Monday October 23, 2017 @05:28PM
(#15537084)
If you want to keep wild lands, the best way to do so is to increase density where people already live.
And the best way to do that is probably via a market-based, incremental approach: not everyone is going to sell out and turn their SFH into flats right away - it'd be gradual.