patrick.net

The single family suburban sprawl created by the NIMBY folks is the cause of the traffic gridlock in the Bay Area as it makes public transportation uneconomical.

Why stop at state takover of cities? Let's go straight to Fed taking over states. At least the latter will improve our 2nd Amendment situation.

You will never get rid of NIMBY. You could sharply reduce their influence on politicians by changes in the law, State or Federal.

We need NMIBY vs YIMBY on the ballot box.
Let the people decide.

tovarichpeter says

The single family suburban sprawl created by the NIMBY folks is the cause of the traffic gridlock in the Bay Area as it makes public transportation uneconomical.

You say that like a Tyrant central planner.... The liberty and freedom afforded an individual by a personal auto is not something someone should think public transportation is the magic bullet for.

When the majority of people that already live in an area say population density is high enough, thank you very much, that should be respected. The distribution of workplaces is something that should be looked at to relocate employment around the "urban-sprawl" that you so hate.

ForcedTQ says

When the majority of people that already live in an area say population density is high enough, thank you very much, that should be respected.

We live in a free country. No one has the right to stop anyone from moving to anywhere.

Strategist says

ForcedTQ says

When the majority of people that already live in an area say population density is high enough, thank you very much, that should be respected.

We live in a free country. No one has the right to stop anyone from moving to anywhere.

Oh you think so, huh? So if a group of people got together and wrote zoning laws that identified the area to have x amount of dwellings per acre and no more?

Oh yeah, those exist. So you want to do away with those? This isn't about stopping anyone from moving to anywhere. If there is no housing to be had in an area, and the people that live in that area don't want higher density housing built in the area, they can work to keep zoning laws from changing to a higher density/allowing commercial/industrial to be developed in the area.

Are you saying we shouldn't have zoning laws? On a liberty/private property standpoint I believe that they are extremely restrictive, so I probably agree with you. On the current state of things, we have ceded control of land to government, we never actually "own" it. So until we pull our heads out of our asses and start owning property again, we're most likely stuck with the zoning scenario.

Here are the fundamental problems:

1.) Once an individual buys a home, they become a NIMBY in most cases.

2.) NIMBYs pay the property taxes, so they are a very powerful group, despite being greatly outnumbered by people that want more development. These people don’t pay the property taxes.

Problem confirmed ?

NIMBY is a term that has no legal meaning. There are pros and cons to every debate.

If you want to address the problem, then you have the address the specific contention. What the hell is NIMBY? be specific, do we want to bulldoze Golden Gate Park or Central Park for housing?